Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

---

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

Additional notes:

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

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Christian Dorsey

I would like to get other opinions on this article. Members of local county boards in Virginia typically only have local new coverage and are rarely notable beyond the local news. The only thing providing arguable notability in this case is the information in the controversies section. That section is well sourced, but overshadows the rest of the article in content and sourcing. Between the borderline notability claim and the focus on negative content, I think this page is a BLP problem. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So is your question best answered from policy at WP:BLP or at WP:AFD/WP:BEFORE? At first glance, it looks like a BLP concern because the article is a BLP. But my read of your post is that it's probably up to you to decide whether to walk through AfD. We can't/won't pre-AfD it here. This topic wasn't talk paged other than a notice about this thread. Maybe either WP:BEBOLD and AfD in good faith or clean up the article. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI your concerns look valid to me. It's also an unflattering WP:BLP1E about a controversy. I'll watch in case anyone chooses to move this discussion to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback JFHJr - I kept going back and forth on how to proceed. I came to the page with hopes of improving it, but after reading it, I honestly debated whether it qualified for G10. I (mostly) rejected that and was in the process of nominating it for AFD, before I thought I would raise it here. I should have started on the article talk, but the creator is blocked and there aren't any active editors. So, I didn't anticipate any response there. I'll take a harder look at filling it out or pulling the trigger on AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo Hand (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This is really a strange article. The lead does not even mention that he is a member of the Arlington County Board, and neither does the career section, which describes his previous job. There is no description of the elections he won, his opponents, his vote counts or the work he has done on the board. The "controversies" section gives undue weight to these financial matters and is overly detailed in comparison to the rest of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the "controversies" material was all added by this now host-blocked account. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I added a bit of RS-backed info and copy edited. The source doesn't offer details. @NatGertler did lots of cleanup before that. The body to which he was elected appears not to be notable itself and it took me a moment to find the subsection discussing it in part (ahem, @Mojo Hand). JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

JFHJr, I am pretty confident the Arlington County Board is notable. It is just that no one has gotten around to writing an article about it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the board itself is notable, but I doubt many members of the board are individually notable. When I first came across this article, it looked to me like a political "hit piece" involving minor controversies about a minor local politician. After looking though the history, it clearly didn't start out that way, as he wasn't even on the board when the article was started. However, I remain concerned that it essentially turned into a political attack page. I still doubt there would be a good argument for notability beyond the controversies, which strike me as routine reporting on local elections. Even the Washington Post is often considered a local paper for Northern Virginia local politics. It is a strange article that sits right at an uncomfortable intersection between notability and BLP.-Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The article editing has stabilized and the product of WP:CONSENSUS is essentially a biography about a local-government level disgrace. There's little to no independent, reliable WP:SIGCOV about the biographical basics of this subject. While I can't say this is an attack page (anymore), I remain unsure of this article's encyclopedic value. Any other editors with better (subscription) access than me to certain research tools may be helpful here. JFHJr (㊟) 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue is sufficiently mitigated - thank you. Notability is still borderline, but I personally think it probably squeaks--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) by.

Salah Choudhury

This BLP of a Bangladeshi journalist has recently been rewritten into an attack piece undermining the journalist's credibility and portraying him as some kind of criminal. I've already pointed out on the talk page that some of the sources used are partisan or don't fulfill the criteria for reliable sources. Note that the journalist in question has been the target of vituperative campaigns to vilify him both in this native country and here on Wikipedia. He has also been the target of physical assaults. This is a subject that demands utmost sensitivity with regard to BLP and NPOV issues and both principles have been trampled on here.Mohivela (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Can the article be reverted to its previous content form, before it became an attack piece? Metokpema (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Notwally has reverted to a previous version and made other improvements. Thanks, Notwally! I'll also watch for a while. JFHJr (㊟) 00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Mohivela, Metokpema, and JFHJr, my edits were reverted by Ratnahastin, including both the removal of unsourced content as well as copyright violations. I reverted the restoration of the disputed material and continued the discussion on the article's talk page that was originally started by Mohivela. I would encourage other editors to look at the material and also comment there. – notwally (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. Only the important content is being restored which does not violate any policy. Orientls (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding into an article that someone "has posted disinformation on various occasions" and "is noted for spreading disinformation" while citing an opinion article [1] and an unsigned editorial [2] (on a website that looks more like a blog than a newsite as well) is definitely a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Becoming low-profile

If possible, I am hoping for editor input on how a subject could become low-profile in regards to the article 'Louise Glover'.

The subject of this article has recently been deemed as high-profile due to recent media coverage. But, hypothetically speaking, would it be possible for them to become low-profile if they no longer spoke to the media or engaged in any high profile activities?

And, if they were low-profile, would this justify a more cautious approach to any information on their page that could cause undue harm and damange their reputation?

Ideally, any input on this should be directed to the article's talk page under the recent December 2024 discussions heading, so as to avoid fragmentation. Svenska356 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no such thing as 'low' or 'high' profile articles here. Somebody is either notable or they are not. GiantSnowman 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is about WP:PUBLICFIGURE and Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. There are different thresholds for inclusion depending on if someone is a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. According that essay, someone who is 'low' profile has not sought out public attention. That appears to be the opposite of what Ms Glover has done... GiantSnowman 13:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Svenska is wondering what it takes for someone to become no longer high profile. When someone who was a public figure steps back from public life at what point do we no longer treat them as a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Years rather than months, surely? GiantSnowman 13:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Likely never... Its not really a concept that expires... Once a public figure always a public figure in the same way that once notable always notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

People can stop being public figures, at least more minor ones. It takes a while and they have to avoid all publicity though. – notwally (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to matter for out purposes, as far as wikipedia is concerned once a public figure always a public figure (although of course there could be individual exceptions as with anything). If you promoted yourself at 21 it still counts at 101, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. The only exception I would personally support would be those who became public figures before they were adults and as adults have not engaged in self promotion or related activities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

What happened while they were a public figure can't be changed, but if they clearly draw themselves away from the public for several years, and the only bit of news that comes out from that period is some minor legal scuffle with iffy coverage, PUBLICFIGURE wouldn't apply at that point. Masem (t) 17:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That part doesn't actually seem to be written dowm anywhere or how its been applied in practice. For example the Media attention explantion "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well." places no limit on when the interviews occured. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's not written explicitly but I read it as a part ofBLP's goal to respect privacy of individuals, and if a once public figure has taken active steps to withdraw, bursts of weakly sourced coverage about them for a minor faux pas is a privacy issue. Further, that level of detail is inappropriate for being an encyclopedia in general; bio pages should be trying to document every mention of a person's life that shows up in RSes. Masem (t) 17:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

We agree on that, we just seem to disagree on timeline... For example if someone promoted themselves in a commercial sense then IMO they're a high profile individual at least until they retire. I also assume that we agree that exceptions to the rule would be most due in the case of people who became high profile individuals as children but then did not seek attention as adults. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There are two issues at play here. One is how to judge when someone, once in the spotlight, has done enough to purposely withdraw from that, and that I don't believe is clear cut, only that we should give the benefit of doubt. The other factor is the community's obsessiveness with detailed, on the spot coverage of any BLP, regardless of public Ness or not. An example I recall was a b list actor that got into a DUI and was ticketed. Reported on all the gossip papers as well as some trades, but it didn't affect his life at all beyond that. That was ultimately removed because it wasn't a critical part of this person's life; that is also a factor to weigh. We are not required to include every verifiable detail, and should opt to avoid when it is around small, non impactful details as to support respect for privacy of a BLP. Masem (t) 18:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

They seem seperate to me... Both are part of the notability assesment process but I wouln't link them too closely. Overall though it seems like a moot point in this context because the figure in question is still promoting themselves publically. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Masem Agreed. Upon reflection, I still have reservations about the inclusion of the criminal convictions. Clearly, the subject is notable. But, I am not sure that the subject is high-profile enough to warrant their inclusion. As I said previously, if the subject's high-profile status is up for debate and the overall consensus favours it, I would personally err on the side of caution and opt for removal per WP: NOTPUBLICFIGURE. There is no limit placed on when the interviews occurred, but WP: LOWPROFILE still specifies that a subject can become low-profile even after having engaged in high-profile activities. Svenska356 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The subject currently has a promotional website, the subject is clearly not LOWPROFILE even if we disagree on what point in the future they could become so if for example they stopped promoting themselves publicly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I agree that the subject may not be low-profile. But I see it as a borderline case. They are clearly less high-profile than in the past. As @Masem said though, it isn't clear cut, and I think that some care still should be taken towards what is included, especially when it could cause undue harm and isn't a key part of the subject's life. Svenska356 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If the subject has a live promotional website then its not a border case, thats a clear cut public figure... What appears to be borderline is whether or not the subject is actually notable. Keep in mind that they're not necessarily dependent, a non-public figure can still be notable and a public figure can still be non-notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I had previously assumed that the subject was notable. But, now you mention it, I can see how it could be borderline. In that case, does the article even need to exist? Or, at the very least, wouldn't it be excessive to include information unrelated to the subject's notability, if that very notability is in doubt? Svenska356 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have an agenda, I'm not interested in collaborating with you on this. This will be my last comment on the matter. Have a nice day and I apologize if this is an unpleasant experience for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I declared on my talk page that I have a COI, in regard to having been asked by the subject through social media to help remove harmful information from this article. But, my intention was only ever for it to be modified to better conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I apologise for omitting the fact that I had a COI when I made this post on this project page. I don't support deletion, I only supported the removal of the subject's convictions for harm and balancing reasons. But, if the general consensus is to keep them, then that I accept the outcome. I don't want to flog a dead horse to no end per WP: DROPTHESTICK. Svenska356 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think once one becomes a public figure, it is hard to put that genie in the bottle unless they have years out of the public eye, its not something you can automatically do.

However, keep in mind BLP is meant to respect the privacy of all individuals. And looking at that last article and the part that is sourced to the Sun (even if through other more RSes), that's exactly the type of nonsense info that we'd not want regardless of PUBLICFIGURE or not with that tabloid sourcing. Masem (t) 13:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Masem@ScottishFinnishRadish@GiantSnowman I agree that the tabloid sourcing from the sun is less reliable. The issue I have with the article is indeed that it does not necessarily respect the subject's privacy in regard to their personal life and the matters unrelated to their original reason for notability. In addition, the subject has mostly been out of the public eye for the past 10 years or so, with their recent interview from the sun being a one off rather than a maintained pattern of high profile activity. So, on the balance of things, I feel that the article may be causing undue harm to someone who is no longer really in the public eye. Svenska356 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed the tent content because it originated in an unreliable source The Sun and regurgitation by other media outlets does not change that fact. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328Thank you. Also, what are you thoughts on the paragraph detailing the subject's crinimal convictions? It is more reliably sourced. However, I have harm and balancing concerns regarding their inclusion, as the subject appears to be a lot less high-profile than in the past. Svenska356 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

When a notable non-public person has been convicted of a crime there is not a BLP restriction on including that in their article so I'd say that the criminal convictions can stay in the article but should be brief and clear. At article talk I mentioned a format of "on date she was convicted of crime for doing act" and then get out. It's relevant content about her life. But we don't need to dwell on it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That is sorta against PUBLICFIGURE, but it raises the question if someone who was once very visible but has pulled back is truly still a public figure. I would argue that since BLP favors privacy over inclusion that even in this case we'd likely not include it if it lacks broad reporting. It verges on gossip mongering. — Masem (t) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the convictions should be excluded if the subject is no longer a public figure. Per WP: NOTPUBLICFIGURE, extra care should be taken not to include material that could cause undue harm and infringe upon the subject's right to privacy. The sources that do link to the convictions are both archived and the original article for one of them was taken down. I am not sure that the convictions are widely reported enough to justify their inclusion, especially in light of the subject no longer being a public figure. Svenska356 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the part about the criminal convictions can be trimmed to be more concise. I disagree that she is no longer a public figure. This very recent article in the St Helens Star shows that she is still seeking public attention. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Masem I think this may get back to some of my frustrations about how PUBLICFIGURE is worded and the ambiguity it causes around crimes specifically. I have no strong dog in this race and do concur that we should respect BLP privacy wherever possible so, in light of that I'll retract my former comment and concur to remove in light of your guidance. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You aren't wrong that we need to be a bit more specific on PUBLICFIGURE; many current problems extend from an unhealthy obsession by editors overall to include any detail, no matter how trivial, in part that we have verved very far off what NOTNEWS says, and becomes worse when BLP gets involved, coupled with large scale resentment towards certain persons and groups at this current time that can make some articles look like hit pieces though editors will justify that it's all reliably sourced. Masem (t) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Amen. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Even for someone that is a public figure beyond question of a doubt, a small tone controversy or arrest or similar that gets minimal coverage in RSes and not discussed further years after that us likely, sonething we shouldn't include. I know that with the current attitudes that want to rush to include every breaking detail that stuff like this gets added but we should be far more selective with BLP involved. We are meant to be summarizing, not detailing. — Masem (t) 19:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and WP:DUE means that more minor stuff with no legs from a news sense shouldn't even be considered for inclusion in an article anyway. We're meant to summarise the zeniths and nadirs of a subject, not crawl all over them with a nit-comb and report every sordid detail about how, that one time at band camp, they stepped on a ladybird on accident. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of the previous comments but I do not agree with comparing two criminal convictions for assault as an adult as equivalent to accidentally stepping on a ladybird (ladybug in American English) as a child. Let's trim it back but not eliminate it. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 - WP:DAILYMIRROR shouldn't be used in a BLP at all, which only leaves The Argus, a local newspaper with a circulation of around ~3600. If these incidents didn't receive better coverage than a local newspaper, I would eliminate it altogether. BLP is pretty clear on this - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We should be using multiple high-quality sources in a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed the assault matter to a single sentence and removed the Daily Mirror source. The Argus source was a reprint of a BBC article, so I removed it and added references to the BBC, The Independent and 9News in Australia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, much better, thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I agree that it is a big improvement, thank you. In addition to this though, what do you think about the paragraph concerning the subject's benefit fraud conviction? It is under the career section. It was previously kept in because the conviction is supposedly linked to their career, but even so I believe that it goes into far too much detail. Svenska356 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 In regard to the assault convictions though, the general consensus still seems to favour total removal. Based on that and the arguments above, I believe that one sentence about them may still be excessive. Even if the subject is high-profile, I see it as quite borderline. So, on the balance of things, I am in favour of total removal in order to respect the subject's privacy and prevent any undue harm from being caused. Given that the subject is no longer as high-profile as in the past, I would personally err on the side of caution and not include the convictions per WP: NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Svenska356 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose total removal, one sentence with the improved sourcing is DUE for inclusion. And I don't think NOTPUBLICFIGURE really applies either, in addition to the source Cullen328 posted above, if you look at her social media accounts, she has been posting pretty regular since this past summer, with the most recent in November, and she has a combined following of roughly 1.5 million people. So it doesn't look like to me she is actively trying to stay under the radar. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The continued assertions that Louise Glover should be considered a low profile person are false and misleading. She maintains a promotional website, LouiseGlover.com, which has glamour photos of her in swimsuits and lingerie, and where she describes herself as "Louise Glover - Professional Model, Fitness competitor and Nutritionist". She has an Instagram page where she describes herself as a "Professional Model 20yrs • Freelance TV Presenter • Wellness Fitness Coach", and has 111,000 followers. She has a Facebook page where she describes herself as a "Public figure" and a "Professional Model 20 years, Sports TV presenter, Travel Influencer, Fitness coach in Windsor" and has 1.3 million followers. Her Facebook page shows her modeling in London, Ascot, Dubai and Sri Lanka in 2024. There are 263 photos of her for sale on Getty Images. She was interviewed for nine minutes by GB News in October, 2024, which she promoted to her Facebook followers. She was interviewed at great length by the St Helen Star in October, 2024, which she promoted to her Facebook followers. So, the original question was how a subject could become low-profile? The answer is to close her website, close her Instagram account, stop giving interviews, stop describing herself as an influencer, stop engaging in reputation management, make her Facebook page private for only her closest family and real world friends, and wait multiple years. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I understand your point. In this case, I am happy to compromise with regards to the criminal convictions. When, you put it like that, I can understand why the subject appears to be a high-profile figure. As a closing question though, if the subject did do all the things you listed above and maintained it over many years, would that then justify the convictions being removed per BLP: NOTPUBLICFIGURE? Svenska356 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a question that should be discussed in many years, not now, Svenska356. When you say I am happy to compromise, that implies that you consider yourself an agent representing Glover's interests rather than a neutral editor here to improve Wikipedia. I notice that over 90% of your edits have to do with Glover in one way or another since establishing your account in early October. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and ponder whether you are here on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia or instead here to whitewash Louise Glover's shocking crime. This is not a negotiation with you being granted the power to "compromise" on Glover's behalf. By no means. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Poor choice of words. What I mean is I accept your point, and I agree that your decision is the correct one. I am not an agent, perse. I don't represent the subject in any official way. I was just asked by the subject to help remove some of the negative information from their Wikipedia page. I declared COI on my talk page in regard to this. I do intend to use this account to edit other unrelated articles. Svenska356 (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional input requested

Please see Talk:Loudoun County Public Schools#Private figure conviction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Gave my input there. Mostly a side-note, but I find naming the discussion section about including a name or not, the actual name of the person in question, especially in such a context, very poor form on the part of the initiator of the discussion. Choucas Bleu^talk_contribs 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not great, but it's on a talk page and is sourced so I didn't inflame things further by redacting it. I have no objection if someone else cares to redact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I figured yeah, that was also my reasoning. I will leave it for now, but if there is consensus against including the name, I will redact it afterwards. Choucas Bleu^talk_contribs 14:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. I modified SFR's OP comment to reflect that I have retitled the talk page section. I also commented there. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Jigme Singye Wangchuck

A new editor, Dorjinidup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appeared on this article yesterday to add flowery language like "the visionary King", and overwriting the exiting (seemingly accurate, sourced but negative) material. I have reverted twice, but the hagiography has been added back each time and I'm not prepared to revert for a third time. The material they're adding was previously unsourced; they are now adding sources: blogs and puff pieces. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

moved on behalf of the IP editor from the talkpage, as this page is semi-protected Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with the IP editor's objections, and have reinstated their previous edit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

copied from user talk:caeciliusinhorto#Jigme Singye Wangchuck as the IP is unable to edit through semi-protection (nor is Dorjinidup, incidentally) 20:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In this edit Dorjinidup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is getting there about what we would want from an edit to a BLP: it's sourced (albeit still not neutrally) and is even maybe useful... but it's still highly biased language (down to using "He" with a capital letter for the pronoun) and again has overwritten what appears to be accurate, sourced, but negative, information. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Maggie Cheung

• Maggie Cheung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm looking for some additional eyes on a budding edit-war around an edit to the personal life section. This edit [3] is adding some fairly trivial and tabloidish details about Cheung's dating life with some details that I feel are way into tabloid range ("stealing her boyfriend") and in general don't belong for WP:BLPGOSSIP reasons. I've invited them to discuss on the talk page but their revert comments aren't encouraging. Some additional eyes and thoughts would be appreciated. The other editor claims that "all sourced in the end, none tabloid". and while there are three existing sources in the section, I'm questioning if they actually support what's being added. The sources are all in Chinese, so using google translate didn't turn up what I would consider support for the edits. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike this type of "list of boyfriends/girlfriends" type of content, but it is commonplace in celebrity biographies. The main issues, as I see it, are whether the English Wikipedia prose is an accurate summary of the source's Chinese prose, and whether or not China News Service, which is operated by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, is a reliable source for this type of material. Our article about this press agency describes some indicators of unreliability that concern me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging in an edit war or indulging in outdated, prudish, or fan-like narratives about celebrities. However, claiming that Maggie Cheung’s personal life is an unconstructive or irrelevant addition is simply incorrect. Her love life is essential to both her identity and public image (Ever wonder why she left Hong Kong and showbiz altogether?). Dismissing its relevance demonstrates a lack of insight into her or pop culture in general.

Furthermore, what is presented here are widely reported, verifiable facts—not unsubstantiated gossip. And even if it were gossip, that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. Her relationship with Sung may conceal her first marriage, as claimed by some sources. Her long-rumored relationship with Tony Leung is integral not only to the enduring legacy of In the Mood for Love but also to the folklore and cultural imagination of Hong Kong cinema. But these are duly omitted for being “gossip.”

Regarding the claim that “the sources are all in Chinese, so using Google Translate didn’t turn up what I would consider support for the edits,” it is either unfortunately misguided or absurdly Western-centric to dismiss Chinese sources on Maggie Cheung simply due to a lack of literacy in Chinese, the primary language for information about her. These sources are more reliable than Google Translate.

Finally, regarding the good-faith reply, it is worth reminding the fact that China does not have independent media; all outlets are state-owned and party-controlled. However, it is a stretch to suggest that the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party would interfere with the China News Service (largely repeating HK media anyway) over their reporting on Maggie Cheung’s boyfriends. Enrico Chou (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Enrico Chou, I am not suggesting that their reporting on a celebrity's boyfriends is affected by directives from the Central Committee, but that is not the point. Use only of reliable sources for "everything" is an important principle on Wikipedia. The New York Daily News is an unreliable source, but they are not known for lying about which team won a baseball championship yesterday. The Daily Mail is an unreliable source but they are not known for lying about which team won yesterday's cricket championship. But actual reliable sources also report on these championships, and so the reliable sources should be used instead of the unreliable ones. If something is reported only by unreliable sources, then that thing does not belong on Wikipedia. So, the boyfriend content, if it is to stay, should be referenced to sources that we can agree through consensus are reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources cited are China Central Television, China News Service, and Global People magazine, which is affiliated with People’s Daily. None of these sources are comparable to New York Daily News or Daily Mail. Aside the party line, their Western counterparts would be CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times Magazine. Enrico Chou (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brianna_Wu#Edit_request

I'm inviting editors with knowledge about WP:BLP and WP:RS to evaluate the inclusion of some information by this PinkNews article [4] on Brianna Wu (a very contentious article that has been fully protected since 2023). The discussion is taking place at Talk:Brianna_Wu#Edit_request, please prefer to comment there instead of here. Badbluebus (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's due inclusion. Yes. The source it is derived from is reliable. Suggest maybe notifying the Fringe theory noticeboard since WP:FRINGE is being (improperly) raised at article talk there. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Mike Nifong

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

The article for Mike Nifong, who is a living person, begins with: "Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is an American former attorney and convicted criminal." I have a concern that describing him as a "convicted criminal" in the lede of his article in inconsistent with WP:BLP to the extent that it is a little misleading and runs afoul of WP:LABEL for the reasons I'll now explain. The basis for this characterization is that after being disbarred for his misconduct in prosecuting the Duke lacrosse rape case, Mike Nifong was found in criminal contempt of court (this too was based on his misconduct in the Duke lacrosse rape case) and served a day in jail. Someone who has been found in contempt of court is a pretty non-central example of what is usually understood by the label "convicted criminal," and contempt of court (even criminal contempt of court) is a pretty non-central example of a "crime." In North Carolina where this finding and sentence were imposed, criminal contempt of court is considered a sui generis offense. It is neither misdemeanor nor felony and has no sentencing guidelines. Because contempt of court is kind of a strange legal creature, it also doesn't afford the defendant certain rights (like jury trial) that are afforded for other, more central, crimes. I think the article would be improved by removing this label from the lede. His brief imprisonment is mentioned in the very next sentence, and all of the information about the contempt finding in the body of the article is correct and well-presented. Apologies if this report or suggestion is irregular or unwanted. I don't edit very frequently so I'm sure there are important aspects of the situation that I don't understand. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I am from the same area of NC and practice the same profession. I agree it's arguably WP:UNDUE for the lede. Normally this would be, for any other subject. Because this disbarred attorney is actually notable centrally for his professional and legal disgrace, and because his criminal contempt of court conviction is unusual to say the least for similarly situated attorneys (officers of the court), I'm a bit loath to remove it myself. Usually, we try this kind of in-depth discussion on the talk page of the article before escalating here. Please WP:BEBOLD in this situation and talk page your edits. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It feels odd to call someone a convicted criminal for a contempt charge. Maybe describe him as a disbarred attorney, not as just a former attorney? Or a combination of the two in the first sentence? Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I find that to be a fair position. Thank you, Ravensfire. I'd go so far as to say disgraced. I'll still leave it up to talk page consensus or anyone else who wants to make such an edit. JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@JFHJr @Ravensfire @Starke Hathaway: FYI, there is now MOS guidance on this as of a few months ago, MOS:CRIMINAL. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

People usually use "convicted criminal" or just "criminal" if the actual crime in question does not make the person look bad enough for their liking. The only time phrasing like that should be used is if, say, someone is notable for a particularly large and odd range of crimes - and even then there's probably something better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The National Science Institute

• The National Science Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of § Federal raid and aftermath here violated WP:BLPPRIMARY, except for part that was sourced to an unrelated Russian journal article. It should be easy enough to restore with secondary sources, but I don't have the time at the moment, so per BLPSOURCES I have simply removed. Thought I'd drop this here if anyone is interested in salvaging what I slashed; the case has been getting attention the past few months due to a video by one of the people convicted in the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Antonio Monda

 Courtesy link: Antonio Monda

What is our attitude towards a BLP that appears to be uncontentious (I haven't read it all), but lacks even a single WP:SECONDARY source? This is the case with Antonio Monda, with four primary refs (all interviews or based on them) and no secondary sources. This would never pass Afc if submitted today, but was begun in 2007; does that somehow grandfather in the lack of required sourcing? This issue was first raised at the Teahouse by 69.181.17.113 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely preferable for an article to have reliable secondary sources in addition to primary ones. It may not conform to WP: Primary in its current state. Even if it is uncontentious, I believe that more sources need to be added to this article, including high quality secondary sources. There is too much information that is uncited. Svenska356 (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME & international criminal law

Do categories like Category:Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court, Category:Fugitives wanted on war crimes charges, & Category:Fugitives wanted on crimes against humanity charges break WP:BLPCRIME?

This issue was first brought up by @AndreJustAndre at Talk:Yoav Gallant#WP:BLPCRIME, but as it calls into question the validity of such categories as a whole, I thought it best to ask how/if WP:BLPCRIME interacts with international criminal law.

_{Moved here by request of @Simonm223.} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Gallant is definitely a PUBLICFIGURE and we should neutrally document what sources say, but categories like "fugitive" and "war criminal" don't seem adequately attested in sources to be a category, which should be a defining characteristic. And you did leave out the "war criminal" category in your question. Andre🚐 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I hadn't asked about "war criminal" as I agreed with your removal of it & that no one reinstated it later. I only asked about categories that are currently still on the page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Gallant is certainly a public figure. "War Criminal" is, unfortunately, the domain of WP:CRYSTALBALL but fugitive from the ICC is accurate and reflected in many reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we have these categories, as someone who edits a lot about crime. How defining are the individual stages of the criminal process vs the crime itself? Fugitive/charged/convicted/acquitted of category trees have always annoyed me for this reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

might be a case of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION but dont know much about categories Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think these are BLP violations under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which says "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." The word "fugitive" would mean that these people are still living and are accused of a crime but have not been convicted. There was recently a similar discussion on this noticeboard [5] and there is an ongoing CfD that was relisted today for further discussion [6]. – notwally (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That was roughly what I had in mind from the removal. Thanks for stating it more eloquently and with proper links supporting. Andre🚐 00:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Gallant has been charged. I think (but I'm not sure) that he would only be charged once arrested. In any case, a more bland category name that is 100% true and relevant to notability would be something like "Persons subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant". If such a category existed, I can't think of any reason to not include him. Zero^talk 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would that not also fail the provision in BLPCRIME mentioned above? It's related to crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, how is this arrest warrant relevant to his notability? Isn't he notable fully without that fact for several other things? Regardless of what happens with his status as having had a warrant issued, he was notable fully as an Israeli military man, politician and minister, and I don't see the warrant is a relevant thing to his notability but simply a recent news fact that involves him. Unless "relevant to notability" is intended to mean anything that might be part of his biography, if it were written today, this would occupy a small portion of it, right? Andre🚐 02:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

People can be notable for multiple reasons. Of course he was already notable enough for an article, but now he is a bit more notable. BLPCRIME doesn't exclude it, since he is a public figure and the name I suggested does not say that he committed a crime. It only states an objective fact. An ICC warrant puts him in a very exclusive club and I don't see why there shouldn't be a category for that club. We don't omit scientists from the Nobel Prize winners category if they were already famous before winning the prize. Zero^talk 04:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, but the existing "fugitive" categories being discussed, unlike winning a Nobel Prize, are subcategories of "Category:People associated with crime." and of "Category:Suspected criminals," and "Category:Fugitives" is a subcategory of "Criminals by status" which indeed is under "Criminals." Now, the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories. It would seem to say though that these fugitive categories on this basis should not be included. Andre🚐 04:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A "convicted fugitives" category would presumably be fine under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, but not any categories that contain living people and allege criminal conduct without a conviction. – notwally (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Fugitive does not inherently allege criminal conduct without a conviction. A "convicted fugitives" category would just be confusing and largely oxymoronic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories aside we also have List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. The title seems sorta odd since it includes people like Febri Irwansyah Djatmiko who's location seems to have been known even when they were fugitives and who might still be somewhat easily findable but are protected by the lack of an extradition treaty between where they are and the jurisdiction seeking them. Heck I just noticed it even includes Abu Mohammad al-Julani who recently isn't exactly low profile, and who even did a CNN interview. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to contend that this is a BLP violation then we should be consistent. Is Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations a BLP violation? It's got lots of controversial categories for what is technically an article about unproven accusations against a BLP. Example [[Category:Sexual abuse cover-ups]], [[Category:Sex trafficking]] and [[Category:Rape in the United States]] I would suggest a famous politician who is one of the leaders of his country is at least as much a public person as a music producer. I would likewise suggest that accusations of war crimes are even more severe than accusations of systematic sexual assault. So what is the consistent Wikipedia policy here? Should we be deleting the Sean Combs article as a BLP violation? Should we be deleting categories that, while accurate, might lead people to believe a person subject to unproven crminal accusations is guilty? Or should we also maintain the "accusation" categories on Gallant? Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd favor removing the categories from the Sean Combs article. Nobody is advocating deleting either article. Andre🚐 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing the categories from the article. Covering alleged crimes by living people is permissible in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL puts an absolute bar on those types of categories being used. – notwally (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So wouldn't the WP:BOLD action be to delete all "accused of" categories? Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like just removing the "accused of" categories from Gallant while leaving them established is inviting a double-standard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that BLPCRIME wise its kosher because saying someone is a fugitive from justice is different than saying they're guilty... The war criminal category though should be reserved for those with a conviction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The "fugitive" categories are a subcategory of Category:Criminals (because they are by definition alleging criminal conduct), and therefore should not contain any living people pursuant to WP:BLPCRIMINAL. The requirements at WP:BLPCRIME are separate considerations for content in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL has an absolute bar on the use of categories in these circumstances. – notwally (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Then remove Category:Criminals... You're literally proposing the opposite of what we're supposed to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So, yeah, I mean, we could recategorize the fugitive categories to not be under "Criminals" and maybe we should do that anyway. I confess I do not know if this requires some kind of requested move process or is a bold type of move. However, while we could look into that anyway, or Puffy or whatnot (Wikipedia doesn't demand that Puffy be treated the same as Gallant, and I don't have much interest in editing him, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing that and maybe someone should), I think keeping the "fugitives" category on the Gallant page is counter to the spirit of BLP even if we make it policy-abiding by divorcing it from the "criminal" tree. Categories are supposed to be accurate and neutral. A certain POV is that Israel isn't a signatory to the ICC and didn't sign the Rome Statute, AFAIK, and while CAIR is calling Yoav Gallant a fugitive and war criminal, that doesn't seem to be the most accurate or common description in reliable sources, and might not be a neutral description of the situation. It's also misleading under the plain meaning of "fugitive" which would imply that he's fleeing justice, as opposed to simply not being extradited by his own government, or I guess, just showing up somewhere that would arrest him, both of which seem pretty unlikely to occur. But a naive reader could assume that means he was convicted of a crime or is somehow on the lam. Andre🚐 04:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added Category:Legal procedure. You're supposed to voluntarily surrender to the court. Someone who doesn't turn themselves in to the court is a fugitive from justice, that is within the plain meaning of the term. Gallant is "on the lam from the law" (you would have to be incredibly naive to believe otherwise). Note that this isn't an endorsement of the court or a particular form of justice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it is currently under Category:Criminals, that doesn't matter because it is still includes allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction. The point of our BLP rules regarding categorizing criminal conduct is to protect the privacy interests of individuals by avoiding categories that allege criminal conduct prior to conviction because the categories are unable to provide context or nuance that can be provided in main article space. Changing the top-level category doesn't avoid the BLP violation. Either the policy needs to be changed or the category needs to be deleted. – notwally (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is allowed to include allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction, that isn't a BLP violation. What it can't do is treat them as something other than allegations. A fugitive is not a criminal, saying that someone is a fugitive isn't saying that they are a criminal... Its saying that a courts has ordered them to appear and they have declined to appear... It doesn't actually say anything about their guilt or innocence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Fugitive means they are charged with or convicted of criminal conduct. So it is a BLP violation if they are included in that type of category prior to conviction. Also, some fugitives have definitely been convicted, there's literally a whole TV series and film about one. Trying to change categories to avoid the explicit BLP policy is just gaming the system. – notwally (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation... And if they are convicted then again no BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that "Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation" is not true, which is why WP:BLPCRIME exists, as sometimes that will be a BLP violation in main article space depending on the circumstances. As for categories, including any categories that involve being charged with a crime without a conviction are BLP violations. That is why WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPCRIMINAL exist. No one has ever said here that a category about criminal conduct after a conviction is a BLP violation, so not sure what that red herring is about. You are the one who said that "convicted fugitive" is oxymoronic, apparently not understanding what those terms mean. – notwally (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A fugitive does not mean criminal though. It doesn't even necessarily imply guilt as a fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed or because they refuse to give testimony, even if they aren't a suspect. In this context, fugitive only means that they've been accused of a crime & have yet to've faced a trial, not that they're a criminal.

A "convicted fugitive" then would be someone who was first convicted of a crime & then went on the run/avoided the result of said conviction, otherwise they couldn't have been convicted yet.

WP:BLPCRIME states "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction." which doesn't contradict "Including information about being charged with a crime" as long as we aren't stating that they are guilty of said crime.

Further considerations only apply when concerning non-public figures.

This is just my reading of the policy though & why I brought the case here to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed Famously so, in fact. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The more directly relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIMINAL (not WP:BLPCRIME, which is a relevant but separate policy). Any category under Category:Criminals should not be applied to living people who have not yet been convicted. A category such as "fugitives" is going to be under the "suspected criminals" subcategory (or convicted criminals category, such as for Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive TV series and film), and so it should not be applied to anyone who is still living and has not been convicted. I'm not aware of anyone in the categories you posted in your original post above who are not accused of crimes, and it appears most if not all have not been convicted of those crimes. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that's what WP:BLPCRIMINAL says as written, I'm unsure if it's accurate in spirit (I know that sounds stupid, but I'll explain my thought process).

The reason we don't categorize someone as a criminal unless they were convicted (& the conviction stuck) is because to do otherwise would be WP:CRYSTAL & potentially defamatory.

Categorizing someone as a fugitive however is a statement of fact. They haven't been convicted & haven't faced trial, but they've been formerly charged. It does not imply guilt, isn't defamatory, & isn't WP:CRYSTAL.

You can't be convicted of being a fugitive & once you're convicted, you aren't a fugitive unless you run away after that conviction.

As such, should I break off a request to determine if the category of fugitive should be considered to violate WP:BLPCRIMINAL? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's stupid and your way of looking at it seems a reasonable position, but I think our BLP policies align more with the idea that saying someone has been charged with a crime does imply guilt, which is why, unless there has been a conviction, we (1) generally don't include those accusations for non-public figures in articles, (2) only include for public figures in article space if there are multiple high quality sources about it, and (3) don't include in categories for any living people because they cannot provide adequate context. BLPCRIMINAL is the most directly relevant policy when discussing categories, rather than BLPCRIME, and so it may be helpful to redirect the discussion to that instead. – notwally (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, not at all stupid but I agree with notwally on the merits. BLP means Wikipedia tries not to imply guilt. PUBLICFIGURE gives some leeway but I think this is pushing it. Andre🚐 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Fugitive status does not imply guilt... Neither does being charged with a crime, that is simply not what the policy or practice is. WP:BLPCRIMINAL advises "Caution should be used with content categories," which explicitly contadicts "don't include in categories for any living people" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Being charged with a crime definitely does imply guilt. Please also see this nearly identical discussion earlier this month, where almost all editors agreed that categories about criminal charges against living people prior to conviction are BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a category about being charged with a crime and no it doesn't (it doesn't imply guilt anymore than it implies innocence, you're relentlessly twisting reality to serve your own views). And again you can be a fugitive from a civil court, it doesn't have to be a criminal court so even if we take your statement as true it just doesn't apply to the category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say "Don't cover accusations, investigations, arrests and charges." You're taking this a level beyond what anything actually says, if the person is a public figure there is no inherent issue with the category from a BLP perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the central purposes of WP:BLPCRIMINAL is to exclude categories that accuse living people of a crime prior to conviction. There was recently an almost identical discussion earlier this month, where there seemed to be a pretty clear consensus that these types of categories are BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We've gone in a circle again... Fugitive is not a category that inherently accuses living people of a crime prior to conviction. It only is because of the way its been constructed, change that construction and poof no violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Which category of "...by the International Criminal Court" or "...on war crimes charges" or "...on crimes against humanity charges" do you think are fugitives from a civil court? I'm not interested in pointless word games, and I don't see anyone else in this discussion supporting your views. – notwally (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

So you play a pointless word game... And then claim not to be interested in pointless word games? Maybe this is just a bias thing but I'm seeing other people make similar arguments to me, for example Andre, Butterscotch Beluga, Zero, Levivich and Patar knight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Not me, I agreed with notwally. Andre🚐 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There are at least some things we agree on, for example I agree that "the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories." If you think I've miscategorized anyone else please let me know, I may be mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's a matter of interpretation. Since people wanted to move fugitives out of that criminals category tree, that would moot the BLPCRIMINAL text. Andre🚐 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this would best be discussed at WP:CFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any BLPCRIME problem for public figures, which almost all ICC fugitives are (if not all). Levivich (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy is not WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which prohibits categories alleging criminal conduct for living people without a conviction. – notwally (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

OP's question was about BLPCRIME, not BLPCRIMINAL. But nothing in the text of BLPCRIMINAL prohibits the existence of Category:Fugitives, although I suppose if someone thought that it did, they could take that category to WP:CFD. I'd vote to keep. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

They're already at CFD. I don't have the link handy. It's there though. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see Category:Fugitives at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions. Levivich (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a discussion about "fugitive" categories, but there is one about "charged with" categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Category:People by criminal charge. – notwally (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I meant; my mistake, thanks Andre🚐 23:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The OP is asking about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which is by definition a criminal allegation and therefore should not include any living people or else it is a clear BLP violation under BLPCRIMINAL: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." (emphasis added) – notwally (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

BLPCRIMINAL does not prohibit "criminal allegations" and does not contain those words. Category:Fugitives is not (any longer) a subcategory of Category:Criminals. I know it's kind of unusual around here, but I did actually read this discussion, and investigate the categories, and read the relevant policy pages, all before making up my mind and posting a comment. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think removing subcategories from parent categories to avoid an otherwise clear BLP violation is gaming the system and ignores the privacy concerns that led to the creation of those policies. – notwally (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It should never have been in that category in the first place since fugitives are not necessarily criminals. Some (e.g. escaped convicts from prison) are, but the page notes that the category tracks the ordinary definition in that it includes people not turning themselves in for arrest, questioning, or even fleeing vigilante justice/private individuals, none of which requires them to be a criminal. If there's a clear BLP violation here, it would be insisting on labelling people in these latter groups as criminals through sub/parent categorization.

As for the WP:BLPCRIME issue people in these specific categories mentioned in this section are all public figures and noting that they have not surrendered to a body as long as that's cited to RSs in the article (which shouldn't be an issue given the high-profile nature of such cases), is not a BLP violation. ITN has dealt with a similar issue in that while normally news blurbs about criminal charges are not blurbed for BLP reasons unless its about a conviction, but ICC arrest warrants being issued have routinely been posted. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is specifically about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals". Also, please note that BLPCRIME is not the relevant policy for categories alleging criminal conduct. The applicable policy is WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which has no exception for public figures. – notwally (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", or any of the Category:Fugitives cateogires, obviously should be under Category:Criminals; in fact, I think it's obvious that they should not be, because not all fugitives are criminals, so the subcategorization wouldn't comply with WP:SUBCAT (failing the "is-a" relationship). Levivich (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

"Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals" is simply not true? The only person in the ICC category who was convicted is Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, by a local Libyan court in absentia, and for which the ICC has said is not sufficient to drop its own charges. Everyone else in that category has not been convicted, so they are legally not criminals and should not be in the category. WP:BLPCRIME applies sitewide and generally prohibits labelling unconvicted people as criminals, which you seem to want to do. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCRIMINAL are part of the same policy: Biographies of living persons. "which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals"" doesn't seem obvious or even sensible, how can you both be arguing that we should obviously be doing something and also that doing that thing would be a BLP violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we're missing an important issue when considering this categorization. WP:CATDEFINE says A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. This is especially important with negative or contentious categories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

CATEDEFINE is another one of those "meh" policies, because it says For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include. and it doesn't say anything about what should influence that judgment.

World leaders who are accused of war crimes seems like as good a category to have as any. And it probably is defining. For example, I'll bet you $100,000 quatloos that every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive. It's impossible to imagine that a biography of a leader wouldn't "refer to" an ICC arrest warrant for that leader. It's a big deal.

At bottom, "political leaders with ICC arrest warrants" is an encyclopedic topic. Having a list of them would be encyclopedic. Having categories of them would also be encyclopedic. And because they are political leaders, there just isn't really any BLP problem from any angle. We report when political leaders are accused of crimes, regardless of whether they're convicted or not. Just the accusation is a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic, when the accusation is crimes and the topic is a political leader. At least for national political leaders (maybe not the local town mayor... but maybe a mayor, too). Levivich (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive If that is the case, it should be possible to name one biography of Yoav Gallant that uses that language. Maybe it's too recent and it hasn't been written or published yet. Andre🚐 00:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think its too recent, unless I'm missing something he was charged a month ago. The point seems to stand though, any biography of Gallant published in the future is going to talk about this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not clear, that's an assumption. It's not clear at all that they will refer to him as a fugitive until we see that happen. Andre🚐 23:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone could receive an ICC arrest warrant & have that not be considered significant enough to mention when describing them. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Its an assumption in the same way that the sun coming up tomorrow is an assumption. I can't imagine not including that sort of thing in a biography... And I'm the worst sort of person (I actually read political biographies! ha) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It really depends on when the biography will be written, who wrote it, and what might happen in the intervening time. For example, if Gallant gets arrested, they probably won't bother talking about how he was a fugitive. Or if the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn, it also probably won't get mentioned as him being a fugitive. WP:CRYSTAL Andre🚐 23:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but today he is a fugitive from justice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you square that with WP:CATDEFINE? Andre🚐 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

CRYSTAL has never barred speculation when it is verifiable by reliable sources and lists the next American presidential election as an example. While it may not ultimately pan out, there's verifiable information about it and all previous iterations have been notable. That's similar to the case here, where every single previous person charged by the ICC has had that been defining and there's no reason to think that would be different here given how much attention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets. The fact that they are fugitives is simply a statement of fact about where in the ICC process they current are (i.e. they're not detained, acquitted, or convicted). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It is 100% too recent and to insist otherwise would be deliberately obtuse. It's normally somewhat rare for non-heads of state to get biographies published on them and the timeline for reputable biographies to get published is years not a month.

The best and closest comparison would probably be Omar al-Bashir as another politician no longer in the office that lead to the charges and as someone with some distance from the charges. This biography of Bashir by a British foreign affairs analyst [7], which I don't have access to, has about 30 hits for "ICC" and "International Criminal Court", and a chapter devoted to the ICC, which presumably details the well-known enforcement issues. The Britannica biography has a section devoted to the ICC case [8] and discusses difficulties enforcing. When he was overthrown, the BBC profile [9] mentions the ICC stuff as well. The ICC stuff is brought up in recent news articles almost entirely unrelated matters. [10]

In general though, it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone charged by the ICC won't have that be a defining feature and these categories simply indicate the stage of the process where they're at. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, SFR; I knew that there was a piece of policy or guideline about categories being defining, and that is it. I agree. This hardly seems defining to me, and I'm not sure the burden has been met (yet?) that it articulates Andre🚐 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ruth Kearney

Hi, a single-purpose editor @Rataway: is persistently adding an unsourced date of birth despite four warnings on their talk page User talk:Rataway and has ignored an article talk page discussion Talk:Ruth Kearney. Previously an ip was adding the same unreferenced information which was probably the same user. There was previously a different date referenced to my family past.co uk which I removed because it is an unreliable source, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Frank Pando

I saw this nominated for deletion, but denied it because the only stated reason was a request by the subject himself. The subject is a notable character actor and the uncle of the Wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion. I think editing the article judiciously is a better outcome, especially considering the circumstances. I notified the editor in their talk page that posting this matter here was an option. Bearian (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If someone else feels the article warrants deletion, per WP:BLPREQDEL the subject's preference should be considered in a borderline case. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How to delete a BLP-violating redirect?

I moved the newly created article "Murder of Elianne Andam" to "Death of Elianne Andam" as there has not been a murder conviction, as to assert that there has been a murder without a conviction contravenes WP:BLPCRIME. I then blanked the resulting redirect ("Murder of Elianne Andam") and tagged it for speedy deletion. However, SilverLocust then reverted my change, saying Not eligible for WP:G7. "For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.".

So my question is, how do we get such inappropriate pages removed speedily? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The most relevant CSD criterion I can find seems to be WP:G10, which references WP:BLPDEL. If that doesn't apply, then I think WP:RFD is the next best option. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I do not actually think it is clear cut that a redirect called "Murder of X" violates WP:BLPCRIME: the redirect does not accuse a particular living person of committing a crime, and BLPCRIME does not forbid doing so, merely requires that we "seriously consider" not doing so. In this specific case the article not only says that someone is being tried for the murder, it names them despite the fact that they have not been convicted; it's seems to me hard to defend a position that saying that Andam was murdered is a BLP violation when we are including the name of her killer and the fact that he is on trial for murder in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is plenty else wrong with the article, but I don't think that exempts it from BLPCRIME. There is an ongoing trial, yes, but we don't know what the outcome will be, and we certainly cannot assume that there will be a guilty verdict. I'll try a G10, and see what happens with that. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a very admin-answer, but I'm a firm believer that WP:BLPDEL is competent here. That I've done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, perfect - thank you. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: These tend to be kept at RfD, including a nomination by OP: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 28#Murder of Matiu Ratana. A non-neutral redirect (WP:RNEUTRAL), unlike an article title, is not in wikivoice and doesn't imply Wikipedia is asserting that this was a murder. All it means is that "murder of ___" is a valid search term/in use in sources and refers to this subject. These should not be speedy deleted on that basis. SilverLocust 💬 10:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the example. This case is somewhat lower profile, the article under much less scrutiny, the suspect prominently named, but to mainly factor in, it was recently created 'peak-trial' where the murder charge is being hotly contested. The previous discussion was a little bit borderline, IMO, with WP:RNEUTRAL offered as the supporting guideline, however, I don't think that guideline and its mentions of 'non-neutral' trumps the BLP policy and legal aspects here. But let me add that if someone wants to recreate the redirect then I won't be speedy deleting it again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the more I look at the article the worse it seems. I might have a go at making it less bad... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this redirect violates BLP - it's a reasonable search term, and when it comes to what people actually say, they call many many many killings murder without a conviction, therefore it is a reasonable search term. COMMONNAME trumps the killings flowchart for naming, and with a redirect especially that is fine. However I don't think this is even notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, per the flowchart, "death" would be the wrong title if it is notable. "Killing" is for homicide without a conviction. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that 'Killing of..' would be the more usual title at this time. Just to mention here, that the article is currently up for WP:PROD deletion.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed because it is "potentially controversial". I do not agree, but oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yang Tengbo

Article on Yang Tengbo a Chinese businessman recently accused of being a spy in the British press has just been created. It seems like a WP:BLP1E that is only notable for his relationship with Prince Andrew. In my opinion Tengbo is worth covering in Andrew's article and Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad#United_Kingdom (where it is already covered). Wanted to get second opinions before I created an AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think that Tengbo is notable enough for an article. The subject is only somewhat notable by means of association with Prince Andrew. But they remain a low-profile individual, only receiving media coverage due to a single event. So, I would personally support deletion. Svenska356 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There are media interviews which predate [11] the reporting about Prince Andrew, so they are unambiguously *not* a low-profile individual per WP:LOWPROFILE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Does the subject really satisfy the notability criteria though? Svenska356 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Who knows... Probably, but either way they definitely aren't a low-profile individual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

In July there was a discussion at AfD for a BLP on "Prince" Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII. The AfD discussion was swarmed by SPAs and a few of them were blocked. What didn't come up in that discussion was the fact the subject had a previously deleted article from 2010. That discussion has been blanked as a courtesy, so I can't see if he had any previous articles before that one.

The "Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII" article was clearly titled that to circumvent the original article being deleted.

I'm wondering if there's a way to link these discussions? I've looked around a bit and apparently you can salt topics? Perhaps that's needed here before it's re-created with yet another iteration of his "title". --Gym Samba (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You can place Template:Old AfD list in the second AfD. I would oppose salting, though. If he's come up with a different version of his name once, he'll do it twice. See also WP:NOSALT. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Good to know about the Old AfD template! I added that to the most recent AfD. That's interesting about evading the salting. With a "royal" article, even if it's a fake title, there are endless combinations of his name that can be re-created.

Is there a way to see the original AfD that was blanked as a courtesy to see if there are other old AfDs on the subject? Gym Samba (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The original AfD can still be viewed in the page history. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Found it! Thank you! Is the blanking so it just doesn't show up in search engines if people can read it in the page history anyway? --20:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Gym Samba (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

@C at Access: Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Martin_Short

This text under Personal Life in the Martin Short biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.

Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMBLE (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sall Grover

The biography of Sall Grover is almost entirely dedicated to the legal case Tickle v Giggle, and basically almost all coverage of her as far as I can tell is in relation to this court case. The court case was recently spun out into its own article, and discussion is ongoing as to whether this individual warrants a standalone biography, see Talk:Sall_Grover#Topic_of_page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Călin Georgescu

What do you say about [12]? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For those interested in beating a dead horse, here's a link to the prior discussion from two weeks ago, as well as a courtesy link to the article's talk page discussion: Talk:Călin Georgescu#New Age. – notwally (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your argument was that I used low-quality sources. Your argument no longer holds true.

So, basically, the burden of proof is according to you infinitely high. This man preaches New Age in public, but since he denies he is preaching New Age, it cannot be stated in his article. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

One of my objections to your content was the quality of the sources. You adding in another opinion article does not address that concern. Another objection was that you are making claims about a living person's personal religious beliefs that they dispute. I don't think that is appropriate, and if it is, then it would need very high quality sources supporting any claims about that, IMO. A third objection was that this content has been disputed and no one else has supported including it except for you, which is far from demonstrating there is a consensus for inclusion. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader, so I do not profess to know his private thoughts. But journalists, academics, and theologians have analyzed his public discourse. There is a difference between private thoughts and public discourse. We cannot investigate the former, but we can know the latter. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting

Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Blake Lively

The New York Times reported today that Blake Lively—an actress I've never heard of before—has been the subject of a coordinated, paid campaign to stir up negative social media and internet publicity against her. The article does not mention Wikipedia as a focus of these alleged efforts, but we should be aware of this issue. Perhaps unrelated, but I have removed one sentence from Blake Lively sourced only to a Youtube video and a second sentence that was not sourced at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)