Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Murray Hill (performer)

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.

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)

Die Antwoord

Die Antwoord is a South African rap group. On the band article, and also on the articles of its two main members, Watkin Tudor Jones and Yolandi Visser, are some claims about criminal allegations various people have made against them. As far as I can see, these allegations have never been tested in court. What is our stance on this sort of thing? John (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations usually require significant reliable coverage to be considered WP:DUE for a BLP, such as major investigations, criminal charges, or consequences. Coverage about these allegations are definitely WP:UNDUE for the groups page unless the impact of the allegations caused problems for the group such as a breakup, cancelled tours, etc. and would require their own independent reliable secondary sources to link such outcomes. After looking at some of these sources and claims, I believe they are unlikely to meet the WP:EXTRAORDINARY threshold for inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've posted at the three article talk pages. I agree with you. Unless a consensus is shown that these items are WP:DUE there I will remove them per WP:BLP. John (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a quick internet search, I found many reliable news sources that have covered these allegations. I have restored the content to Tutor Jones's page and Visser's page and added additional citations. I also moved the content from the "controversy" sections into their personal life sections. The allegations may also be relevant to the band's page given that many articles appear to discuss these numerous allegations when discussing the band, and the band even released a documentary dealing with the allegations called "Zef: The Story of DIE ANTWOORD" [1], but someone else can restore that content if they feel it would be appropriate there. – notwally (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed again since there didn't seem to be a consensus, and the material was added back with the only changes being more sources being added. This seems to be a BLPGOSSIP issue since all of the sources regarding their adopted son added back point to the News24 article itself (including the News24 articles themselves which wouldn't be independent), or the YouTube documentary which has since been removed.

From what I recall of past discussions involving an unreliable source (interview by Ben Jay Crossman, former filmmaker of the group who interviewed the foster son) being the source of controversial claims, we usually don't include. A recent example that comes to mind is a youtube "documentary" that stated a rapper was a serial killer.

Regarding the other 3 allegations - one is sourced back to a podcast interview (Danny Brown), one is sourced back to the lyrics of a diss track (Zheani), and the other seems like it sources back to a Sydney Morning Herald article involving Zheani if I'm not mistaken. The Sydney Morning Herald article seems to be an in depth look at the allegations but I would think we would need more in depth coverage from reliable sources that don't explicitly point back to "In the diss track, ..."

Awshort (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notwally: Please do not restore without consensus. The above editors have also had issues with it other than the sourcing issue. Thank you.

Awshort (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awshort, I have added numerous sources since those earlier comments. I'm not sure how this falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP when the allegations have been covered by sources such Le Monde [2], News24 [3], The South African [4], and NME [5]? There are other sources as well (e.g., Mixmag, Far Out) if you search online. Are you claiming that these are all not reliable sources? Otherwise, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The fact that we are naming this son in the articles while refusing to include his widely published allegations of abuse seems particularly wrong to me.
The sexual assault allegations against Watkin Tudor Jones have similarly been published in numerous reliable sources. Just because they reference a recording that one of the alleged victims made about it does not somehow make their reporting not valid, it just simply means they find that aspect of it notable or relevant. The articles you removed [6] are not simply churching out the same content about one incident. It is a series of articles over multiple years documenting allegations of sexual assault by three individuals in separate incidents, with later reporting referencing the earlier allegations as well. – notwally (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to identify the specific content and references in a manner where they can be easily reviewed.

From what I can see, in the case of Tokie's accusations, all five references were published in April or May 2022, all based almost entirely on the same video interview. That suggests a NOTNEWS situation. --Hipal (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In additon to the articles from my comment above, there are also articles from June 2022: Fader Yahoo (from Consequence) AllHipHop Crack. And from July: Mixmag. The Le Monde article was updated in August 25, 2022. There is also an article from April 2024 in Kronen Zeitung [7], as well as a MSN article [8] also from April 2024. Another MSN article from March 2024 also mentions the criminal investigations into the abuse and assault allegations [9]. Most of these articles are documenting the series of abuse or assault allegations against the band members. This is not breaking news or routine coverage, as discussed by WP:NOTNEWS. It is one of the most frequently discussed aspects of the band in almost all recent coverage that I can find since the allegations were made. Part of the issue is that this was not some huge band, and after the multiple allegations of assault and abuse, they stopped receiving most press coverage. But even still, there are numerous article from reliable sources over a series of years documenting these allegations. – notwally (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is also a diff of the removed content [10]. – notwally (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the Kronen Zeitung ref.

The two MSN refs focus on the documentary about Die Antwoord, both reading like churnalism, the second outright promoting the documentary. They are very poor sources that I don't think should be used to give any weight to the matter. --Hipal (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the MSN articles are actually from The South African. – notwally (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

I'm trying to find out if there is a BLP issue in including the name of the murdered victim in the article. There are many sources for this. At Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident VSankeerthSai1609 wrote "Hello, I will be removing the victim's name in the Wikipedia page of the article. This is due to allegations and complains raised for alleged non-compliance of Indian laws specifically under my name and also my own consicence. I am a proud Indian national who will not and cannot act against my law. The Supreme court today (9 september) officially asked all private and public social media handles to delete the pictures and names of the victim. While they had been used by many prestigious news and media outlets who have thus deleted it. I have repeatedly said and maintained that the edit pertaining to the name has been edited multiple times after me and each time I have edited the article, I have not touched the name section. As an Indian National and a youth, I don't intend to take such legal and moral risks. If anyone disagrees, please do not revert my edit, but instead opt to other means. I hope the Wiki community will understand. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 7:48 am, Today (UTC+1)" and removed the name. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a new issue, it's come up a lot. When I first became aware of it, I was surprised we were naming the victim, but when I looked at the discussion it was claimed the family had asked for her to be named so I decided to let it be. (It was also claimed it was in a lot of sources, and was widely featured in rallies etc.) However looking at one of the discussions on this, Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident/Archive 1#Discussion on Removing Victim's Name, the family's stance seems to have been disputed. IMO it would help a great deal if this we can get a clear answer on whether the family appears to want her name out there or they don't seem to care either way, or they'd prefer that it's private. This seems much more important IMO that what Indian law requires considering the name seems to be in a lot of extant sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, IMO if we keep the name, it might be worth re-instating the warning box [11]. I can see merit in discussing including the name based on various policies and guidelines, but I'm unconvinced of any merit of all the threads demanding we remove the name due to Indian law. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne yes, if we keep the name we need that. Not sure how to know the family's current feelings. Do these help;?[12][13] Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point- family does not decide on whether a victim shall be protected by law (before or after) death or not. The law takes over the matter if there is one. The provision "Section 71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" forbids publishing of names of victims of sexual assault whether Alleged or Proven. The law is crystal clear. I am yet to bring myself to accept how inclusion of name of victim of sexual assault will be of value for Wikipedia and its consumption. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the removing poster was doing so legally cover his posterior, given his being named in (Redacted); hopefully, his removal will cover him there, and should be separate from consideration of whether we include the name under policy (on which I have no stance at this time.) BTW, the document also states that Wikipedia is a CIA front organization, although I suspect said document may not be an RS for documenting that fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Link goes to a downloaded email, can't see it. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link on the article talk page and also here. IMO the email is clearly outing. Doug, look at number 3. Number 2 also raises BLP concerns IMO, I originally thought that the person writing the email was supporting the claim made. Frankly reading it again, I'm really unsure whether they are or not, but ultimately it doesn't matter. We shouldn't be linking to crazy conspiracy theories which name living individuals except when we need to consider including content on these conspiracy theories. (To be clear, I'm mostly concerned about the other likely low profile people, not the high profile person named there.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems all the details there were just taken from the editor's user page so there's probably no outing. However given the BLP concerns with number 2, I still see no merit to keeping the link to that email. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a RfC. Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim The page is semi-protected to hopefully this means that the levels of disruption won't be gigantic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring up a similar concern in relation to the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder case, where Indian law (Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) explicitly forbids disclosing the name of victims of sexual assault, whether the case is alleged or proven. This legal protection is in place to safeguard the privacy and dignity of the victims, and there was also a direct court order asking for the removal of the victim’s personal details from social media and websites.

While I understand that the family’s stance is important, the law itself is crystal clear on this matter. I believe that in cases like these, it’s not just about legal compliance, but also about ethical responsibility to prevent distress to the victim’s family and respect cultural sensitivities. Given the legal context, should we not adopt a similar stance for the Kolkata case to ensure consistency across articles and respect for Indian law?

I think it would be useful for us to establish a more general guideline for cases like these, considering both legal obligations and ethical considerations. I.Mahesh (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be an RfC... but it's also not strictly a BLP issue, given that you'd like to apply it to long-dead victims, so BLPN is probably the wrong place to have that discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose archiving this discussion now that the Request for Comment (RfC) has been closed. The consensus reached in that RfC has provided clarity on the handling of sensitive content, particularly in relation to victim names in articles about sexual violence.

Additionally, I have initiated a new discussion on WikiProject India to further explore and establish guidelines for handling such content consistently across relevant articles. Thank you for the insights shared here, and I believe this will contribute to the ongoing conversation in a more focused manner. I.Mahesh (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Tait

In the article about Catherine Tait, president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada (Canada’s public broadcaster), a paragraph was added on August 28 at the top of the “Career” section. This paragraph repeats a false but tenacious claim that is spread on social media according to which Tait lives in Brooklyn, in the U.S., instead of Ottawa, Canada. A similar inaccuracy was added to her page on February 5, 2023 (see my explanation at the time on the talk page of the article).

No source is provided to back up his claim. It also seems to me like any mention of her travelling to Brooklyn should be moved further down in the section called “President and CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada” rather than at the top of the Career section. Adding poorly sourced information in a place where it doesn’t belong seems like yet another attempt to damage Tait’s reputation. As you will be able to gather from the history of the page, there is frequent vandalism on Tait’s page. For instance, I reported a similar incident on the BLP Noticeboard in mid-June.

As displayed on my user page and next to my latest edits, I work for the organization that Tait leads. For this reason, I would like to call on uninvolved editors to review the article and determine the most appropriate course of action. Julien.faille (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's something missing here. I mean, to an insider such as yourself perhaps this means something significant, since you describe it as a "tenacious claim", but to the rest of the world it's like, "So? Who cares where a person lives?"

Both our article and the National Post source vaguely imply there is some significance to this info, yet neither explains why this should mean anything to the general reader. It comes off like some kind of "inside joke", where only those on the inside know what the value of this info is. To us outsiders, though, I find myself asking "Why are you telling me this?" There is no indication of importance, let alone tenaciousness.

I will say that the whole thing seems to rely on a report made by Canadaland, which is a podcast and not an actual news agency. The National Post article credits them multiple times, making it clear they're only repeating what Canadaland said, thus absolving themselves of all credit or blame. The only RS review of Canadaland I found on Wikipedia is this one from the WP:RSN archives, in which most people did not seem too impressed with its reliability. Similarly, reviews on google describe it with terms such as "snarky", "sardonic", and "offbeat", which seems to suggest more of an op/ed-type source than an actual news outlet, whose goal is to critique the media. I wasn't able to read the Canadaland source so I could review it myself because it's behind a paywall, but since they're really the sole source of this info I think it would probably be best to simply delete it rather than move it somewhere else in the article.

But my primary reason for suggesting we delete it is because of my opening comment more than anything else. There is no indication of what the significance of this info is, both to her life and career. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I can't point to any sources for the claim I am about to make, but there seems to be a sort of lingering Canadian sense of betrayal when a public figure is revealed to reside or benefit from residing in the USA. I can recall the commentary used against Michael Ignatieff when he entered politics.

I suspect it arises out of a mixture of nationalism, misplaced fear that Canada cannot withstand USA cultural dominance (see also Heritage Minute, an attempt to reinforce Canadian culture on television), and a sense that the USA "poached" Canadians.

Thus, claiming the president of Canada's public broadcasting company resides in the USA is an attempt to, essentially, dogwhistle that the USA is subverting Canadian content, or that they "don't really care about Canada". So, probably should be strongly sourced.

134.41.164.51 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Nidecker (Harnois)

Appears as though Marlène Harnois got married and changed her name as evidenced by her social media profiles

https://www.linkedin.com/in/marleneharnois/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIqGUZjOAGflUUCFhG_v38A

https://x.com/MarleneNidecker

Whats the's process for changing it on her article? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are self-published, so per WP:SPNC, you need to evaluate how likely reliable sources are to adopt the new name when reporting on her before considering making changes here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy new name now being reflected online

https://www.peace-sport.org/champions/marlene-nidecker/

https://www.monaco-tribune.com/en/2024/09/peace-and-sports-story-told-in-a-documentary/ MaskedSinger (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated her article. Can you please check I did it correctly and also her Wikidata entry? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern with keeping "ranks" and "names" in the article

2023 Qatar espionage case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In this article the ranks and names of living person is kept. I removed the reference, it got reverted by now banned editor. I objected to it on article talk page, however, further people opposed my edit, hence I backtracked on it thinking I might be wrong in this matter. But since then things have changed, all individuals have been declared innocent and I have made a new comment on it- New comment.
Reason I am posting on noticeboard- To invite community to assess whether keeping names and ranks of individuals involved in case is in line with wiki's WP:BLP policy. Looking forward to comments in article's talk page, Thanks!! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we should put their names down but not their government or military ranks? This sounds confusing... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not say "we should put their names down" IMO their ranks were irrelevant to article from get go. But now even their names is irrelevant since source has removed reference to both things. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does saying- "8 former navy personnel were arrested" reduces the quality and knowledge provided by article? Does it need to be "8 former navy personnel were arrested............ {ranks of each} {names of each}" on the article, hugely violating privacy on individuals? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the same outlook as before - we go by what the majority of sources state, and I still do not see the privacy concerns that you point to by releasing their former military ranks if they are included in the majority of sources. A quick glance at sources shows the names as well as their ranks Jurist,The Statesman,Times of India,Tribune India,India Today.

I welcome other editor involvement as well.

Awshort (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not consolidated collection of what is reported on RS, but an encyclopedic storage of information, stored in a manner which provides information relevant to the user while complying with its existing policies and community discussions. The Hindu article linked in the article to point out names and ranks have removed all such reference on its article. Same would go to other RS had they been less sensational and more rational in reporting of this matter. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we put their ranks but make it clear its a former rank. So "former colonel" instead of just "colonel".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: On 30 August 2022, the former Indian Navy officers, is the current text before the names and rank section which I think was originally added to avoid adding retired before each rank, but I do agree that at a quick glance it appears they are current military instead of former and would read better with your suggestion.

Awshort (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the entire history of this dispute, but if these people have not been convicted, then I think we should not name them per BLPCRIME. The only exception is if their story has been so widely published that they have achieved celebrity status. We can still tell the entire story without the names. If there's no article on them to link to, the name itself doesn't mean anything to the general reader and certainly doesn't add to their understanding of the event. If they're convicted, and their conviction is reported in reliable sources, then we can add the names. No need to hurry.

When it comes to ranks, there is no rule about keeping those out, so here's where a little common sense and editorial judgment is required. We could write, "A captain, a captain, a captain, a commander, and a sailor were arrested..." but that is incredibly awkward to read, and sounds like the opening of a joke. (Three captains, three commanders, and a sailor walk into a bar...) The questions I would ask myself are, "Is this really the best way to phrase this? Do the ranks provide any context that is --absolutely necessary-- for the reader to be able to understand the story?" If the answer to both is no, then I can see no better reason to leave them out. Brevity is your friend when writing articles. Say more with less. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: Regarding BLPCRIME, they had been convicted by a foreign government prior to naming if memory serves correct, and sentenced to death. There was confusion on the charges, but the sentence was there. With the sentencing in place and it being ~~overturned~~commuted to jail sentences

, I think the more appropriate policy subsection regarding name inclusion to look at would be BLPNAME (Are the names widely published? Were the names concealed by the courts?).

Wanted to get that out before heading out the door for the day :-) Cheers!

Awshort (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: I was incorrect on case being overturned, inserted ref and struck prior text 00:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If a conviction has been vacated or overturned, then it is the same as there never having been a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME should apply and "editors must seriously consider not including material" for non-public figures. I agree with Zaereth's analysis. – notwally (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that if a sentence has been commuted but the conviction is still on the record (this appears to be the case based on Awshort's edits to their comment above), then my prior comment would not apply. – notwally (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the figures here are WP:PUBLICFIGURE as they have held "a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority" and further this case, and their names, have been very widely documented in RS. So it is ok to name them with the usual caveats that we don't treat them as guilty.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vice regent, I don't see any evidence that they would be considered public figures. They appear to be ordinary Navy officers. The description of "low-profile" right under the paragraph you quoted discusses self-promotion and the "public projection of self-worth", which are generally important elements of whether someone is a public figure. – notwally (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- India has armed forces in millions, I wish I had all their insta followed because all are publicfigure, hehe, jokes aside, (I joke sometimes only :/) I would argue the 8 individuals do not qualify as public figure at all. Please have a glance at WP:BLP1E. They are not in media rn and they were not in media prior to their arrest and subsequent acquittal `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just noting that notability and whether someone is a public figure are not always the same. – notwally (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I wanted to point out more relevant portion of BLP instead of WP:LPI to address point raised by vice regent `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Public figure" is a legal term with a very specific definition, "a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero". Just because a person seeks fame doesn't make them a public figure, they actually have to achieve it. Likewise, just because someone avoids fame doesn't mean they won't achieve it. This definition was written because the laws affiliated with it applies to media outlets, Wikipedia included. Public figures don't have the same rights or expectation of privacy that a private citizen does. The bar for becoming a public figure is pretty darn high. For example, the vast majority of actors are not public figures, they have to reach that celebrity status to be considered one. All government officials are automatically considered public figures, but this doesn't apply to everyone who is in a position of authority. Being a military officer doesn't automatically make one a public figure.
    
    However, if these people have been convicted of a crime, the discussion of whether or not they're public figures is really moot. A conviction means BLPCRIME is satisfied and we can go ahead and name them. BLPCRIME is intended to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Zaereth (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire case is mired with media sensationalism and truth is lost in between. The charges were never framed properly nor do they were put into prison to suffer for their "spying" in Qatar. [14] "The details surrounding their arrest, sentencing, and commuting remain unclear." As I see it, the article and community in its totality has failed to protect privacy of individuals involved in this matter. This was (coming to BLPN) I think is last place I could come to for help regarding this matter :/ I have already been called a "vandal" so I won't try to over-rule what community decides even if I consider it wrong and unjustifiable decision :/
    last pitch- article does not require names of individuals to be there for article's credibility, 8 individuals are not "public figures" and 8 individuals are innocent not just on papers (not revealed) but on the ground too (8 individuals are in their home country living their "normal life") `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have is y'all are coming here with conflicting information. The article itself is very vague on the matter as well, and I don't have time to go through the sources myself. I'm merely explaining where policy stands on this. It's quite simple. Either they were convicted of a crime or they weren't. The article says the "death sentence" was commuted, which implies a conviction, but a commuted death sentence is not the same as a conviction overturned. Usually that means jail time instead of execution. We have to go by what reliable sources say. If they were convicted, then policy allows for them to be named. If they weren't convicted, we don't add the names. If it is uncertain, then we don't add the names. A conviction has to be clear and unambiguous, and reported in reliable secondary-sources, or else we don't add the names. Simple as that. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the whole point, conviction was not clear at all, secondary sources just went by the statements, secondary sources may not have policies same as wiki, if wiki has BLPCRIME established for it then it should follow it. Secondary sources are news organizations and not encyclopedia. Also those 3 dots were not to tease but to highlight my para, idk much in formatting so I used what I knew, you seem to be mocking me for that :/ `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See below the extent of uncertainty beginning from charges- The jurist The information available on this matter is really vague and unconfirmed or incomplete. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 23:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now you're not making any sense. Mocking you? I don't even know you. What three dots? I have no clue what you're talking about here. As someone who watches this page, my goal was to help explain policy. News outlets have different rules than we do, but our policy is quite simple and I think I explained it very clearly. Either they were convicted or they were not. There is no in between. If you all can't even agree that there was a conviction, then that says a lot. That tells me there is uncertainty, and if it's uncertain... well, see my previous comment. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the 3 dots comment is regarding the "Last pitch" paragraph and the three dots before it from the other editor. Your reply had several dots before it (to show which comment you were replying to, if I'm not mistaken) which I believe was misinterpreted as mocking the other editor?
    
    Regarding the uncertainty on the conviction, I can only speak for myself that there is no uncertainty on what the RS's state.
    
    Awshort (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean those bullet points? I didn't notice them. Someone once said if the people above me are using asterixis to indent, then I should too (can't remember why). Or if they're using colons to indent I should use those. Seems crazy to me. I don't know why we would want bullet points or even need more than one way to indent. Most of the time I forget completely, but sometimes (like this) I remember. I don't know how that could be construed as mocking, though, but that was not my intention. Never crossed my mind. I don't know if there was a conviction or not. It seems to me that you guys should already know that and have the sources to back it up. Either way, I stated what the policy is so there no need to keep repeating myself. It's a sunny day for a change and too much to do out in the real world. Zaereth (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    if it was misinterpreted by me then sorry. You know on internet not everyone who mocks you is person you know. I can't understand so many bullets but ig fine. this is not fight page. regarding convictions and stuff, I came here to seek help from more editors who can substantiate facts and see why this matter calls for removal of name (this is my opinion). Anyway thanks for comments `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 01:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why either. If you use asteriskis to indent your comment, the software automatically leaves bullet points. It decides how many it wants to leave, not me. I don't understand computers and far preferred it back when everyone just used colons; the use of asteriskis is a rather new thing. Whatever the case, this whole discussion is rather hard to follow. I'll leave this piece of advice: when you come to a noticeboard like this bring all your information with you. Cite your sources so people like me can verify what you say. explain exactly what the problem is as you see it, what your reasoning is, and your proposed solution. Talk to us rather than arguing back and forth amongst yourselves, because that makes the entire section a nightmare to read. And pretend we have no prior knowledge of this subject (because usually we don't) and need things spelled out to us very clearly. If you make us do all the legwork and have to go dig for the answers with a shovel, you're far less likely to get a response other than a generic "This is what policy says..." Most of us have other things we need to be doing so the easier you can make it on us, the better your chances will be. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am stupid, sorry. I thought this is noticeboard for BLP issues (and not a discussion page) where editors interested in this policy help out with related matters. So I wanted to post here to bring editors on talk page of 2023 Qatar espionage case. It has more context, this was not meant to accuse or argue with others but get help and opinion. I am sorry. Since I made so many mistakes I will leave this matter too. I hope others will take right call based on what WP:BLP wants. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I fixed the indent issues. Each comment just has to copy and paste the preceding comment's asterisks/colons, and then you can use either one for your own comment. The problem is that when the asterisks/colons are not the same as the prior comment, it causes new lists to be created, which can make it almost impossible for people who use screen readers to understand what is happening. A good explanation is here: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Feel free to revert if the changes make the prior discussion too difficult to follow. – notwally (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Thank you! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the released went on to do interviews about their ordeal (a quick scan found 3 interviews out of the 7 originally released people) "Commander Nagpal" on YouTube, The Hindu, Feb 20, 2024

"Commander Gupta" on YouTube, India Today, Feb 14, 2024

Sailor Ragesh, Indian Express, Feb 14, 2024

I don't think anyone is implying guilt on the part of the former Navy officers. They were sentenced, had their charges reduced, and finished out their sentences before being released. I don't see that as being "innocent" as you say just because they were released after diplomatic discussions between two separate governments.

BBC on the charges

In a press briefing on Thursday, Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said [ ... ] "What we can tell you, confirm to you is, that the death penalty has now been converted into varying prison sentences for the eight Indian nationals," he said

Associated Press on the charges

They were imprisoned in 2022 and handed death sentences in October that were reduced to prison sentences after India said it was exploring legal options and filed an appeal.

Awshort (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is individual's interview a proof of anything? ordeal- more like being punished when not guilty? or being trialed in sham case and then released? we just dk how they got released- can you support your statement- "They were sentenced, had their charges reduced, and finished out their sentences before being released." by an RS? Being charged for alleged spying >> sentences reduced >> released. is that not innocent enough for wiki? no RS has claimed to have confirmed what the charges were in the first place. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews were to illustrate that they are not exactly shying away from discussing what happened to them.

“On December 28, the Court of Appeal in Qatar gave a verdict in which the death sentence was commuted and replaced with varying quantum of jail terms. Our legal team has received the copy of the court’s order, which is a confidential document. But I can confirm that the death sentence has been removed,” said Mr. Jaiswal.-per The Hindu

The charges were not shared by Qatar or the Indian ministry citing “the confidential and sensitive nature of proceedings of this case.”per CNN

The chances of the charges or the jail terms being made public is almost non-existent in my opinion, and the wiki article makes the point that the charges were not made public clear. (I removed text suggesting they were sentenced to death for spying charges in the charges section, since the following sentence made it clear the charges were not public). I think the point you are missing is that they were charged, were found guilty, and were sentenced to death. Their sentence was commuted to jail terms, and they were later released. Whether the charges are public or confidential does not change the sentencing that happened as a result of the charges, or that the individuals were later released after serving jail sentences. The suggestion that Wikipedia should somehow ignore that fact and imply innocence on the behalf of the individuals while ignoring what reliable sources state is frankly confusing.

Awshort (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the individuals were later released after serving jail sentences. this is your POV, no RS has directly mentioned it like that, they have shied away from two things: 1) reason for conviction and 2) reason for release. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 00:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore listed as 45th vice president

In the first paragraph of Al Gore's biography it is listed that he was the 45th vice president despite the fact that he was the 41st alongside Bill Clinton. This is inaccurate information and does not align with the chronological order of previous vice presidencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glarr (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is better suited for Talk:Al Gore. The reason that is would be (I believe) that he is the 41st president's VP, as certain presidents had more than one either within or when changing terms, displacing his position chronologically. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please see List of vice presidents of the United States. There have been a few presidents who had multiple vice presidents, so the numbers don't line up. (Also Clinton was the 42nd president.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton was the 41st president. His presidency was the 42nd, because Grover Cleveland had two presidencies, but was still only one president. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idiosyncratic way of counting. The William J. Clinton Presidential Library thinks he was the 42nd president, as does Wikipedia... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Sr. was 41, Clinton 42, Bush Jr. 43, Obama 44, Trump 45, Biden 46, and the next, be it Trump or Harris, will be 47. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gore was the 45th VP. There have been more VP's than presidents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glarr, can you tell us which previous vice presidents have a chronological order inconsistent with Gore? I had a look at all our articles on more recent VP and all of them have a chronological order consistent with Gore and our list article, at least in the lead. Likewise I went back all the way to Ford, and all of them had a chronological order consistent with Gore and our list article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is less confusing to use the chronological order of Vice Presidents vs. the order of presidencies. Therefore I think 45th is appropriate. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo -- can UFO activists be used as a reliable source on UFO-related BLPs?

New user Very Polite Person insists that they can use a UFO activist, who allegedly saw an UFO in 1979 and then spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs, as a reliable source on a UFO-related BLP. The BLP is Luis Elizondo. They also seem to believe that, because some people agree with Luis Elizondo, his statements have been "confirmed" (and that the UFO activist is a reliable source for that claim). Polygnotus (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another user MrOllie changed "confirmed" to "supported"[15], got reverted by Very Polite Person[16] and then MrOllie changed it back to "supported".[17] The statements made by Luis Elizondo have not been confirmed. Polygnotus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some extracts from his book are useful to determine if Luis is telling the truth:

“

It turned out that almost all the people in Will’s studies—military and intelligence officials with remote-viewing abilities and/or UAP encounters and biological effects—had Native American DNA. Specifically, Cherokee blood.

”

— Luis Elizondo in Imminent

“

My specific interests involved alleged alien implants found in humans. From what I read, often living tissue grew around implants, but such growths never contained anything but the patient’s DNA in them. The growths sometimes sprouted multiple brightly colored hairs or filaments, similar to Morgellons fibers. When researchers scrape away the human tissue, they find objects that resemble a technical device in size and shape but without any circuitry whatsoever. I once handled one of these implants myself, provided to me by a hospital in the Department of Veterans Affairs, where it had been removed from a US military servicemember who had encountered a UAP.

”

— Luis Elizondo in Imminent

And a quote from the article to see how neutral and evenhanded our UFO activist is:

“

From his post as a senior intelligence officer for the Secretary of Defense, Luis Elizondo knew by 2017 he had two choices: 1) make peace with silence and continue sitting on the Cold War’s deepest secret, or 2) resign from a career he loved in order to fulfill his duty to serve the United States.

”

— Billy Cox

Polygnotus (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidance is probably WP:FRIND. Ufologists are not generally reliable for analysing the WP:FRINGE aspects of UFOs (e.g. the little green men stuff), but may be okay for mundane facts. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, exactly. So he is not a reliable source for if the claims have been confirmed or supported. If his story is true that is certainly no mundane fact. Polygnotus (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content requires reliable sources. I'm not quite sure what the source is or who the "UFO activist" is, but a person being quoted in a newspaper would not make what they said reliable, for example. The newspaper, as the reliable source, would need to state the same information as fact for it to be reliable information. If this is just a question of reliability, WP:RSN may be a better forum to discuss the issue. As for the article content, the "and supported by others" language was too vague. I edited the sentence to make it more direct and less open to ambiguous interpretation. [18] – notwally (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the UFO activist is a guy who writes for an otherwise normal newspaper. But he has a certain bias when it comes to UFOs because he spent most of his life as an activist. Thanks for your edit, that is a big improvement. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Luis Elizondo was not based on the text from the sources and was reverted. The other user has now begun a WP:BLP violating edit war. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus is not the one reverting 3 other people, and neither version of the article is a BLP violation. It's simply a garden variety content dispute. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and people who editwar in garden variety content disputes tend to get blocked, which does not help them achieve their goals. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP articles are required to explicitly be WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant. The lede that simply quotes one source, while ignoring the other 5-6, is a substantial problem, when the one is the outlier. Based on the plain text reading of WP:BLP, no number of users can supersede it. WP:3RRBLP applies to my revert. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS. I've tried multiple times to get User:Polygnotus to even acknowledge or comment on all that information with no luck. This reporter is a normal veteran senior reporter, who posted to a blog on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for 2~ years out of a decades-long career at the newspaper. I don't know where User:Polygnotus got ..."spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs", but that is literally not true based on the available evidence. As far as how we use this source, I have it broken down in that link literally sentence by sentence and invocation by invocation so everything was transparent for everyone. While the subject Luis Elizondo has WP:FRINGE connections, the article is not about their UFO beliefs. It's an article about the WP:BLP subject, and the entirety of the apparent conflict is related to their early life, education, professional military and Pentagon career from 1975 to 2008~ or so. Their UFO related WP:FRINGE aspects don't even begin until 2017. The source in question is used to provide basic biographical and professional data, and is one of six sources that are used to highlight a persistent conflict that is noted across many WP:RS about one single aspect of his resume. That bit of the resume isn't even WP:FRINGE itself! It's basic rote WP:BLP stuff with no WP:FRINGE considerations. User:Polygnotus seems to be saying this reporter is not a valid source to fill in/support non-WP:FRINGE biographical data on a WP:BLP, essentially, because that reporter said they saw a UFO apparently 40 or 50 years, wrote some articles on the topic, a blog for their newspaper for a few years, and that this is apparently a disqualifying consideration and a "conflict of interest". Again, for emphasis, this needs to be read to have context:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

This is a standard run of the mill reporter at a low bias, high credibility newspaper being used by us for standard vanilla WP:RS and WP:BLP coverage, and nothing to even do with WP:FRINGE stuff. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a standard run of the mill reporter who happens to have allegedly seen a UFO 45 years ago and then spent decades of his life convincing others that that event actually happened and was not rare. Polygnotus (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent ongoing talk page BLP violations on Luis Elizondo

Note: This section has now been removed repeatedly against my request: it is NOT the same issue whatsoever as the preceding one. It is about the BLP violations by the user who made the preceding section after I told them I would be bringing this BLP violation by them to this noticeboard. It is not part of the above user's issues with a source on that BLP. My post here is expressly and only about editor behavior, and not a content Article dispute related to BLPs.

---

This is about the ongoing seemingly systemic WP:BLP issues on this article's talk page. The user in my view, explained here, committed a WP:BLP violation explicitly calling the BLP subject a liar on their own talk page; further, this talk page/article has a years-long history of small to large WP:BLP problems, that are seemingly unenforced against and overlooked, which is why I posted this. The involved user has tried to frame this as a content dispute, or that they were the originator of this 'against' me. They seemed, based on their almost instant talk page replies to any reactions to this, to be upset at the claim I made of a BLP violation and my desire for BLP to be enforced on the Talk page, like WP:BLP repeatedly says it is supposed to be.

So--again--this is a 100% seperate issue, topic, and concern from the above Elizondo section. That one is a content dispute; this one is about user behavior and no policing at all of WP:BLP on this ultra-contentious article.

The Luis Elizondo article is extremely contentious and has seen recurrant article WP:BLP violations over time, that has been reported more than once now to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and is in the archives here. The most recent event, where a litany of users were inserting negative unsourced commentary into Luis Elizondo and even edit warring to keep it in, which is how I became aware of the article and involved, is here from August 26th, not even a month ago:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked

On the article itself, it seems like a few of us have managed to source finally 100% of content and there is nothing negative unsourced at all now on this WP:BLP, and it's from casual review of the version history the most WP:BLP and WP:NPOV compliant that Lue Elizondo has ever been. For an idea of how bad it was for WP:BLP in the past, the circa 2021-era versions are a bit of a train wreck.

However, while the article is at the moment WP:BLP-compliant, the Talk page is a problem. Per our top-level rule at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

From going through the talk page histories, a number of users, being blunt, "shit talk" the subject openly and without regard for WP:BLP, and no one ever cleans up or challenges it. I noticed one today (and more, but I figured I had to start somewhere), and decided to say something per WP:BLP. On this edit, User:Polygnotus calls the subject a liar twice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246487079

I replied to notify the user of my concerns on Talk:Luis Elizondo here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246531439

And on their talk page here, which was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1246532609

User:Polygnotus then came to my talk page here:

User talk:Very Polite Person#Falsely accusing people

There, Polygnotus refused/disassembled my attempts to sort this out repeatedly, despite my saying I would proceed here to WP:BLPN and dispute resolution if they did not address the WP:BLP concerns, which are equally binding on Talk pages as Articles themselves, per WP:BLP. The user seems at best disinterested in the BLP-related concerns.

The specific BLP violation remains live here at the moment, and given the problematic history of this article, I wanted to get more eyes and awareness on this:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#Cox, aboutself, ref(/area) 51

In response to all this, the user launched a complaint about BLP-related sourcing on the article here on this noticeboard, further ignoring their WP:BLP violation:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luis Elizondo -- can UFO activists be used as a reliable source on UFO-related BLPs?

What can we do to get Talk:Luis Elizondo policed and enforced for WP:BLP concerns, and deal with this specific scenario? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:POVFORK of the section above.

See WP:STICK. Stop falsely accusing people. You do not WP:OWN this article. And your WP:POV is clearly not neutral because you think his statements have been confirmed and use a UFO activist as a source for that... Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1246543430&oldid=1246543088

Do not remove my section again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your section. Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere. Do not falsely accuse me again. And as you are aware I am very interested in your BLP violation; you cannot go to BLPN to ask for support when you added a non-neutral non-reliable source on a BLP and got reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT the same issue. My post is about YOUR violations of BLP and by others and a request for help on that page. You do not get to define my complaint about you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for some reason you refuse to focus on the topic at hand. Weird. Meta-conversations are rather boring, don't you think? Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded repeately at length for the non-WP:FRINGE concerns you raised, and you have now at least a dozen (I am not keeping count further) tried to change the subject away from your WP:BLP violation, to the point of trying to remove and obscure my report on you from this page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only BLP concern I see expressed in this wall of text is that Polygnotus called the article subject a liar on the talk page. While it may not be the best way to make an argument, I don't think that is a BLP violation. While BLP certainly applies to talk page comments, there is obviously more leeway since editors are allowed to express their own opinions to an extent, which is entirely prohibited from mainspace article content. The article subject appears to be a public figure who has made many controversial claims that have been disputed by others including reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere.. I did it once, and you reverted me, and then other people also merged the sections because they are about the same article. I didn't invent the rules here, people just merge sections about the same topic on this and similar pages. If you do not agree with that you can perhaps try to change that? Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a pedantic person, and I did not call them a liar. I just pointed out that "It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar" which is the kind of obvious truism moms everywhere and anywhere say to their kids. It is just a fact. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar. immediately after writing And luiselizondo-official.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 so I would get rid of that too. I would consider everything he says "controversial" because I would dispute it all.. In no way can that not be reasonably interpreted as a WP:BLP violation. Doing that on the Article would get any of us a firm warning at best. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restrictions are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article. There are also numerous reliable sources that dispute factual statements made by the article subject. Given that is the case, I don't see how the talk page comment could be construed as beyond reasonable. – notwally (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restriction are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article.

That is incorrect. Per our top-level rule at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Is our WP:BLP policy incorrect on it's plain wording? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to claim that there is the same strict application of BLP policies when applied to talk pages, then yes, you are wrong. There is obviously more leeway in talk page discussions than on mainspace article content. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
The template BLP removal can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.

Does WP:BLP mention "talk pages" in error? I do not follow your reasoning that the plain language of WP:BLP is wrong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK. Discussions related to making content choices are given much more leeway and allows for unsourced commentary even if negative. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving my words a new meaning. It is very helpful. Can you not tell that people do not agree with you? Fun fact: I also called a terrorist an "idiot" one time on a talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend both users stop responding to every comment made by the other and instead allow other editors to comment, which becomes less and less likely the longer this thread becomes an endless tit-for-tat between two editors. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite others to read through this and help address rampant WP:BLP concerns on both Luis Elizondo and Talk:Luis Elizondo that seem to be running with some level of tolerance by involved editors for years. I am not going to further reply to Polygnotus here myself, as they seem determined to attempt to (apparently) reframe any complaint about their behavior or WP:BLP concerns into attacks on them--I am not going to indulge their desire for a high-speed volley of responses. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and follow our WP:RULES, not insult WP:BLP subjects on their own talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs)

Please also see WP:BLUDGEON. – notwally (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming the first 15 references, I'm seeing very questionable sources for a BLP article. Remove all the references that should not be used per WP:RSP/WP:RSN, make sure the WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:ABOUTSELF refs are used properly or removed, and any other poor sources are used properly or removed.

My initial reaction to the Cox ref is that it is written as an in-world opinion piece, and should be treated as such. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I read through the back and forth and lost track of what this RFC was about. Looking again, All I can say is "What is the big deal?" I think Very Polite Person is asking some legitimate questions that are getting ignored. We need to assume good faith here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk)

I previously had followed this thread, and the only alleged BLP violation I saw was that another editor had called the article subject a liar on the talk page, which multiple editors have commented is not a BLP violation. If there are just other ordinary content issues, they need to be discussed on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Removal of Content from Trisha Krishnan

You can read my orginal request here. As you can see, including this gives disproportionate attention to a personal event with no lasting significance.W170924 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion you were told to contact the Volunteer Responce Team (see WP:Contact us; you want the info-en email address). This is not the VRT. I would suggest you use the VRT instead of constantly drawing attention to the one thing you want excised from the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: The VRT team redirected me to this noticeboard, explaining that I had been referred incorrectly and that they do not have the authority to control or edit Wikipedia content.W170924 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@W170924: If that is the case, then a discussion here or on the talk page is warranted. But, again, you're risking a Streisand effect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the name of the fiance as it does not seem necessary to keep in the article. The fact that the article subject was engaged for almost half a year seems like it is probably noteworthy. – notwally (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was nine years ago, and if she became engaged on January 23, 2015 and she confirmed it had ended by May 7, 2015, that is only three months and fourteen days. That is not notable or DUE for inclusion any longer. I removed it per the edit request on talk page which is a reasonable request. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this .It is clearly mentioned in W:RS sources and Wikipedia is not WP:NOTCENSORED.122.172.87.137 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for privacy from non-notable but arguably public figure

I came across this edit: [19]. For context the BLP in question created a single issue political party that never accomplished anything. He did an interview in a local newspaper but that is about it in terms of publicity. I'm not sure whether creating a political party and running for an electorate would make one a public figure per our policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt it. I'd kinda equate it to the guy in Canada who camped out on an Island in the middle of a national park and tried to declare it an independent country. What I really have to look at is the amount of media coverage he got, which looks like almost none, judging by the article alone. In fact, I have serious doubts that the party itself even meets GNG standards because the level of coverage is so low. Looks like a good candidate for AFD to me. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to take it to AfD if the PROD was removed (which it has been), but in the meantime I wondered whether he should be mentioned in the article based on the IP edit from 2015. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a redirect for now. Maybe a sentence or two at Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments is relevant, but a separate article seems excessive. – notwally (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that, and am planning a database search for more refs later today. I suggest taking it to AfD if you want it deleted. IdiotSavant (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is now here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party. – notwally (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under US law (which is what Wikipedia operates under), a government official or even a politician running for office is automatically considered a public figure. This is because the public has a right to know about the people they're voting for. However, for that to hold water one would expect a fair amount of public interest in the candidate, which should be reflected by the media coverage of them. If this meager amount of coverage is all he got, then I find it hard to say that he reached that public-figure status. The question then becomes: is his name really necessary to understand the subject? Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That party is barely notable, but that edit is also from nine years ago so I don't think it's a major issue. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content remained removed until today. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Nuzzi

Olivia Nuzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with a little time to spare take a look at this article? Neither the characterization of her suspension from New York in the lede nor the one in the body entirely matches what the cited sources say, and there's a nuanced set of overlapping disclosures, denials, and asserted-only-with-attributions that need to be captured here. (New York says she acknowledges an affair; CNN says it was with RFK Jr. per an anonymous source; RFK denies it; Nuzzi doesn't seem to have commented on whether it was him.) The lede also needs to be lengthened to avoid giving undue weight to the recent controversy. I may find time to get to this later but if anyone else would like to take a swing, please do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robinson being labeled Far Right in wiki-voice

The article on the Lt Governor and GOP candidate for Governor of North Carolina is labeling him in the lead as far right in wiki-voice. A handful of sources have labeled him as such. However the vast majority of sources that I have looked at are not using that language. This has been discussed on the article talk page with no result and a handful of editors have chosen to insert the language despite the concerns. I believe the number of sources using that language is far short of what would be needed for us to make that kind of statement in wiki-voice. Clearly the man is highly controversial (likely an understatement) and has been called quite a few things by reliable sources. IMO it's perfectly appropriate to note all of that with proper citations. But the community has traditionally set a very high bar for using negative descriptive terms in wiki-voice. There are literally scores of reliable sources naming the late Fidel Castro as a dictator, yet the community refused, rightly IMO, to employ that term in wiki-voice because to do so we would need something approaching unanimity among reliable sources. What is going on here, is that we are essentially putting our finger on the scale in favor of a handful of sources which are saying what I'm guessing most of us privately believe to be true. IMHO that is a no-no and this is a BLP violation. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we should have to wait for years before even using such labels in wikivoice, to establish that this is how sources well over time consistently use the label to apply to BLPs. (using the label with attribution can be done but that becomes an DUE issue). With this entire current political and cultural conflict , we have to do a far better job of NOT (eta) letting our personal desires to apply labels overtake our need to remain neutral and disinterested in our writing. Masem (t) 17:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The standard for WP:LABELs on BLPs should be overwhelming consensus among high quality sources, and that's assuming there should ever be any situation where they're applied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really important that Wikipedians consider looking at the closing lead paragraph of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and then compare/contrast that to Mark Robinson (American politician) and perhaps reflect on how we got here. While I understand that one can't compare apples to oranges, it's fairly evident we've extinguished any possible chance to bring balance to these articles because the sources Wikipedia considers "reliable" will absolutely eviscerate any politician who they deem are "on the other team". While I'm almost certain that there are articles where we could be critical of AOC's public image and remarks, but as you all know, those of course, are UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we label him as a neo-Nazi then, and Nazism is a far-right ideology, because Robinson has self-identified as and has engaged in actions consistent with being one? Robinson has engaged in Holocaust denial, supported Adolf Hitler, praised Mein Kampf, and identified as a "Black Nazi." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. That's introducing original research atop the neutrality issue. Masem (t) 18:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We can repeat what other's have said about him with attribution. But not use those terms in the community's name. I also note that the immediate issue has been corrected by Ser!, and the article is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the header is to a disambiguation page. The article in question is Mark Robinson (American politician). Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I corrected the link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's technically Godwin's law, but it's hard to justify doing this on a BLP if our articles for Hitler and Mussolini aren't beginning with "... was a fascist[1][2][3][4] politician..." and kind of ventures into WP:RGW territory. The initial mention should establish the reason for their notability as simply as possible (ie., is a politician serving as...). If sources are overwhelmingly describing them as such, that can go later in the lead section, but shoehorning terms into the initial mention, to me, feels overly tabloid-ish and bad writing. Connormah (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let it never be widely agreed that Wikipedians are collectively capable of handling political subjects responsibly. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of ex-wife's name in article on controversial figure

Kyle Chapman (New Zealand activist) currently lists the name of his ex-wife. I found this to be unnecessary and removed it per WP:BLPNAME but have been reverted twice. Would like a second opinion on if the name should be removed or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a short-lived relationship adds anything to the article (and labelling her religion certainly does not!) and suggest you first take your concerns to the article talk page. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were entirely correct to remove it, as a straightforward application of WP:BLPNAME. @Fred Zepelin: You and I had a whole conversation last year about you restoring BLP-violating material to politically sensitive biographies, during which you expressed the view that you did not have an obligation to ensure that content you restored complied with policy. If, 17 months later, you are still unable to follow core policies on political articles—to the extent you were willing to revert three times, persisting even after you were pointed to the exact policy section that applied—might I suggest that you stop editing such articles? There's lots more to write about on Wikipedia, or, failing that, lots more websites to contribute to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Sanctions

A proposed addition to the Authority Control navbox used in many BLPs raises potential WP:BLPCRIME issues. See Template talk:Authority control#Open Sanctions and please participate there with your opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McGinn (American songwriter)

Matt McGinn (American songwriter) has been subject to IP users removing allegations of the subject's arrest, depsite sources like American Songwriter and Billboard existing and reputably proving the subject's arrest. The current links in the article are to Taste of Country articles, which doesn't seem to be a particularly contentious or problematic source of info. I expanded the article some to prevent undue weight regarding his arrest and possibilities of WP:BLP1E, but still feel the info might get removed again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What puzzles me about sources is that they are lightning quick to report an arrest, but then they never follow up and report the outcome, and of course we can't use court documents to report the outcome which occurred in June 2024, and I did look for sources reporting the disposition of the case, with none found, except the court document. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of cases are always complicated and probably the only reasons I'd ever be tempted to relax WP:BLPPRIMARY. Since the person is themselves apparently of limited notability with not many sources covering them, I would suspect the number of sources covering their arrest is also quite small and while it may seem quite a few in comparison to the few covering them generally, IMO if it was just an arrest it's well worth considering if it's WP:DUE for inclusion if sources didn't care to continue to comment on the arrest afterwards even if the reason is because no source has covered the subject point blank. However the complicating factor here is that while the arrest by itself is something that we IMO could exclude, him being cut off by one company he was working is I'm not so sure. It's something that fairly directly impacts what he's notable for. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually having look at the primary sources, this isn't the sort of case that concerns me so much even if we just leave it hanging with the arrest. I mean yes, our article may seem incomplete. But it's IMO not a case where our lack of mention of the final result seems to cause significant harm to the living subject unlike if it the case was withdrawn, thrown out or otherwise ended in a result where the accused can be considered acquitted of any crime. (Worse of course is where it's not simply an arrest but a conviction which we mention based on source/s, but the conviction being overturned isn't something we can't fine sources for.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I don't think it's killed his career, as he currently has a songwriter credit on the charts with "Cowboy Songs" by George Birge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have killed his career, but being cut off by one company he was working with IMO has by definition affects his career. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really consider this person to be WP:WELLKNOWN, maybe to a limited audience, but certainly not widespread notability, so I think WP:BLPCRIME is applicable here, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A songwriter who goes to public events and gives interviews and engages in other self-publicity activities is likely a public figure. Widespread notability is not requred for someone to be a public figure. Given that the arrest appears fairly widely reported and has led to professional repurcussions including being dropped by his publisher, I think the allegations are appropriate to include. – notwally (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly high threshold of public activity documented in reliable sources is necessary to elevate people to a public figure status. And the lack of significant coverage in the sources used in the article demonstrate he doesn't meet that threshold of public activity. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A fairly high threshold of public activity documented in reliable source" is not what the actual public figure guidelines say. "Significant coverage" is a notability standard (your link goes to the general notability guidelines). Those are related but not the same analysis, as someone can be a public figure without being notable. The issue for whether a person is a public figure has to do with self-promotion (voluntary publicity) as opposed to significant coverage. See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual for some of the factors that can determine whether someone is a public figure. – notwally (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the first sentence of the actual public figure guidelines: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. Notice the wikilink to public figure. My analysis is based on the fact there is not a multitude of published reliable sources with significant coverage to clearly demonstrate this person meets the threshold of public activity that elevates him to a public figure status. The explanatory essay you linked to, says in the header at the top of the page: This is an explanatory essay about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Subjects notable only for one event. I don't think McGinn is a subject notable only for one event. And BLPCRIME links to both WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and while I think McGinn is notable enough for his own article, it's my opinion he doesn't meet the threshold for being well known, so we must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. If the consensus is we must absolutely and definitively include these allegations, then so be it, consensus is policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are still conflating notability and public figures. Anything controversial on Wikipedia requires multiple reliable sources, but that is not the same as "significant coverage" under the notability guidelines. The "multiple reliable sources" in the policy you quoted is to determine whether the content is noteworthy and significant enough to override privacy concerns and include in the article (hence why the subsection is under "Presumption in favor of privacy"). The allegations here are covered by multiple reliable sources.

"Significant coverage", on the other hand, is a notability guideline, and is not particularly relevant to determining whether someone is a public figure. Whether someone is a public figure has to do with the actions of the person (e.g., self-promotion), more than the amount or type of coverage they have received.

Your newly proposed standard for public figures would mean all public figures are necessarily also notable, which is not always the case. There are many public figures who do not have the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable under Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., all local politicians are public figures, but they have to satisfy GNG to be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia). – notwally (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, McGinn is not well known. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "well known", or why you seem insistent on conflating public figures with notability, but in any case "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." This content is directly related to the article subject's notability and has been reported in multiple high-quality secondary sources. – notwally (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for your opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Spencer

(Rookie here, will try to be succinct) Advised by @Explicit to request republish here. Seek to correct reference of phrase deemed poorly sourced with accurate sources.

COPYING DELETE MESSAGE HERE This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 11:59, 18 September 2024 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Miles Spencer (Expired PROD, concern was: Poorly sourced promotional article on a "media entrepreneur".) Signed @Fletcherpoince — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherpoince (talk • contribs)

Prior Page Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Spencer Fletcherpoince (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC) @FletcherPoince[reply]

@Fletcherpoince:, Explicit told you to request undeletion at WP:REFUND. That's where you can request that the article be restored, not here. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fletcherpoince, please also read the message from Liz at User_talk:Fletcherpoince#Miles_Spencer. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful thx.@Schazjmd Fletcherpoince (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a professor's article

The Barrett Watten article suffered from a lot of controversy in 2019, kindly overseen by SlimVirgin. We settled on a compromise paragraph to describe the issue. Since the article has been unprotected there have been only occasional attempts by the aggrieved side to make changes. This is five years later; the issue has been settled. The topic is important for the universities dealing with tenured faculty (either inaction or over-reaction), but undue now, given the outcome of the issues, for an article about an academic. Coverage never extended beyond the Chronicle of Higher Education. I have been in conversation with an editor (who turned out to be the subject) on the talk page about current modifications. At this point I believe the paragraph can be removed, but I would like an opinion here, which if in favor I can refer to if opponents come back in force. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies... if there are multiple sources (even from the same reliable news site), you can't use WP:BLP to remove the criticism paragraph. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article sources, Watten was banned from teaching for four years. That seems to be a significant aspect in his career. Schazjmd (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the Chronicle is a top notch source for coverage of higher education, it is remarkable that the case wasn't covered elsewhere. At least, I find no mention of Watten at Inside Higher Ed, the Detroit Free Press, or the Detroit News; only the 2 articles at the Chronicle. Likely a four year suspension from teaching should be mentioned, but perhaps it could be covered in a sentence or two? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. For one thing, I'm not sure there's a secondary source for the FIRE intervention. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same, sounds right... WP:DUE may apply, and that paragraph spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing the prof for the two sources we have Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to object to this discussion; it is made up out of thin air. There was no four year suspension. There were five union grievances and an arbitration. This is discussed on BW's website at length. But the real point is that it is now simply impossible to present an objective view of what occurred without discussing the student mobbing campaign as such, and who needs to do that? It is irrelevant. ThisDirect (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear when or how he was reinstated to teach again since there is no secondary RS on his reinstatement. We just know from his university profile/CV that he started teaching classes again in 2023. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could we just WP:IGNORE to keep that bit of info in? We can include the citation needed template, but seems useful to balance out the fact professor is not indef banned from teaching which implies the case is probs resolved and in the past. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personnel matter and not public information. ThisDirect (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not on his reinstatement. But his return to teaching would be public and could be documented by reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are no sources that discuss this after 2019. ThisDirect (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I would heartily support this solution. I would not be involved in this if it were now not entirely out-of-date; as well, the student campaign was discredited with their attempt to renew it in the CP journal People's World. ThisDirect (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens! The subject of the article is an American poet. His relevance to the history of late XXth century (& forward) American poetry is what signifies in the article, & it is not at issue.

Now, it's understood, of course, that a person's money-earning profession is relevant to his or her life. Thus, the articles on Wallace Stevens & T.S. Eliot mention their careers as, respectively, a lawyer/business executive & a publisher. But neither article mentions problems in the workplace -- though, surely, anyone who works decades in any profession must have been involved in professional disputes of one kind or another.

How, therefore, is the discomfort some of Watten's students felt about his manner relevant to the article about him? Overall, there seems to be no pattern of problems in general with student evaluations of Watten -- see https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/182653. Nor does anyone appear to question the material he taught or his way with that material.

What seems obvious, at least to this reader, is that someone has a problem with Watten, a personal problem, an axe to grind, something of that kind. I find it difficult to imagine that Wikipedia is the right place for this person to work out his problem. Not even if he has a legitimate beef with the man! Put it on Facebook, make a youtube video, stick it on Tik Tok (whatever that is!). Not on Wikipeia, however.

My 2 cents.... Historyofpoetry (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a lawyer were disbarred for a few years their article would definitely mention that. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with MrOllie on this one. An encyclopedia summarizes what is already published in reliable sources, good or bad. We don't take sides, we just publish what has been written about them. If this info comes from a reliable source, then it technically can be included. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, and even if it should it is still subject to other parts of policy, particularly WP:Weight and WP:Balance.

Apparently, whatever it was about got him suspended from his job, so that seems like something very significant to his career, that is, something that should be included. But are we giving it too much weight? I think it's very probable. Don't discount the effect weight can have on information, it's often far more than the info itself. I think it could probably be whittled down to a sentence or two, or maybe it doesn't even deserve that much. Deciding weight is dependent not only on how much coverage it got, but also by how much coverage everything else got. For example, if you were able to expand the rest of the article with more sources, then it would give this even less weight. The idea is to proportion the info in the same way it's found in the sources. Keep in mind that all sources are not created equal and the reliability of them is not black and white. Better sources carry more weight.

Nobody discounts the subject's notability or contribution to the world of poetry. That's not in dispute. If this were a mere traffic ticket that somehow made the news, that wouldn't be significant enough to be included, but I think everyone here would agree that something that got a person suspended from their job is a rather significant thing in their lives. I'm still not sure what the thing was that precipitated the suspension; that needs to be made clear. But then the argument really becomes one of weight and balance. Does it deserve an entire paragraph? Would a single sentence be more fitting, or would even that be too much? Can we even tell it with enough detail to make it clear in a single sentence (if that's all it deserves), because if not then that's another good argument to omit it. These are the things you should be looking into. What's not a convincing argument is saying everyone else has axes to grind, or coming in with the attitude that we're all stupid because we don't have degrees in this particular field. Those kinds of arguments not only get you nowhere, but they also tend to ward off any editors who would otherwise take an interest and try to help (like me). Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is well-considered & might provide a sound basis for framing this incident. Historyofpoetry (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Disbarred"? Where's the relevance of your comparison? As it happens, I know something about disbarment. For that matter, perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article on disbarment. A disbarred attorney is not "suspended," he's ousted. He is no longer able to practice his profession at all. Forthat matter, your own comment illustrates the problem with the passage: no, Watten was not "suspended from his job," he remained a professor at his same institution. I presume he continued to advise grad students whose theses he was overseeing. He certainly seems to have continued to publish, attend scholarly events, present at them, etc. He was suspended from teaching classes while an investigation was pursued. Once the investigation was complete he returned to teaching. Nothing to do with an attorney being disbarred. You may also wish to read the report on the situation by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org).

In any case, the foundation of your point is missing. This is not a biography of a professor; it's not a professional resume either. It's an article about an American poet. The article exists because (& only because) of the significance of his work as a poet. Certainly that's why instead of working on my own projects I'm spending precious time trying to prevent someone (I don't know who) from using Wikipedia as a hatchet on the reputation of a poet. Over & out. Historyofpoetry (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disbarment is what we call it when a lawyer isn't allowed to work as a lawyer. Folks do get reinstated after a disbarment. This was plainly a major event in the biography subject's career, and you are doing your argument no favors by denying what is obvious to everyone. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, MrOllie; your response came quickly enough that it would have been impossible to have read & considered my paragraphs. Thus, I guess, we should conclude that there was no reason for you to read them, no reason to make an effort to understand them.

No need, b/c you have your guiding metaphor. Watten should be treated like a disbarred attorney, because some graduate students complained about his manner & his university quelled the complain by removing him from teaching for a period.

Now, let it be said that once a person is convinced of something (e.g. by a metaphor like disbarment), it's usually difficult to stimulate that person to an all-new consideration. Thus, I expect no change in what you write.

I do feel pretty certain, however, that at some point in the future, in an altogether different context, you will recall the first sentence of this paragraph & that it will help you think through another subject altogether, who knows what. At least I hope that will be the case.

In the meantime, no matter what else you or anyone writes here, it is altogether obvious that the intention of the original writer of these sentences was to attack Watten. Pure & simple. That's not how Wikipedia should be used. Historyofpoetry (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read quickly and your prose is clear and easy to understand. I just disagree with its content. I used disbarment as an analogy because you mentioned a poet who was also a lawyer. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

) -- thanks for the compliment.

Let me ask you to respond directly to my last short paragraph: do you or do you not recognize that the original text about Watten's demeanor in relating to students was inserted in the article as an attack on him? Almost certainly was inserted by one of the very same group of students who objected to said behavior?

If you do agree, then any paragraph about the issue is subject to a "fruit of a poisoned tree" argument.

If, OTOH, you don't agree... well, I don't see how anyone could fail to see something so obvious.

Hence, it is -- to me at least -- clear as day that someone used Wikipedia as a weapon against a person that someone wished to discredit. Do you really fail to see that? Historyofpoetry (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the premise of the question. The motivation of the initial edit is irrelevant, only the current state of the article is of interest. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that ThisDirect and SPA/COI editor Historyofpoetry are directly editing this article in a fairly aggressive manner. It would be good to get a consensus on text for the incident from uninvolved editors. For comparison, here is the version left by SlimVirgin [20]. I would prefer something briefer. What is currently in the article is brief, but is written mostly by COI editors, and I do not think it follows the reliable sources well. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that that solution was responding to the "flaming" on the site by the students. Much has happened since then; it is out of date. Returning to the earlier version is in fact highly inaccurate. The test here is when the same group of students tried to publish their narrative on People's World, it was removed as unverifiable. And it is.

Look, you folks are over your heads. That is why Thisdirect got involved--the site was badly in need of editing and accuracy. Cobbling together an author page from random material plus a flame does no justice. And you have excluded competing narratives, showing bias on the part of editors. I strong concur with Starrygrandma at this late date--enough is enough of what was a bad case of mobbing, and should not be preserved on Wiki.

Uninvolved editors will not have any objective relation to this incident. Most of the documents are not public. There has been a lengthy process. It is a personnel matter. And there is little insight on the part of editors into why this happened. Basically, the student had a paper due which BW was supposed to grade. That did not get into the Chronicle article, how about that. ThisDirect (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God I hate having to do this. But... there is no choice:

1. Even SlimVirgin's text is problematic: it reads -- "As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's behavior, allegedly short-tempered and hostile, had made many students and faculty uncomfortable."

The syntax says "As outlined in a report,... Watten's behavior... had made many students & faculty uncomfortable." This is a claim as to fact. It is claimed as fact not opinion that Watten's behavior made some people uncomfortable. I.e. it's his fault -- he "made them..."

2. Moreover, the source is referred to as "a report" -- not a journalist's article but "a report." There's an inherent claim to objectivity in that language.

Did you ever have a professor you didn't like? Hmmm? Oh, you did? I did too.

But I'm old enough that there wasn't a handy dandy tool like Wikipedia which I could turn effortlessly to the purpose of staining his reputation.

Watten's a poet. You probably won't be surprised to learn that I'm one too. But I was also an Internet entrepreneur, a technology consultant, a college professor, & a short order cook. I'm not here to defend Watten; he'll have to take care of himself. I'm here to defend poetry -- &, believe it or not, to do my bit to protect Wikipedia from being used as a tool to attack someone.

The sentences at question were -- obviously! -- written originally with the purpose of attacking Watten. No rewrite will erase that purpose. You'll just have to leave them out. Historyofpoetry (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article, and the paragraph in question seems like an excellent inclusion for someone who is interested in this person. If you were looking to portray them in media in 100 years, this paragraph might be more useful then other more mundane stuff. It passes verification and is highly relevant. The fact they returned to teaching indicates to me that this was likely not the most serious of infractions.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only 10% of the important issues are in the early articles. And you have left out lengthy writings on the BW website plus the public letter to Wayne State by FERPA. What does it take to convince you people that this in no way "passes verification." it is space junk from a cancel campaign--over which there are many. Wiki should not be used for such purposes, and it was. You need to defend Wiki in this sense. The above editors judgments btw are based on absolutely nothing; they are tea leaves. If it happens that there serious objections to what remains up there--and there are--they need to be listened to. ThisDirect (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this: the article is awful. It's a mess of WP:Proseline that reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. Much of it glosses over whatever point is hidden in there and overwhelms the reader with trivial detail. In short, it's a nightmare to read and needs to be rewritten in summary style.

The contested paragraph is also just as confusing. I read it ten times and I'm still not sure what it's trying to say. For example, the first sentence reads, "At Wayne State University in 2019, some students alleging hostile interactions to university administration..." It's an incomplete sentence that doesn't really say anything. What does "hostile interactions" mean? What's the point of this paragraph? What actually happened? It's, like, full of euphemisms and beating around the bush, yet never directly states what it is all about. I haven't read the sources but have a feeling this could probably be summarized down to a sentence or two in a much more direct and succinct manner. But the entire article needs that, not just this one paragraph.

To ThisDirect, your objections and logic is also very hard to follow. Much of it is overshadowed by the tone of anger and outrage, which speaks volumes yet masks any good points you may have. You keep talking about "flaming", but what is that supposed to mean? I haven't a clue. Cancel campaign? Space junk? Tea leaves? I wish I could help but you're speaking in riddles, and the overall tone of your comments is a huge turn off. It makes me not want to get involved at all, and I'm sure a lot of other uninvolved editors here feel the same. Thus, I'll leave you all with my critique and advice and wish you good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is likely my fault, I was attempting to fix the sentence to better align with the source by removing the line "social media campaign." I have reworded the line again, and tried to state the allegations directly. I cited the specific allegations from the source to try and maintain neutrality and align with what the source says. If you can revise further, please do so. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are speaking from a position of real ignorance in terms of the area this article represents. Go read up on Language poetry and come ba k. 35.128.24.90 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, that kind of response is not going to help you achieve your goals. I may be ignorant about poetry, but outside of song lyrics it's not one of my interests, so I couldn't care less. Doesn't matter, because an encyclopedia article is not poetry. It's a very formal subset of expository style written as a very concise summary, the shorter the better. For this, I have a lot of training and real life experience that far predates Wikipedia and the internet. Poets don't write to be understood, which is the opposite of how an encyclopedia should be written. Zaereth (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is a field of knowledge called literary studies, or poetics, or poetry. The subject is a highly visible and accomplished poet and critic; that's why there's the bibliography. In turn, the work connects to a large network of poets and critics. Please leave alone what you don't know about, is the point.

As for encyclopedia articles--a quick glance at Wiki pages in popular culture or movies shows incredible overkill of detail, often written by professional PR people. There is obviously a very wide range of standards here. ThisDirect (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of crappy articles here. It's a by-product of user-generated content. We have tons of scientific articles written by scientists that are only useful to other scientists. Pop-culture and movies are often way over the top. We're not talking about any of those. Let me ask you this, do you really think the argument that "other crappy articles exist so this one should be crappy too" is a good one? Wouldn't it be better to to make this into one of the really good articles? It would reflect far better on the subject that way, and shouldn't that be your goal? Your statement can cut both ways. If you don't know about encyclopedic writing maybe it's best to leave that alone. I gave my assessment of this article and that's all I'm inclined to do. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thornton

I would like some eyes on Jim Thornton. Sources keep adding an unsourced DOB. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look like only 10 edits since January 2024, with only 2 consecutive edits by an IP adding the birthdate (first to infobox and then to lead) since then. I don't think that would be enough to qualify for page protection, although that is an option if the editing becomes disruptive in the future. – notwally (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Amato (poet)

Hi, I'm writing about my Wiki page, as above. My login name, Capisce, is just that -- I am Joe Amato, the subject of the page <joe@joeamato.net>). There are notices at the top of my Wiki page, as of January of this year, re my notability and the lack of citations. I notified the wider literary community about this and they obliged by sending me a number of links to commentary on my work, which includes reviews e.g. in The New York Times and Los Angeles Review of Books. I probably don't need to say that most poets are not reviewed, even unfavorably, in The New York Times. I'm also responsible for my personal website and that of my late partner, Kass Fleisher, on which the material at our Wiki pages is based. I've been busy of late adding references to her Wiki site myself, and I've added external links as well to the books listed at my site. (Someone had eliminated all the links.) As for my Wiki site, there is a good amount of material now there that wasn't there in January, incl. links to the Emeritus page at Illinois State University and to IMDbPro.

Now, I'm in the awkward position of arguing for my notability, but even a quick glance at Kass Fleisher's and my personal websites should suggest a relatively massive list of publications, reviews, blurbs by any number of literary luminaries. This is a reasonable if general observation. Certainly the two of us together have made a significant contribution to literary culture over the past three decades, on eight different campuses in three different time zones, and books we published under the Steerage Press imprint continue to sell at Amazon. I'm in the process in fact of composing a biographical sketch for Kass Fleisher, which will when it's complete appear at her website.

In any case I would greatly appreciate any input you might have as to what more might be required to establish my notability. I've been an ardent fan and supporter of Wikipedia for many years now, and I realize you folks are short-staffed. So whatever I can do to help, just let me know. (There are many writers who would be happy to vouch for my notability, but I gather that's not how this works.)

Many thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,

Joe Amato joe@joeamato.net Capisce (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capisce, I added a book review, and since it now looks like a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR (3), I removed the notability tag. I also removed the commercial links to places where books can be bought, which should not have been there. If you have links to additional book reviews published in reliable sources (so, not user generated content like Amazon or Goodreads), then please feel free to share on Talk:Joe Amato (poet) (I've watchlisted). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Amato is a well known and influential poet and critic, whose voice is respected in literary circles. Kass Fleischer likewise. Glad you are helping to build up his site. ThisDirect (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capisce, although your question has been answered, your comment and your edits to those two pages raise other issues. You have a conflict of interest that you need to declare (see WP:COI), and with rare exceptions, you should not be editing either your own or Kass Fleisher's WP articles. There are warnings on the talk pages of both articles re: the photos you uploaded, as the copyright holder (whoever took the photo) needs to give permission for the photo to be used; I don't know what the permission process is, but if you don't get more info about that here from someone else, then you can ask about it at the Teahouse. Also read the policies about self-published sources (see WP:SPS), interviews (see WP:IV), primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), and biography pages (see WP:BLP), which affect things like the use of Fleisher's obituary, her letter to the Utah Historical Quarterly, your IMDBPro page, your interviews, and the IL State page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capisce, I have left a COI message on your talk page so that you can see what the proper procedures are for editing pages where you have a conflict of interest. In general, you should not be creating or editing articles about yourself or former spouses, but making requests for edits on the articles' talk pages. – notwally (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is pure sexism to call Kass Fleischer "a former spouse"--and incredibly cruel as well. Kass Fleischer was an important woman poet who tragically died too soon. Her work is of the highest quality and needs to be known and preserved. To say she is being supported as "former spouse" is neanderthal bro talk. / Where does one complain about the sexism among you editors? That's what I see here is this assessment of Kass Fleischer. Who do you think you are? ThisDirect (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThisDirect, you should probably read WP:CIVILITY and considering that you are a new account with a highly aggressive nature in your comments and the fact that multiple people have told you to read WP:BLUDGEON in the short time you have been editing, I think you may not have WP:CIR and this may not be your first time here either. – notwally (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThisDirect, it is neither sexism nor cruel to point out that because Kass Fleischer is Joe Amato's former spouse, he has a conflict of interest and should not be editing her page, per the WP:COI policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Haggett

I'm trying to confirm that this person is actually deceased. There is a death date in the article which has HAGGETT, LEA MAUREEN, 1972 GRO Reference: DOR Q2/2014 in Kent (564-1Y) Entry Number 510398914 as the reference, but I don't know how to access that information to confirm if it's right. Please also see the talkpage of Lea's article, where there has been a back-and-fourth with claims from people apparently related/connected to her, but fail to supply anything concrete. Google searches only bring up the following https://forum.athleticsweekly.com/forum/current-events/39336-lea-goodman-nee-haggett with literally nothing else online (that I could find) to support her death. Any help with this mystery would be appreciated. Thank you 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources announcing her death, for Lea Haggett or Lea Goodman, and there is no other info in the article pertaining to her death. It's a mystery to me what that reference means as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The death date and incomprehensible citation were added by Kwib in this series of edits in 2020. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GRO = General Register Office for England and Wales Schazjmd (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a birth registration from the GRO for her and apparently her twin brother, both had same dob, both had same mother's maiden name and both born in the same district. I couldn't find any death registration with the GRO though for Haggett or Goodman. My assumption is that reference is pertaining to her death certificate, weird though how her death doesn't seem to be documented in sources, that I can find, considering her past notability for representing Great Britain at the 1996 Olympic Games. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have just double checked the GRO reference that I added (General Register Office for England and Wales) and it is correct. It can be checked at the GRO website https://www.gro.gov.uk. Kwib (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwib that's just a generic link, do you have a more specific link, or an archived copy, or a screenshot? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a screenshot, no problem. What is the best way to then share this? To load it to Wikimedia? Kwib (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ricciardo

Currently having an issue with the Daniel Ricciardo page. He is listed as both Australian and Italian in his intro, despite not being notable for being Italian. He does have Italian citizenship, but he was not born there, he has not represented Italy. While he is notable for being solely an Australian racing driver. It feels like a breach of MOS:NATIONALITY. I and others have tried to have this changed. But it keeps being reverted by a very small number of users. Who have also stated on the talk page that because they have sources listing him as having Italian citizenship that's what matters. When asked to provide an argument for why it should stay using the guidelines. They have either ignored that or said that "exceptions can apply", while one who is in support of the current wording has asked why I care about it so much and to just ignore it.

Can someone have a look and give their view on the matter. Because I see this as a clear breach of the guidelines. But discussions on the talk page are going nowhere. Basetornado (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This a content dispute and there seems to be consensus on the article talk page for not including it in the lead. Even if there is not consensus, the WP:ONUS for consensus is on those seeking to include the disputed content. Italian nationality in the lead was also disputed in the Paolo Banchero article from memory.[21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed it based on the article talk consensus against inclusion, and the supporting source given did not independently verify that he held the Italian passport.[22] It only verifies the driver's quote that he does. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. That was my belief as well. Basetornado (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Amenta

Off-wiki discussions suggest that the Pietro Amenta article is the subject of a recent Italian GDPR court case [23], which ordered the WMF to deindex the article from search engines. Separate from the court case, I am unclear whether this individual even warrants an article in the first place, given that the only sources in the article are about their conviction for child pornography related offences. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've G10'd. From the creation of the article it has been a coatrack for the criminal charges with no claim of notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:NPOL, disagree it was a G10 case. Struggling to see how a Vatican judge being convicted of child sex offences is not worthy of mention. AusLondonder (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: For what it's worth, it's mentioned in the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country and Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe articles (where his surname is misspelled "Armenta"). Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty extraordinary. The court didn't even order the article be deleted, he clearly meets notability requirements and his article has been removed without discussion. G10 has been misapplied here, it's for "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject doesn't meet the criteria in NPOL, and I would argue the deletion met the requirements in G10 based on WP:BLPDEL. The page served no other purpose other than to document a clergy member whose only notability was pleading guilty to criminal charges. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an attack page as defined by G10, speedy cases should be pretty unambiguous. Should have been taken to AfD if there was a concern about notability. AusLondonder (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For refererence here is the state of the article as it existed prior to deletion. The article was only about 3 sentences long, which basically only said that he was a judge and that he was convicted of child pornography offences. Is it an unsourced attack page? No, but it is largely negative in tone, and did not meaningfully discuss him in any way other than his conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen it. We have many hundreds if not thousands of BLPs of convicted criminals. Take a look at Category:Sex offenders or Category:Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse, many primarily notable for their crimes. As you said it wasn't an unsourced attack page and shouldn't have been speedied G10. AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly covered under WP:BLPDEL, Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. There is no earlier acceptable revision, and there was no sourcing present to allow it to be readily rewritten. The only source not about the criminal acts didn't mention the article subject. The article clearly failed WP:BLPBALANCE, and as such I deleted it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I can't see how it meets the criteria of G10, seems more like a case for discussion at AfD. People can attract notability because they were a Vatican judge involved in child sex offences. AusLondonder (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always open to review of my actions, so you're more than welcome to bring this to deletion review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the name at the two overview articles mentioned by Hemiauchenia, and note they have better sourcing and more information (I did however remove salacious specifics on one charge from one article). Now that they have the correct name for readers who may search for him, those mentions seem adequate unless there's continuing coverage. Since this is at this noticeboard, I'll ask here whether anyone thinks a redirect should be created, to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country? That might be seen as defiance of the spirit of the court order, but it would also make the original article a tad harder to find. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a redirect. Courtesy ping ScottishFinnishRadish. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Watson

This article is not a biography of a living person and as far as I can tell, does not contain any information about living people. The BLP policy need not apply. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this concern.

Unbandito (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbandito The subject is not an LP, sure, but why is this a concern? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page initially had a BLP template on its talk page, (probably due to the mention of the Clinton-Gore campaign) but that has since been dealt with. I think we're all set. Unbandito (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. So the template on the talk page was appropriate. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't we usually "activate" [24] that template on actual BLP:s, though? Like Unbandito said, I see no obvious reason to have it on that particular talkpage. Not that it actually harms anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't make any difference whether it is there or not, because the policy still applies regardless. Unbandito said in his original statement - The BLP policy need not apply - which is not true, because the policy applies to any page on Wikipedia, including this page. If a discussion took place on the talk page of Goldie Watson, and a living person is mentioned for some reason, the policy applies to that talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Barlow

Randy Barlow supposedly died in 2020, but the only source cited was Saving Country Music, a self-published blog listed as unreliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I have not found an obituary or any third-party source corroborating his death, just his personal Facebook (not a verified one) and a couple of Web forums. What should be done here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you removed the source (blog) here in this edit, and left it unsourced, I removed it. His website http://www.randybarlow.net/ hasn't been updated either about his supposedly passing away. If someone finds a reliable source, then it can be added back. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if we accept that that is his official website (and it appears to be), then we must accept that the facebook page it links to was authorized (we would generally count that as a "verified" page, acceptable under WP:FACEBOOK)... and here is a post from July 30 of this year, noting that it's the 4th anniversary of his death. That should be sufficient. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess that will work, weird that there is no obit. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. William Olle

I added a date of death to this article, having found the information in another Wiki, and then confirmed it with FindMyPast, a database that extracts the information directly from official registers of births and deaths. The edit was reverted by another user User_talk:Jkaharper on the grounds that it was inadequately sourced and violated WP:BLP. This seems unreasonable to me. The information is verifiable and uncontentious; it's hard to see what information I could find to support it that doesn't count as original research. Would the primary source (the GRO death certificate) be considered preferable to the secondary source (FindMyPast)? It's totally unclear to me what hurdles I need to jump over to satisfy this editor.

If it was a common name, of course, then there would be a risk of error and the information might then fall into the "contentious" category. But that surely doesn't apply here. Mhkay (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards