Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

One million BLPs

I think we passed 1,000,000 mainspace articles in Category:Living people at some point in the last five months. There were 987,651 in February 2021, and there are 1,006,668 now. There must be some other bot or something that tracks this, do we know when we passed the million mark? Levivich 04:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure each one has exquisite BLP sourcing... JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
And it's not 950,000 white men... Levivich 01:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Or 850,000 one-sentence bios based on FOARP (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
FWIW based on infoboxes, I think the actual #s are something like ~250,000 athlete BLPs (with an athlete infobox, in category:living people), of which maybe ~50,000 are one sentence stubs (<2,500 bytes). I don't know how many BLPs don't have an infobox at all, tho. Levivich 03:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
About 200,000 don't have an infobox. (Thanks to Izno for showing me.) Levivich 04:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A bullet list of twenty arrested suspects continues to appear on Assassination_of_Jovenel_Moïse#Identities_of_suspects. Rather than perpetuating an edit war, I am soliciting feedback from other editors about whether this bullet list is appropriate at this time, as no convictions have been made, and this is still a rapidly evolving current event. Do the names add sufficient value to the article to justify including them?Hadron137 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That looks almost exactly like the stuff that WP:BLPCRIME suggests to avoid. The names don't give us any useful information. One assumes that the suspects have names, and it's not like any of those names are linked to Wikipedia pages. Naming them is pointless and problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Multiple sources have discussed their names and why their identities and nationalities are important, being entrepreneurs and ex-soldiers ensnared in the assassination. If naming them is pointless then one can say naming any suspect at all is pointless. In fact naming any suspect in any article is pointless by that standard if names here are pointless. The Haiti police already believe they are guilty to some extent. If you think including names of suspects is wrong, then remove names of suspects from every article. WP:BLPCRIME allows exception. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The names do not tells us their nationalities, do not tell us their jobs. Those things can be discussed without invoking the names. And yes, to a large degree naming suspects who are not otherwise notable is pointless.... and we have WP:BLPCRIME to reflect that. Police believing someone is guilty is not a conviction or even a charge; it places them in the category of "suspect", which is very much in the realm of what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to cover. If the list of suspects included W. C. Fields, Manuel Noriega, and Dolores Umbridge, that would indeed be conveying information of interest, but a list of names that the reader is not going to recognize just tells us that these people have names, which is generally assumed. If the fact that there is a sourceable name for a suspect is enough to overcome the BLPCRIME guideline, then why would it exist? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
They do if you try to notice how their names are different than common American names and are clear French or Spanish, and names are used to identify who the suspects are in any investigation. Plus are we supposed to leave people unidentified? You say they are not notable but what's your criteria of that? Because these people have been discussed by dozens to hundreds of sources. Yes people can become notable just for one act per Wikipedia policies and that's why we include names of suspects. WP:BLPCRIME has exceptions for reasons and it involves coverage by other sources. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Except becoming a suspect is not an act one takes, it is something that is done to one. And if we don't have a source discussing the nationalities of the suspects, but are supposed to be making some point based on what kind of people the reader thinks they sound like, that's weak-ass encylopedaling. We are not a news organization, where bringing forth the name can be part of bringing forth people with more information. Our goals are different, and we can wait out the seas of suspicions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
By the logic you used we don't need to wait it out. Because as you said their names don't tell us anything about them. We should never include their names even if they are convicted. These people were witnessed and even recorded by multiple people. There's already enough evidence to convict them. Their identities have already been discussed many-many times. We aren't a news organisation but real encyclopaedias aren't run by personal emotions over anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the issue that NatGertler brings up is valid: none of these twenty names are notable in any way, and outside of the two dead ones, mostly interchangeable in describing the event, and so less a BLPCRIME issue and just "information overload", there is no need to name them at this point, which also defers wisely to BLPCRIME until they are actually arrested under charges, as a minimum standpoint. --Masem (t) 13:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I can argue with that logic there's no need to ever name any criminal even if convicted. Because it can't tell us their motive, jobs, or anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Here it is the fact there are twenty people involved, none of them notable. What's notable about them is the number, and their nationality, which can be included more simply. Now, maybe when all is said and done, and the remaining 18 are convicted, then a list of names would be most appropriate as well as meeting BLPCRIME to flesh it out as to complete the article without any BLP issues. But we have the questionable factor of if these yet meet inclusion for BLPCRIME yet, atop that its just noise for the most part, so the intro section to that paragraph captures the best way to currently sum them up until convictions are made. --Masem (t) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
They are notable for the murder itself. Yes one act makes people notable enough and why we have articles for criminals too. Even ones that may not have been convicted. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
BLPCRIME specifically says that convicted suspects in a crime are not immediately notable and we dont create articles on them unless they have more notability beyond having just committed the crime. --Masem (t) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no mention of anything you are saying in WP:BLPCRIME and yes we do create articles for people notable for just one crime. Mohammed Atta would never have an article if it wasn't for 9/11. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
For Atta, there has been an intensive study of why he committed 9/11 and the events leading up to it, the subject of multiple indepth sources. We have zero information on these people at this point and because they acted as a group, it is likely only one or two of them are the masterminds that may have planned it out. It is far far too early to be discussing individual notability here, and that's why BLPCRIME say even to wait to name them until a conviction comes around. --Masem (t) 15:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Those studies would have never been conducted if it wasn't for 9/11 and people don't really care for his psyche or background. Just that he did it. So yes Atta is only notable for 9/11 no matter how you want to put it. BLPCRIME doesn't prohibit naming suspects and there's already clinching evidence. Studies on criminals are always done because they committed that crime, they are not independent of it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The BLPCRIME and BLP1E guidelines do not apply to Mohammed Atta as he is not an LP. Wikipedia has both ethical and legal reasons for being more circumspect regarding living persons. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Those guidelines apply even after death depending on cases. The period depends up to the editors. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
And anyway when we can have names of Guantanamo Bay detainees like Shaker Aamer who were suspected of terrorism but never once charged, I don't see a problem here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Aamer has more about him than just being suspect of terrorism - it is the fact he had been incarcerated in G.Bay and fought that over the year drew additional notability to him, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Again, the key about BLPCRIME is that if all we know is that a non-notable person (beyond the crime) is only known for the crime itself and nothing else, we generally avoid naming them until a conviction is made, and whether they then are notable beyond that for a standalone article is based on whether there's more indepth coverage that extends beyond just the crime (eg like in Atta's case), which is also covered by WP:BLP1E. At the current time, these 20 people are not notable for any other activities beyond their suspected involvement in the assassination, so there is clearly no reason to name them under BLP policy, and even if they are all convicted, we have to wait to see if there is any further coverage of them beyond the scope of their involvement in the assassination to judge if they should have separate articles - as I said, as a group, I expect one or two would be the masterminds and may be given such but the rest were likely hired mercs and not notable otherwise. --Masem (t) 16:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
He's incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay solely due to being suspected of terrorism. And again he was never convicted yet we have an article of him. This could lead to victimisation of him being a possible terrorist despite him never being convicted. The killers of the Haiti president are also notable in the news for more than just the murder, they are notable for being ex-Colombian military turned mercs. It's not something I'm making up, it's been discussed a lot of times. So that argument doesn't do you any good. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Also the Unabomber is another person notable due to one crime. Talk about studies or whatever but those are not what led to Atta's article or Unabomber's article. It was their involvement. Then there are people like Robert John Bardo. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point. For Aamer, the fact he was in G.Bay without charges, fought that, drew attention to his questionable incarceration, all gave him significant coverage beyond any criminal act itself, and thus made him notable well beyond the basic caution of BLPCRIME; we have a wealth of sources over time to know this now. Kaczynski's criminal acts were subject to a wide berth of psychology analysis to try to understand his criminal intent, so there's far more than just "he did a crime, that's it". In the case of Bardo, his crime influenced subsequent law and the popular culture; if these events didn't happen, we'd likely not have an article on him in the first place per BLPCRIME but there's far more than just the crime here. But key here is that we have the passage of time for sources that have told us in all these cases that these people are individually notable beyond the bounds of BLPCRIME.
Here, in this assassination, we have people that okay, they may have been former militia, but they have no notable facets of those careers before that point, nothing in-depth at all about any individual in that block of 20, at this time. If they didn't carry this out, they would have remained non-notable ex-militia members. And again, to stress, they are still only suspects, no convictions have been made. While they were all involved, it may be only one or two will be convicted of the actual assassination, the others maybe charged with some related conspiracy charges, I don't know, no one knows. BLP tells us to take caution before naming people until we know this for certain. The assassination is notable, and clearly once the suspects rounded up, the investigation completed, and legal resolution completed, we'll likely have a few named people, but we should not be doing it now when there are too many questions up in the air, per BLP requirements. --Masem (t) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Every criminal fights charges and it gets reported. My example of Aamer wasn't about him being notable due to his crime. Yes he's actually notable being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay rather than his terrorism, even though his imprisonment stems from it. Regardless it's just one or two things he's notable for. And two isn't a dramatic improvement either. However the reason for bringing him up was, the accusations against him were never dropped. And someone like the US military accusing you of terrorism is something that shall remain forever with you. The article will lead to victimisation because more people will know.
The suspects are soldiers, not militia. And them being ex-soldiers who were recruited as potential bodyguards, as well as their past activities have been discussed as well at least in some cases. And their names are a key aspect to differentiating them and knowing about their past. Or in the cases of the Americans them and their background has been discussed as well, has been a subject of discussion in many sources. Just because you say nothing else is notable about them doesn't make it so. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Notability beyond BLPCRIME requires significant coverage about these people as individuals (not as part of the group), which is the case for Aamer, Kaczynski, etc. All we know is tidbits of these people but nothing close to significant coverage to qualify for notability as to be beyond the BLPCRIME issues. That may come in time, but it is not there now which is the key point. --Masem (t) 17:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
And? That's why we didn't build whole articles for them yet and only included them in the article itself, because there isn't enough material. Because not a lot of details are available. But the ones that already are, are significant. If it wasn't for Guantanamo or their crime, no one would have even bothered to find out any life details of Aamer, Unabomber and Atta. No one would care for them it wasn't due to one significant thing that happened to them. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No they are not significant compared to what the other cases are. They are unknown people that were in the military. This is not significant information by any means. And they have yet to be convicted, they are only suspected, so we are not to include these names under BLPCRIME until conviction happens. --Masem (t) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
All criminals are relatively unknown before they do a crime. People who run their own businesses and are decorated veterans don't fall within that group.
WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit naming people nor it is a rule about that. Please don't add something to a guideline what it doesn't even say. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No, not all criminals are "relatively unknown" before they do a crime. In the past couple days, I've edited Michael Avenatti, (a lawyer who was famous for his representation of Stormy Daniels before he did the crimes he was just convicted of or is supposed to do have done ones he still faces charges of), and Thomas Radecki (well known as an anti-TV violence, anti-D&D crusader decades before he set up the program wherein he traded opioid prescriptions for sex, thus landing him in prison.) O.J. Simpson's record-holding football career, advertisements,and film career had made him one of the best known folks in the country well before the actions he was convicted of, or even the earlier actions that he was tried and cleared on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the major themes I have seen in this issue is that editors keep inserting their own statements into a guideline even though it doesn't say anything such. Most notably is WP:BLPCRIME, which is simply about presuming innocence, not about whether you can name suspects. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was myself getting confused on this but it's because I keep forgetting things. The rule that concerns naming criminals is WP:BLPNAME. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, WP:BLPCRIME, also known as WP:SUSPECT, very much applies to the naming of suspects, as "[...] editors must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed [...] a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Stating that someone is a suspect is indeed suggesting they committed the crime. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
NatGertler Assuming someone's innocence does not apply to their name. If naming someone simply makes someone think that thwy are guilty then it is their fault and not anyone else's. Naming suspects is a usual police procedure and not intended to cast doubts. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
If we really assume these men are innocent (as we must, regardless of what the police think, what their lives are like, or even what the evidence is) then there is nothing interesting to say about them. We wouldn't include a list of twenty of Moïse's neighbors, or the last twenty people that he met with on the day of his assassination. Doing so would be useless and boring. When truly assuming innocence, we must treat the arrested suspects similarly.Hadron137 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Presumption of innocence doesn't mean absence of suspicion. Besides just because we included a person's background doesn't mean you are treating them as guilty. It's just simply a desire to know more about a person and sometimes also used to know what might have lead them to do a crime. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I really should stop monitoring BLPN I'm wiki break but I didn't so just couldn't resist the urge to point out that "The period depends up to the editors." is partially incorrect. The maximum time suggested by WP:BDP is 2 years. Perhaps an argument could me made to extend it one or two years beyond 2 years in some extreme case although I've never seen that. But nearly 20 years total? No way. Also User:LéKashmiriSocialiste sorry but part of your argument is flawed since it seems to lack any support from our current article. I'm not American but I do have a lot of exposure to American culture. Many of the names I saw sound like they could easily be from many of the large number of Latino/Hispanic Americans. I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to know the names are not common American names unless I embrace bigotry and assume you must be a WASP to be a "real American". If their names not being common American names is a significant issue as supported by level of discussion in reliable secondary sources then we should add this to the article first along with these sources, so that readers know and don't have to be experts on American names since as I said for someone even on the slight outside, these sound like they are common American names. Perhaps then we can consider whether it's also necessary to add these names to help the reader further understand, especially if there is discussion/analysis of what makes these names uncommon. The fact some random Wikipedian thinks this is the case is irrelevant to us if that's all we have, so it's not an argument for adding them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm even more confused now. I had heard that many of them were Colombians. I assumed from the above discussion it a number of them were also Americans. I now see only two seem to have been? Why do we need to add so many names to establish these two don't have common American names. And I definitely don't understand the relevance of Colombians not having common American names. Maybe there's something I'm missing but that's why our article needs to be improved first with sources explaining all this. I assume American means someone from the US since as much as I sometimes find the weird that American means this, if someone wants to use a different definition I think this should be made clear first. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
If it helps clear up the weirdness, Nil, it's easy to call people from Canada "Canadians" or people from Mexico "Mexicans", but what do you call people from the United States of America? "United Statesians" just sounds weird, and United States of Americans sounds like property, so we just shorten it to Americans. But yes, that refers to people from the USA, whereas North Americans and South Americans refers to people from the continents, respectively. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BDP says in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death. Although I admit that I hadn't correctly read the two year part. I'm sorry for that. But my reason for bringing up Atta was that we do create articles for people notable only for one thing. In Atta's case it is 9/11. Even living criminals notable for a crime as I pointed out have articles like Robert John Bardo. There are many others, I could give a long list. Without their crime no one would care about them. And anyway I'm not some random Wikipedian, nor any user here is. Please don't try to reduce people to irrelevance here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the identities of the suspect due to there being a clear consensus. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The list should be reinstated. The efforts to delete the list have referred to inapplicable rules. WP commonly mentions names of arrested people as having been arrested, in major terrorist attacks and in assassinations. The important thing is to reflect the RS statements that they have been arrested. And - if they have not been charged - to not indicate that they have been charged. And that indeed is what the language in the indicated policies refers to. But these people were being listed for being arrested in connection with this investigation, which is by itself perfectly fine. The made-up notion that they need to have an independent article on each named person is .. made up. That is not wp policy at all. How can we have intelligent discussions here if people base their views on made-up rules, rather than existing wp policy? I think what we have now, the stripping out of the article of mention of all the arrested, including the Colombians, the Haitian doctor, and the two Haitian-Americans, is absurd - their names have been in dozens of articles .. what do people seriously think they are doing that is sensible here? Have they lost sight of the goal here - which is not one that is present when you have dozens (hundreds?) of articles on these people? And don't editors here realize that information is added when names like this appear - information on people arrested in relation to such events are typically built up on pages such as that one, over time. Deleting the names of the American, the American-Haitians, and the Colombians is not in keeping with wp rules, with wp practice, or with common sense. How are you going to tease out the info that person x (as has been reported) was the second-most senior member in the Colombian group, and appeared to be a primary contact .. which just came out today? Or tie their names perhaps into the visits of the Haitian security head to Colombia of late .. no doubt info will come out as to who he met with in Colombia, and what forces they commanded, if they did command forces. BTW - does anyone think that the 9/11 attackers names cannot be mentioned, because they were never tried? --2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As you will see mentioned in the above discussion, WP:BLP issues do not apply to the actual 9/11 attackers, as they are not living persons any more. If there are individual arrestees of note, that may overcome the concerns listed above for them, but a mere name dump tells us nothing of value. The idea that the fact that the names have been published overcomes WP:BLPCRIME concerns doesn't work; if it was only meant for names that had not been published, we wouldn't need BLPCRIME, as that's simple failure of verifiability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree that the names should be reinstated. It seems like there has been a lot more reporting since this thread started. Per WP:BLP, the names of suspects have now been "widely disseminated", which means we can probably start relaying them. NickCT (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
As I'm still on Wikibreak, I have not and will not be evaluating the sources so have no comment on whether the names need to be excluded. I also have not and will not be evaluating the discussion. However if there was an earlier consensus against including the names, these 2 comments cannot be reasonably be taken as an indication consensus has changed. Nor do I see anything approaching that on the article talk page. So if consensus has changed, there's no clear sign of it yet. I'd note that 2603's comment has a number of obvious flaws. Maybe someone said there needs to be articles on each person before we name them, but definitely many people opposed to inclusion never said that. NatGertler has already explained the flaw with the 9/11 point, which as they also pointed out, was discussed before 2603 commented. Finally there is zero reason why we should treat this as a binary. It may very well be the case there is merit to discuss certain specific individuals and their alleged actions or roles and background and to do so effectively it will be necessary to name them. (To be clear, it's sometimes possible to discuss background or other such details without naming the person.) That doesn't mean it is necessary to name them all. It's perfectly reasonable we may name certain individuals but not others. Again, I'm not saying this is what we should do in this case, simply that it's something we can do. So the argument that we need to name them all because otherwise we cannot discuss the roles of certain individuals is clearly flawed and not supported by any policy or guideline. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I looked into this a bit more and it seems to me one of the big issues is that editors seem to be conflating different things. This discussion started of about a list of all suspects names with no context. There were several editors opposed to such a list. It seems now some editors want to name certain suspects and discuss their roles in more details. As I said above, there may be merit for this, there may be merit to name them so we can do this. Discussion can resolve this. It's a related but separate issue from just including a list of names. If editors only want to discuss and name certain suspects, they should be clear if this what's their advocating rather than the earlier issue of a list of all suspect's names. I'm not actually sure if anyone above said under no condition whatsoever can we name any of the living suspects until a conviction is secured, but I'm not going to check. I suspect the dispute is more likely to be over under what conditions we should name them and how many and who. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Not appropriate per WEIGHT. I think coverage focus is on the number, nationality, and backgrounds. It would be slightly preferred to cite to source that goes into details like a list of names, but the Wikipedia article should not list names. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Dave Sharma

Dave Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Dave Sharma. I am an elected representative in Australia. A prior version of the page about me was "Good Article" ranked, thanks to the efforts of @Callanecc: and @MPJ-DK:. However, someone added a "Controversies" section and made other changes throughout the page that seem to be geared towards emphasizing negative things. I believe much of this content violates Wikipedia's BLP and other rules. For example:

  • Citation 32 describes itself as "Tips and rumors" and asks crowd-sourced readers to submit tips anonymously.
  • Citation 37 appears to be a guest post on a personal blog.
  • Citation 38 is an op-ed from someone that sued me.
  • Citation 41 is not a reliable source (this will become obvious if you read it).
  • Citations 40 and 42 just say that I have made numerous investments, not that I have been "criticized for a number of insider trading offences"
  • Saying "This move was considered tone deaf by some" does not seem like Wikipedia's preferred tone
  • Is this image of protestors swarming and mocking me really appropriate?

These are a few examples and there are similar issues throughout the page. Would someone here be willing to review the article to ensure Wikipedia's policies are being applied? It seems a lot of the content has been removed and re-added a couple times already.

PS - There are similar issues on the Tim Wilson (Australian politician) page (a fellow liberal party colleague) involving some of the same user accounts. For example, there is an LGBT section discussing asylum seekers using male sex workers to prove their sexuality citing some kind of advocacy website. Davesharma (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me take a look at these and offer my input. If edits need to be made to the article, I'll be happy to make them on your behalf.
  • Cite 32: Crikey seems to be a generally reliable source, but the article linked doesn't read like an RS. I think it might be worth discussing this at the talk page.
  • Cite 37: You're correct, and as a blog, it's not a generally reliable source. John Menadue seems to be a notable figure, and as such, his own views might be worth including with attribution, but this entry wasn't written by John. Melissa Parke, the author, is also a notable figure however. This may be acceptable, as long as it's properly attributed.
  • Cite 38: There's a paywall there, so I can't read it. Is Melissa Park the same person as Melissa Parke? If so, this may be used with attribution, just like the blog entry.
  • Cite 41: You're correct. That's a generally unreliable source.
  • Cites 40 & 42: Again, it appears you are correct.
  • "Tone deaf" language: That seems to be an appropriate summary of the source.
  • Image: That's up to editor judgement, really. At least one editor seems to believe it belongs.
I'm going to head over to the article and make some changes. I'll leave a note at talk. You should feel free to engage at the talk page of the article, but you would do well to leave the actual editing to others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Split the controversies section's content into the other sections. Removed the op-ed. starship.paint (exalt) 10:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972)

Soldier F is a living person whose identity is protected by a court order and anyone breaching it leaves them liable to prosecution for contempt of court. Following a politician in the UK revealing his name using parliamentary privilege, there have been repeated attempts today, by at least two editors in the UK, to add this name despite the name not being published by the media due to the court order. I feel the name is a clear and umambiguous violation of WP:BLPNAME, but thought it better to bring it here for wider attention. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ryan Giggs super-injunction affair, and Wikipedia's role in it, can help elucidate this issue. A decade ago, the encyclopedia as a whole took a dim view on the use of court orders to suppress widely-known information that's in the public interest, and Jimbo literally said that if it appears in reliable sources, injunction be damned, it's eligible for inclusion. Hansard is a reliable source for the statement "Colm Eastwood named X as Soldier F", and such an extract from Hansard is explicitly protected under parliamentary privilege per the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Additionally, as a member of the armed forces during Blood Sunday and an alleged war criminal, I would argue that Soldier F cannot in good seriousness be considered a "private individual". Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed: the only case this would be an issue is if the case was in the US and the protection was specifically extended to any media outlet with servers in the US (which I have never heard of happening before in contrast to a few notable UK cases). --Masem (t) 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Even in the case of a universal injunction (which I believe was the case in the Trafigura affair), it's a constitutional principle that the proceedings of Parliament are unimpeachable, and under PPA1840, reporting the proceedings of Parliament is protected. Sceptre (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it would be extremely extremely rare to ever encounter a case where by law WP should not include a name sealed by courts but otherwise widely reported by trusted RSes. (On the other hand, if trusted RSes are keeping mum, while sources like Daily Mail and Fox are blabbing it all over, that may give us cause to think...) --Masem (t) 00:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the thing, trusted reliable references are keeping mum since they are subject to the court order. They are reporting Colum Eastwood said it, but not including the name. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hansard is a "trusted reliable reference". It's entire existence, and statutory protection from censorship, is derived from the fact it is a true and accurate record of the proceedings of Parliament. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, the reason why other sources are witholding from reporting the content of Colum Eastwood's disclosure can be speculated upon but are ultimately irrelevant; Hansard stands as the primary source and I doubt anyone is realistically considering challenging it's reliability. Hibarnacle (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
We would need much more reliable sourcing beyond Hansard to include the name in Wikipedia. Even if this weren't a BLP, in general we need coverage from secondary sources for extraordinary claims, and especially because this is a BLP, the relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Additionally, my understanding of parliamentary privilege is that it gives government officials protection against liability from exposing the identity of Soldier F, but it is not clear to me whether this same legal immunity extends to private individuals who use Hansard to expose the identity of Soldier F. Importantly, the BBC source that FDW777 mentioned declined to identify Soldier F for legal reasons. We should follow their lead. Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hansard isn't primary, so it should be included. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Is it not? It bills itself as the "official report of all Parliamentary debates." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, not of court proceedings which is what it would need to be considered primary. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Not "other public documents"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's not correct. The specific source we are attempting to use is the official transcript of a parliamentary debate. Surely that's a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. A secondary source would be a news article (or something of the sort) that reports on what is written in the debate transcript. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Primary would be court documents or public prosecution service documents. Obviously no news article would mention (Redacted) because that would breach the UK court order. I believe that wee should reinstate this edit but with the deletion of "as (Redacted)" Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
From my memory of the now deleted edit, that would basically involve saying that Colum Eastwood revealed the name of Soldier F using parliamentary privilege but without actually including the name in our article? I would have no problem with that, since it's only the inclusion of that name itself that is problematic. FDW777 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, the inclusion of the content of Colum Eastwood's disclosure notwithstanding we can state that he made the disclosure and refer to the nature of it without issue. There may be some discussion about whether that itself is notable enough for inclusion.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
So, nobody has actually read WP:BLPNAME apart from me then? Where are the secondary references reporting on this story that actually include the name? FDW777 (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Sources in the UK can't report it but maybe it has been reported in other countries? Most US news outlets are either unavailable in Europe or hidden behind paywalls so I'm having difficulty checking: maybe someone based outside the UK can have a look for sources? Neiltonks (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
A quick samping of the main Irish media outlets confirm that while they are reporting on the Colum Eastwood story, they exclude the name despite not being subject to the UK court order (I read somewhere a while ago that other countries tend to respect anonymity granted by courts, as I did not understand how a UK court had the power to issue a worldwide ban regarding the new identities of James Bulger's murderers). See for example RTÉ, Irish Times and Irish Independent. I can't find any US or other countries media reporting the name. As WP:BLPNAME says, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. As Soldier F already has an accepted and widely used pseudonym, I do not see how any context is lost. FDW777 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPNAME we should not be including the name it has not been "widely disseminated".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
But it has been widely disseminated; apart from the fact that Soldier F's identity has been an open secret in Derry for decades, the identity of Soldier F (according to Colum Eastwood) is now in the public record as part of the official proceedings of Parliament. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
If it's as widely disseminated as you claim, you should be able to provide many references. Where are they? FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
He does not need to provide "many references." Per WP:BLPNAME what is required is a primary source and that particular weight be given to the name's appearance in "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts." This has clearly not happened with Soldier F, but it does highlight a particular issue with Soldier F and BLP. BLP asks us to consider "whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Soldier F's name would add immense value here for at least two clear reasons; it would identify the perpetrators of one of the worst atrocities in British and Irish history in living memory, and secondly it opens the topic to discussion that the state attempted to defend this person from justice for 5 decades. This is an immense topic in it's own right and I would argue too complex to discuss here, but it's weight is inarguable, and these two reasons alone add massive weight to the arguement for including Soldier F's name now that Eastwood has provided a primary source disclosing it in Hansard.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
BLPNAME asks for secondary sources, not primary sources, so we need more than just Eastwood’s disclosure in Hansard. So far it seems that no other reputable secondary source has been willing to include the name. As a compromise solution, I don’t think I would be opposed to mentioning the fact that Eastwood revealed a name in the article (without actually including the name), but I remain opposed to including the name itself until multiple secondary sources can be provided. Mz7 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sceptre: Then please provide some reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the name is "widely disseminated". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
We have no obligation whatsoever to follow an injunction by the UK on this matter, unless there is a ruling by WP:Legal that we must do so. (I think it's they who have the obligation of saying what is legally permissible to write on WP--we can decide here on what is ethical, or what is appropriate, but not on what is illegal. ). But the problem with using Hansard as a RS is that although truth may be said there regardless of an injunction, so can untruths (subject of course to the jurisdiction Parliament has over its own members for what takes place there). I am not aware of any recent instance of this, but perhaps those in the UK may know of some examples. So I think there does have to be another RS, though of course it need not be a UK source. And if the name is restored, common prudence would suggest it not be done by someone under the jurisdiction of the UK. I'm deliberately talking here in general terms. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You're essentially asking the question about whether Colum Eastwood was truthful in identifying Soldier F. This is a bit of a difficult issue, as we can either take him at his word or say we simply don't know, but the fact of the matter is that Soldier F's identity has been an open secret for decades, and the reason that it has not been publicized for so long despite being known by so many for so long is ... murky.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Has it really been an open secret for decades? The soldiers were granted anonymity at the 1972 Widgery investigation. This was further extended at the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Soldier F's identity would have been revealed at a court hearing in September 2019, and certainly there would have been many interested observers from Derry and elsewhere present, but the media were banned from reporting the name. That's the first time the name would have become public knowledge, as far as I'm aware. The BBC stated in September 2019 that "Soldier F" had been in use since 1972, so this isn't just a recent attempt at privacy. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad


Can you change this article please as its not presenting the truth. Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not a muslim. he doesnt beleive in the finality of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). beleiving in the finality of the prophet is one of the articles of faith without which a person is not muslim. he is certainly not the Khalifa of the muslims at the moment. please make this change asap so people are not deceived.

many thanks  Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As is very clear from discussions at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims, and he is, within Ahmadiyya, the Fifth Caliph of the Messiah. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oviya article

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

Hello. I am concerned that this article is devolving into a puff piece of sorts, as much of the content is meaningless. It would be helpful to have a few more watchers on this article to help bring it in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policy. Thank you for your time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot)

Wang Zheng (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At this article there's been some back-and-forth about ongoing lawsuits, between an IP claiming to be the subject of the article and a couple SPAs with no edits to any other articles. This should probably be looked into in more detail. jp×g 04:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this article and do some reconstruction, but it's not high on my list of priorities. Mrs. Wang is no stranger to this board, and this ongoing battle between the two have been going on both on and off wiki for a long time now. It should probably be page protected so only autoconfirmed users can edit it, or maybe pending change reviews would be a good option. Mrs. Wang would be best to open an account and get it confirmed at ORTS, and declare her COI. Although I find the whole thing to be quite boring, I do have an interest in flying, and still plan to get back to it someday, if no one else beats me to it. But not today. I'm partly hampered by the fact that I don't read Chinese, and google is no where near as good at translating it as French or Swedish. It could really use some help by someone who is fluent in both Chinese and English. Either way, something should be done to stop the battle from continuing on wiki. Zaereth (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax activist and COVID-conspiracy tags

What is the standard for adding these tags to BLP pages? I noted a number of articles where the use of these tags is in dispute. What is the evidentiary standard required for each. Take the Ricky_Schroder page. It was tagged as American anti-vaccination activists. Looking at the article it appears that Schroder has voiced his opposition to mandatory COVID vaccinations. I'm not sure this rises to the level of "activist". Also, if someone is only concerned about the COVID vaccinations but not vaccinations in general (fine with MMR etc) does that make a person anti-vax or just anti-COVID-vax? I have a similar question regarding COVID-conspiracy tags. In Steve_Hilton's article it appears he was tagged as a COVID conspiracy theorist because he supported the lab leak theory Steve_Hilton. Is that the standard? It would seem to me that many of these tags would violate WP:NONDEFINING since, in many cases these are not the defining characteristic of the subject. Ricky Schroder is an actor (at least was... not sure if he still is). His opinion on COVID vaccines is hardly his defining characteristic. Looking for group input. @Masem, Calton, TJD2, and RandomCanadian: as editors whom have been involved with the general topic (ie I saw them make related edits/comments). Springee (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC) (and @Jaydoggmarco: for the same reason) Springee (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to me; the COVID category is currently at CfD for reasons similar to the ones you've brought up here. To me, the primary issue is the presence of categories based on vaguely defined political views that don't include activism. For example, Barack Obama admitted to having smoked weed when he was in high school, but this doesn't mean he belongs in Category:American cannabis activists. Similarly, John Hickenlooper (the governor of Colorado who issued an executive action adding 2012 Colorado Amendment 64 to the state constitution and legalizing weed in that state) is not in the category either. Indeed, a large number of famous people have said that they vote for Democrats or Republicans, and they are not in Category:American political activists. jp×g 22:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Why yes, the category CfD, but, no, you're not getting a lot of buy-in for your claimed reasoning. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding this comment. What do you mean by "claimed reasoning"? jp×g 05:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Springee asked for my comments on this on my talk page earlier and I'll readdress them here: I think these categories are inappropriate, similar to the climate change deniers/skeptics aspect. These are very subjective classifications which should never be used for BLP, though RS sourcing in the article body is fine to talk about it within the article. --Masem (t) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You're in the wrong place for that argument: if you're against the category to begin with, take it up at the CfD itself. Doin it here is just a back-door attempt to render the category moot. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not really. The question isn't if the category is legitimate. I personally think Andrew Wakefield absolutely fits an anti-vaccine activist category. He is know specifically because of his anti-vaccine efforts. That is different than Ricky Schroder who has only made a few comments on the subject. That a category might be problematic is an argument for removing it but if we set some understandable limits I think the BLP questions/concerns can be addressed without removing the category. However, if the category is fundamentally a BLP problem then the BLP policy has to take precedent. Springee (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Springee: I've made my opinion clear on Calton's talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems that those on the losing end of the CfD are attempting an endaround... Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
There are currently ten "keep"s and ten "delete"s at the CfD, so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. jp×g 05:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to add the conspiracy theorist tag at Matt Gaetz as another example. The article cites the COVID lab leak theory but nothing else in the body of the article suggests the tag applies and I can't see how this would pass NONDEFINING. Springee (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Great, more of these contentious, BLP-sensitive categories. Most of the time, the category is either (i) not verifiable from the body or (ii) if it is verifiable, it makes up one sentence from the entire article. WP:COPDEF states that biographies should be categorized by the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. Categories are not supposed to be a coatrack of every contentious label the person may or may not be associated with. Unless we're dealing with someone like Wakefield, as Springee mentions, then we're always gonna run into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or WP:BLPRACIST issues. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Anyone who has been around BLPN for any length of time has already heard my views on categorization, so I am loathe to repeat myself yet again. For anyone who hasn't, you can read about it at User:Zaereth#Little boxes. Zaereth (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Everybody who's seen my edits knows my views on this topic, but these discussions are getting too volatile and toxic for my taste. I'm going to recuse myself from these political pages - feel free to add any sort of bias or crazy labels to people. I'm going back to editing music and gaming pages. Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot, you know!TJD2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
"Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke), The only one with a bias is you and all of the people who are having this discussion to remove the category. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
When did I say ANYTHING about Trump? Trump has absolutely nothing at all to do with what we are talking about here. On a side note I don't even personally care for the guy but I don't link everything in my life back to him. Stay focused, we were discussing conspiracies and whether or not disliking a single vax makes you against ALL vaccines. I wasn't even going to respond to this comment but it made me laugh out loud. At least we now know what this is really about.TJD2 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, when people say stuff like that about others, regardless of what side they are on (or not), they are almost always unconsciously describing themselves, and unwittingly letting everyone else know. Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the kind of statement that should immediately disqualify someone from editing American politics related articles. If you had already been notified of the discretionary sanctions I would have requested a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If one believes in the right to bodily self-determination, they may have received the Covid vaccine, recommended it to their friends and acquaintances and yet oppose mandatory vaccination. So, opposition to mandatory vaccination is not the same as anti-vaxxer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to make these same points in an orderly manner in multiple talk pages for the better part of a month, even inviting discussion from opposing sides. It doesn't matter what we say or how many points we have - this is WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING run amok. Like I said above - if a person doesn't get the covid shot - to these editors they must be an anti-vaccination activist or a conspiracy theorist. Black and white, no middle ground. You can't debate these points. I'm trying not to make it about the editors themselves but it's getting very difficult - which is why I want to be focused on how ridiculous the assertions are. You are absolutely correct - being anti mandatory vaccinations does NOT make you anti-vaccination. That said, it doesn't matter apparently.TJD2 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Picture of a cake as a source of year of birth

There has been constant pushing to include the date of birth of Dream (YouTuber), in part based on this tweet from August 2020 with a 21 on a cake, the only text accompanying the image being the word "yummy". A second tweet from the same day states that it was his birthday. In my opinion, the cake tweet is not a explicit enough source for YoB, I don't think we should use the second tweet to infer that the cake refers to the birthday, but others over at Talk:Dream_(YouTuber)#Birth_date_and_age_inclusion disagree. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This has come up here time and again, and Twitter has never been deemed a reliable source for birthdates. Especially one where it is not implicitly stated, but where we have to infer the date ourselves from vague statements or pics. We not only need secondary sources, but multiple secondary sources to be able to reasonably infer that the subject will not object to us publishing the date. In my opinion, we should never use Twitter as an RS in and of itself. Unless tweets are discussed and interpreted by RSs, then we shouldn't be trying to do so ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
In the specific case, no. Nothing says it's his birthday cake or that the pic was taken the day of the tweet. On using tweets for YOB:s/DOB:s in general, that can work per WP:ABOUTSELF and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
If we use a search engine for "dream youtuber 21", there are several decent sources that mention Dream being 21. So we could at least use {{birth based on age as of date |yy|yyyy|mm|dd}}. Edwardx (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I get 3 google hits for that, none of which screams "BLP-good". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Once you get to the second page or so, there are quite a number. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The thing is we do know that it is his birthday due to [previous tweet he made the same day]. Posting a cake with a number on it after he established it was his birthday is pretty obvious what he means; claiming there's a meaningful chance he meant anything else is just unreasonable. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Is the cake produced by a bakery with a reputation for fact-checking and corrections? I mean, we can't accept it if it was produced by Fox Bakery, with their history of politis-icing their cakes, but Cake-SPAN or the Confectionary Broadcasting System, sure. (Pies can sometimes be used for date reference, but only if they're Marie Calendars) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worse than that, afaict the cake is anonymous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No, no cakes are reliable, as they are frequently lies. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
So you're telling us the cake is a lie? --Masem (t) 17:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
While we would allow self-made Tweets that are very clear that they are speaking directly and factually about their DOB, this is not such an example since there's not sufficient context to know if it is a cake meant for them , or if the "21" has any implication on his age. There's the Occum's Razor factor, but we cannot use that for BLPs. --Masem (t) 15:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
To expand on Masem's point. Selfpub would cover unambiguous statements. We are talking someone using a verified twitter account posting "21 today!" or "Its my 21st birthday today". Not a cake picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not unambiguous enough as a statement that they don't mind their full dob be published, so a no for me. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that it should not be used as a source. To be valid it should be explicit. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I would say no, especially without more background as there is always a possibility that the number on the cake is inaccurate for comedic purposes or other reasons. An explicit statement on social media is flimsy enough, this takes the cake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ouch. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Cold Scorpio (and others): continued addition of unsourced material

IP user has been adding large blocks of WP:UNSOURCED material that he calls "Professional wrestling highlights" to BLP articles about professional wrestlers, with details about different wrestling moves, managers, and even theme songs for wrestling matches to various BLPs including this, this, and others. IP has been warned and has continued the disruption past final warning. Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rowan This information is defamatory or libelous information which has already been subject to proceedings. It was retrieved for partisan political purposes during the 2020 Queensland state election campaign.  Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

article Denis Vidal

I made two sorts of corrections about an article of wikipedia which concens me personally

- I rectified false or imprecise informations ( wrong dates for my degree, wrong academic and institutional affiliations, etc.)

- I deleted excerpts of reviews about one of my books which are are critical of the book and may express the views of some reviewers but which are neither fair in my opinion nor représentative of the whole content of the book nor particularly representative of its academic reception. One could have chosen as well other excerpts of other reviews of the same book and given a very different view of it

I dont't think that it is the function of a wikipedia article to give either false academic informations or to express indirectly personal views of a written work by selecting some excerpts of reviews and not others about it

And I don't see any reason why the initial author of this article has been trying twice to delete my rectifications  Preceding unsigned comment added by Erreurscorrigées (talkcontribs) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your changes were undone because you gave no reason for them to have been done, nor any sources to verify any changed statements. Wikipedia relies on a principle of verifiability, particularly when it comes to articles about people who are still alive. As anyone can just come in here and edit, we want people to provide sourcing footnotes to provide where the information can be verified from a reliable source. Does that mean that some errors made in normally-reliable sources work their way in here? Absolutely... although when that arises, it can often be addressed by finding sources with the correct information. But we are dealing with situations all the time where people are adding unsourced and incorrect information, often deliberately.
Now you may think that you're a better source on yourself than whatever reference we are using, but realize that we don't know that any of the accounts you've used are actually you! Anyone can create an account and claim that they're any specific person. We do have processes for verifying identities when it's needed, but up until this posting, you don't even appear to have claimed to be the subject of the "Denis Vidal" article. So there was no reason at all to treat your edits as if you were who you now say you are.
One problem that we do face when people edit articles about themselves, or really any article where they have an interest in the success of the topic, is that they have an understandable instinct to delete anything that casts them in a bad light. We strongly discourage people from editing articles about themselves, but do encourage them to use the talk page of the article -- Talk:Denis Vidal -- to request and suggest changes and updates. Other folks who edit that page can then see it and either make or discuss the suggested change as they see fit. You can learn more about how to deal with a conflict of interest at our page on conflicts of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Zina Bash

She was falsely accused of flashing a white power sign during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and now a number of new accounts have simultaneously taken an interest in this page. Marquardtika (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup. It is quite clear from the multiple reliable sources being cited that there is no evidence Bash was making any sort of 'white power sign', and frankly there seems little justification in including any content at all on what seems to be a rather silly conspiracy theory. Wikipedia can do better than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. Attic Salt (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You seem not to understand WP:BLP policy. There is nothing in the policy which requires accusations based on obnoxious conspiracy theories about a person of Jewish-Mexican heritage making 'white power' signs to be included in an article at all. This is supposed to me an encyclopaedia, and while it may not always live up to that standard, it certainly doesn't have to sink to the level of 4Chan-inspired clickbait drivel. " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I am certain that, contrary to what Marquardtika keeps asserting, for example above and here , and here and here , is that the accusation is not shown to be "false" or "debunked". It can be denied, yes, but not falsified or debunked. Attic Salt (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
What part of "There is nothing in the policy which requires accusations based on obnoxious conspiracy theories about a person of Jewish-Mexican heritage making 'white power' signs to be included in an article at all" do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Let me suggest that this discussion should not be personalised. Perhaps the only thing that is noteworthy enough to justify a Wikiarticle on Zina Bash is this accusation. If there is to be an article on her, then the accusation needs to be discussed. Though not in unrealistic terms, like whether or not it is debunked. You can see, here, that I am open to the entire article being removed. Attic Salt (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If the only reason a biography exists is to promote obnoxious and sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theories, then yes, the article should be deleted. But meanwhile, including said obnoxious and sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theories in a biography of a living person is a violation of policy. Wikipedia is under no more obligation to discuss such matters in a biography than it is to discuss assertions that subjects of such biographies are shape-shifting lizards from Zeta Reticuli. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you consider the accusation, reported in the news, to be obnoxious. Attic Salt (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yup. All sorts of obnoxious things get written about. Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat them, and has specific policies in place that make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This ANI concerning a possible BLP violation at Zina Bash may be of interest, although I think it should have been brought here first. There is a dispute over whether Attic Salt (talk · contribs) and TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) violated BLP based on their edits regarding a controversy involving allegations of sexual abuse and a white power gesture, and similar concerns about their conduct regarding Eugene Gu. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me how I have anything to do with BLP violations regarding Eugene Gu. If you look at my edit history, I routinely go through RFCs of many types, including BLPs. I saw Marquardtika place an accusation of sexual assault against Eugene Gu on Zina Bash's BLP as a way to discredit Gu and his accusation that Bash made a white power hand gesture as covered by a Vox News article. Upon further investigation, I found that Marquardtika repeatedly and contentiously edited Gu's BLP despite the fact that a unanimous RFC stated that it was inappropriate. When I brought this up to Marquardtika's attention, Marquardtika replied, "Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)." This can be found on Marquardtika's talk page. In spite of all this evidence, I now stand accused of BLP violations against Gu? Please help me understand how this makes sense. TrueQuantum (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It was discussed here, see the thread above, started by User: Marquardtika on the 19th. Sadly, some people seem to think that unless discussions here go the way they like, they can be ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The which Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault part is pure WP:SYNTH (and rather WP:POINTY). The stuff about the white power gesture is such a mess, and, at least, a WP:BLPGOSSIP vio. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Eric Joyce


I am quite new to editing and have, for early experience, concentrated my efforts on minor grammatical changes and upon 3 biographies of living persons. I have edited 'Eric Joyce' to take out errors without references and one serious risk of libel. An unsigned in user, using different IPs (I presume using VPS, etc) keeps reverting my edits and is abusive. The page shows evidence from some time ago that occasionally unsigned users have made harmful entries and revisions, then been corrected by signed in users.

Matt Gaetz conspiracy theorist category tag

I wanted to get a few more eyes on this. The Matt Gaetz article has been the subject of a category tag debate (with a few back and forth edits). The core issue is if the article supports the use of an American Conspiracy theorist tag. Given WP:NONDEFINING I would think almost no politician should be tagged. Additionally, I'm concerned that one of the examples used to support this tag is his promotion of the lab leak theory. Per a recent CNN article the Biden admin considers lab leak and natural origin theories to be about equal in likelihood []. Given the undated information how should we handle cases where a BLP subject said, "lab leak is possible" in the past? At the time many were dismissed but it now appears they could have been making a reasonable claim. Extra eyes on Matt Gaetz would be helpful. Springee (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Parish

This article is subject to persistent edit warring in which users are re-inserting historical and long-deleted defamatory materials about complex lawsuits that have been terminated or compromised. The defamatory material that keeps being re-inserted from edits to the article long ago updated typically appears every evening, as some malicious person apparently seeks to continue inserting it. The legal disputes are long since over and any fair comment upon them would require resolution of large quantities of legal documentation that it is not reasonable to expect a Wikipedia editor or administrator to undertake. In the meantime the defamatory material reappears every day.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandypandy (talkcontribs)

The lawsuits happened and appear to be well documented (I'm seeing NYTimes, Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, AP, and other top level sources that mention these suits). It seems inappropriate to not mention them but since any fallout from them are long since over, it may not be necessary to go into as much detail on them. --Masem (t) 21:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Masem here. I am admittedly new to the topic, but it would seem to me that the "defamatory material" is in fact the most notable thing about Mr. Parish, from a Wikipedia point of view. Based on an initial scan, I believe that inclusion in some form has the better part of the argument, rather than hand-waving away prima facie legitimate news stories. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Pandypandy Would you like to explain your relationship with Mr. Parish? You come across as deeply invested, being the creator of the page and almost solely dedicated to it for over a decade. If you are or are a representative of Mr. Parish, you must disclose that per our WP:Conflict of Interest guidelines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Matthew Parish and the recent anon edit-warring at the page under discussion. My suspicion is that this is the subject himself, unhappy with the content of "his" Wikipedia page. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


References to life story/details are entirely based on self-reporting via content creator's youtube channel. Highly specious.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5e9a:10:e8f3:44d9:b568:67e8 (talk) 18:53, July 19, 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous user, 1) we don't have an article with the title "mizkaf" so it's impossible to understand what you're talking about. 2) I suspect you mean "highly suspicious" instead of "specious". 3) Please sign your posts, which can be done by typing four tildes at the end like this:~~~~. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Is Mizkif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the article in question? I see a fair number of SPS cited there. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Kate Dillon Levin

This is a page about me that is about 60% accurate. I have repeatedly tried to edit for accuracy and is repeatedly, immediately reverted. Some of the erroes: I am not in video games, I was not featured in many of the campaigns listed, I am not a plus size model, I am not an actress. Wikipedia claims that untrue articles can be edited and this appears not to be true. Preceding unsigned comment added by LucyJean74 (talkcontribs)

I have attempted to address several of your objections. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies and itemise things that you believe are untrue or unsupported by the given citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


Quimbe article; fully parody / defamatory. Broken English, humorous content, false references, crude language (in Portuguese). Racially charged.  Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted some vandalism from 2018 that introduced that problematic content. I am not confident that the stub article that remains is worth preserving and would appreciate another opinion. However, this is no longer a BLPN issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Crewther

I don't have free time at the moment to look over this article in detail. The edit history suggests single purpose accounts actively editing, along with possible sock puppets and / or meat puppets edit warring. One side of the debate is adding what the other side calls defamatory content, which on my quick glance looks to be reliably sourced. I intend to look over the edit history in more detail hopefully later today but some extra eyes on the article meanwhile may help to bring some stability to this article for now. -- Longhair\talk 03:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

denis vidal

Erreurscorrigées (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)the author of this article is giving repetedly false informations about my cdegrees; moreover , he is giving a partial review of one of my works through selected excerpts of reviews about it. Other excrpts would give a very different perspective I would be grateful if he stopped doing so.

just one exxample of a mistake that I corrected twice now without any sucess because it was chnaged repetedly,I completed my Phd in 1981, not 1988 and I can prove it without any difficulty

Is it the function of wikipedia to dissseminate false informtions and to express obviously partial points of view ?

Andrew Lee (entrepreneur)

Andrew Lee (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is about someone who claims to be the crown prince of Korea, following a nomination by Yi Seok, a pretender to the defunct Korean throne. No cited sources describe how exactly the subject is related to the House of Yi (more than just describing him as a "relative"), and the article did not claim any genealogical descent, only that the current pretender had designated him the crown prince.

An unsourced claim was added in Special:Diff/1033827729 that questioned the relationship between the subject and the former ruling house. After I removed this, George6VI, who had originally added the claim, disagreed that it was unsourced, and restored it. He wrote that "there is no source to prove that he genealogical is one" as justification for adding the claim questioning a genealogical link.

Lack of contradicting sources is not enough of a reason to support adding claims to a BLP. A claim has to be supported by sources that specifically support it. So I am removing the claim again per WP:BLPREMOVE.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What if the statement is rewritten to something like "his genealogy is uncertain in public sources", in a more neutral way? The most simple thing is, we don't know which Joseon king is exactly Andrew Lee's ancestor yet. There is no known public source to support that he is related to the royalty, and if only using the existing sources, some the references are already biased (I mean, they call him "King Yi Seok" while Korea is a republic for decades.) If not adding something like that, it would be like a propagation. Previously discussed in the article's talk page, there is already a consensus that his "crown prince" shouldn't be addressed in the beginning, as we did agree that this claim happened, but it doesn't mean it's neutral and accurate. - George6VI (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source would have to say that his genealogy is uncertain, for it to be mentioned. If sources are not specifically talking about his genealogy, then it is not even relevant. The House of Yi has been out of power for more than a century, and titles like "King" and "Crown Prince" are just labels used by media, so whether Andrew Lee is related to this family is of no actual relevance.
This is a single, short paragraph near the end of an article that otherwise does not mention anything about claimed royal titles. It is not propagation to report what multiple reliable sources (Korea IT Times, Los Angeles Times, South China Morning Post, The Daily Telegraph) are saying, when they are all saying the same thing. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that articles should "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Neutrality does not mean that unpublished views can be represented, especially in a BLP. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Makarand Paranjape

Makarand Paranjape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Want someone to look at this. There seems to be persistent low-level vandalism on this page from IPs, newly registered users, users with <5 contributions.

My edits, which were intended to clean up the article, and to conform the article to BLP and NPOV, are being reverted. The issues are:

  • In the introduction, the edits/reverts persistently add the fact that "he has been involved in a dispute with the institute". This fact has been covered in later paragraphs, and is getting undue and unacceptable emphasis in the introductory paragraph.
  • In the section on 'Politics', the content from the references are being misrepresented, or being given undue importance. For instance,
    • The article on the Nehru Gandhi family didn't mention anything about ousting Narendra Modi.
    • The article on Priyanka Gandhi doesn't 'pre-empt' her victory.
    • The 'right wing criticism' seems to constitute of a single article from another academic, and does not seem to be important enough to get a mention.
  • The section on 'Works' was expanded by me to include a summary of his work, but the persistent editors remove it, and replace it with a summary of one novel (Body Offering), to paint the person in a negative light.

Here's a diff, which illustrates the persistent changes. The changes are minor, but are inaccurate and persistent.

Please let me know if the edits conform to BLP and especially NPOV. Should I stop reverting the changes? Ranban282 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by (talk · contribs). Each claim has to be directly supported by the cited source without having to use original research to come to the conclusion, which was not satisfied here. There was nothing in the source about ousting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, nor about pre-empting election victories. The dispute with the institute and the Body Offering novel were being given undue weight. It is fine to include details of the 'right wing criticism' if it is sufficiently noteworthy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have directed the user to this thread so that they can defend their revisions here. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Grant Guilford

Grant Guilford is the head of Victoria University of Wellington. In the last couple of months the article has been significantly changed by a small group of editors who show no apparent interest in unrelated articles. The changes focus appear to focus entirely on content related to the performance of Victoria University of Wellington during his tenure. I have a minor COI here, so I won't comment on the quality of the changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Logan McCree

Hi, please could someone cast an eye over Logan McCree. ϢereSpielChequers 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For anyone else editing while at work: the article's subject is an adult-film actor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman

The church's website was recently spammed elsewhere leading me to find this stale userspace draft. Searches suggest the subject may pass NBIO, but the current sourcing is suboptimal. I thought I'd leave a note here in case anyone is interested to work on it and move it to draft or mainspace. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Hotez / contentious claim

Multiple violations of the biographies of living persons policy. This page should receive some kind of lock or slowdown to prevent further abuse.

Dr. Peter Hotez is a virologist, an expert on coronaviruses and tropical medicine. Someone has appended a long, contentious claim made by a writer against Hotez, including quotes from supposed lawyer's letter addressed to Dr. Hotez. Diff is here.

WP: IMPARTIAL -Section makes contentious claims about Hotez and rewords a legal response as a demanded action. Not remotely impartial, uses italics to accuse Hotez of deliberately engaging in contentious actions (which cannot be found other than on the journalist's personal blog). Basically, it reads like it was written by the journalist's lawyer or the journalist herself. -Quoted website has no direct links to claimed defamation on social media, but linked articles have comments critical of Hotez and other health professionals, and there are numerous blog posts on this personal site critical of Hotez and other health professionals (e.g. readers asking the writer to intervene in local disputes over coronavirus vaccines, mask policy, etc., "unscientific polls" of 2000 readers suggesting that "Dr. Anthony Fauci should be removed from positions of authority", comments by readers such as "Unleash the attorneys of defamation!").

WP:QS - Obvious conflict of interest.

WP:SPS,WP:ABOUTSELF - Website that is source of claim is self-published site about journalist who has made the legal claim. Material is self-serving, an exceptional claim (Godwin's Law applies in reverted text), involves claims about third party.

Dr. Hotez is almost as well known as Dr. Fauci and of great public interest currently. Can someone set the Hotez page up for WP:PCPP? Visitgoths (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Rick Dennison

Sources conflict regarding whether this person was recently fired. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS, we should wait to see what happens. I have added a hidden note to the page to hopefully deter editors from re-adding statements indicating that he was fired, but I won't be able to keep eyes on the article for a bit so I'd appreciate anyone else who wants to help patrol the article. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Pratt ‎

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert serious NPOV vios into Chris Pratt. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lists of religious converts - possibly widespread BLPvios

I'm still on wiki break but a dispute at WP:ANI has alerted me to the fact that we possibly have a problem in many of the lists at Category:Lists of religious converts. It seems possibly many of these are inadequately sourced. The source may mention a conversion 'to X'. However it fails to mention 'from A' or equivalent. Instead editors are inferring this from where they lived and/or their name and apparent ethnic identity or maybe slightly better but IMO still insufficient what religion their parents were etc and often without any of these being given in the sources used for the list articles.

Or better sometimes a source may exist for the person's prior religion but it isn't given in the list article (a very common problem with lists unfortunately). I don't know if we quite require self identification for 'from' like we do with 'to', I feel we should but others may disagree. But it seems to me we require at least the source to clearly say the person was A before conversion, rather than any editor inference i.e. OR.

I earlier came across this in disputes over converts from Hinduism which seems to be partly being cleared up but an WP:other stuff exists argument lead me to Muhammad Ali and Yusuf Islam at List of converts to Islam from Christianity. Muhammad Ali looks like it is fine, in any case no longer a BLP issue but Yusuf Islam the source does not seem to mention Christianity or a specific denomination anywhere. The fact that such a high profile example is insufficiently sourced makes me wonder how bad other ones are. To be clear I only checked the 'list of' article since the source needs to be there.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the type of thing that because so many conditions to be included need to be met shown through sources (what was their original religion and what did they convert to) that a category for that fails BLPCAT issues (which itself cautions about cats related to religious beliefs). List articles would be appropriate as long as each entry is sourced directly with the mention of the conversion. --Masem (t) 12:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The other problem is that we have religious nationalists edit warring to remove entries from converts from their preferred religion, and vice-versa. So you get edits like "per BLP" which removed three entries, all of whom are dead, two of them for centuries. I found sources for the latter two relatively easily (indeed the article for one is literally full of them) and have re-added them. I'm having more trouble on the first but it certainly isn't a BLP issue. There's a similar war going on at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism - I haven't looked deeply at this one but of the list that is being continually removed, I looked at one entry - Dipika Kakar, a living person, and the source provided was an actual interview with the subject about her conversion - so no problem at all. Some may be an issue, but this mass reverting is a problem and we may need to look at some partial blocks for certain editors whilst someone neutral goes through them. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)