This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
Since the ANI thread went stale with no action - in part because the users concerned acknowledged but refused to contribute - the issues of edit warring will have to be directly addressed at the article talk page. A primary issue is that BIO, BLP, and RD content require certain standards and a combination of poor sourcing and unexplained edit warring is not conducive to these topics. Another concern was that this article was averaging over 100,000 hits *per day* at the time. That's a lot of messy that too many of Wikipedia's readers were seeing. I would like to ask @ZanderAlbatraz1145: and @Religião, Política e Futebol: to respond to acknowledge that they are aware of BLP-contentious, including specifically the above-usual expectation to refrain from edit warring, the higher barrier for sourcing requirements, and that they are not exempt from discussion just because they think they're right and/or don't understand inclusion policy. I would also invite Religião specifically to start a discussion on this talkpage if they still wish to add further information on non-notable relatives. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the relatives were already mentioned in the article, adding some initials and the names of the siblings is something other articles also have. You're simply being picky about things. Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main question is actually do you understand that, regardless of the content, repeatedly making the same edit to BLP-contentious information and indicat[ing] that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly (revert reason "no need it should be first discussed") constitutes WP:Edit warring - and will you try to avoid this in future by using talkpages for discussion.
If you think your opinion on the matter is so objective, you'll have no problem convincing users of it when you argue for inclusion in a talkpage discussion. Look, not wanting to have/bother with talkpage discussion usually comes from one of two thought processes, I know, I've been (and sometimes still am) that guy. A user either thinks their view is so obvious that it doesn't need more explaining and anyone who disagrees is a troll or tendentious, or they believe they're right but aren't sure how to express that sufficiently and so don't want to try rather than not be able to and 'lose' the argument. In both cases, discussion is helpful to everyone: passing your general knowledge onto editors who may be unfamiliar with the topic, using open-minded debate to learn how to explain your reasoning, and overall being considerate to other practices WRT presenting information.
As for the actual content, you should, if you wish, start a separate section to discuss. But let's be clear, Religião, your user talkpage shows a history of disregard for BLP-contentious and BLP inclusion guidelines, because you are steadfast in your own opinions, and I don't know what articles you're looking at to think that such extensive information is anywhere near regularly included, and certainly not when sourced to non-notability-establishing poor and user-generated sources. You may not have been the first person to add the information on 29 December, though you were quick to add the same content back, but that is no reason to go into such detail when there is no evidence of individual notability or relevance to the article subject's career. This is to say, if you start a new section, use policy reasoning, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
