Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:



    Campbell Brown (journalist)[edit]

    I grew up watching Campbell Brown (journalist) so when I saw that her article had some tags on it, one of which was for UPE, I took it upon myself to clean it up. Ive now done this. Could someone please take a look at it and see if it's in a position for this tag to be removed. Thanks. If it's not ready, please let me know where it requires more work. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley Gjøvik[edit]

    A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, Fences and windows.[1] I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single-edit_IPs_vandalizing_Ashley_Gjøvik_page and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").

    I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Wikipedia - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail. Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.
    I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.
    I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was saying that they are Wikipedia:Published vs Wikipedia:Public records, not that they aren't court documents.
    My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.
    A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Wikipedia:Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue about AppleInsider should be up for discussion. Even if reliable, it and another source, Index on Censorship, definitely should not be given as much as weight as sources like Financial Times, The Verge, or New York Times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents with good information on this topic. Say ocean again (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about inclusion of content[edit]

    Content from Special:Diff/1231386224/1231391075

    Moved to: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Say ocean again (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This kind of extensive, detailed discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:2023 Orchard Road rioting (2)[edit]

    Can people check the article and my actions please, and if necessary delete or revdel? I first moved 2023 Orchard Road rioting to draft space when it looked like this, with e.g. the long list of "criminal charges". I now moved the improved version back to draft space[3] because it still contains in my opinion way too many names of living people accused but not convicted of all kinds of things, from being part of criminal organisations to murder. Fram (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC regarding MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE at Steven van de Velde[edit]

    There's currently a discussion about the first sentence of the lead at Steven van de Velde. This could use some feedback from members with experience on BLP issues. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't understand the obsession some editors have with poorly written lead sentences. It is possible to describe someone and summarize their notable aspects without merely a series of nouns. – notwally (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS doesn't give a lot of guidance on this at all, but it's a matter of good writing versus bad writing. The lede should be written at a 6th grade level, but should not read like it was written by a 6th grader. I've had a lot of schooling, training, and real-life experience in this, so I could charge good money for what I'm giving here for free. Having an opening sentence like that comes off to the reader as childish and stupid, and is that truly what anybody wants? There's no way to sugarcoat it, but that's what it is.
    Good writing is idiomatic, meaning people know it when they see it, but can't usually tell you what makes it good. That's because so many of the principles are counterintuitive and must be learned. It needs context, coherence, and flow. The first sentence is important only for creating context. This is called the "topic sentence", and the only purpose is to provide context for the following sentences. But it's not the place to make any kind of point. The only thing it needs to do is tell us in very broad terms what the subject is.
    People never remember the first sentence, so it's not the most important one. People remember the last thing they see. By far, the most important sentence in the entire article is the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is called the "thesis sentence". This is where the point is laid out.
    For example, see the article on Adolph Hitler. That is a perfect example of what a well-written article looks like. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and murderer. We start off by describing what he was, which was the chancellor of Germany and head of the Nazi Party, which provides context for the reader. We save the most important fact for the thesis sentence, which is his role in genocide. We don't call him names, but describe what he actually did. The same is true for this subject (or any other for that matter.) My advice is don't put so much emphasis on cramming everything into the first sentence, because that's actually counter to whatever goal people are trying to achieve. It's important, but not for the reasons most people think. Far more important is the thesis sentence, because that is the main point of the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jpatokal vs Michael Ezra[edit]

    WP:NAC: Behavior complaints do not go here. Re-post here as the correct forum for discrete WP:BLP issues. Behavior concerns can be addressed at WP:ANI. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I believe senior contributor, @jpatokal, has gone rogue. He has violated many of the norms of the WP:BLP with impunity.

    He was caught at it 11 years ago: Jpatokal The information you have posted is contentious and libelous. BLP editing rules state it must be removed immediately if unsourced or ‘poorly sourced’. There is no record of that article anywhere other than on the Ugandanet platform which is not a genuine newspaper archive. Please refer to the rules on NOR and Verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigalson49 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

    He is at it again: @Jpatokal, you have violated almost every principle in BLP! Addressing the banner you placed on this page verbatim: This article needs to be updated... - with what? by whom? do you have new info? 90% of references used are dead links and story filled with Outdated Facts... - Wrong! Original links exist along with links to an archive of the original reference. How do "facts" become outdated? They could be disproved but not outdated! Subject reported as a Hoax... - your linked ref on "Hoax" seems contrary to what you are trying to convey in your banner as per its opening paragraph. So much for NPOV. ...with a multitude of Bankruptcy court cases - your linked webpage has no bearing to the sensational allegation of bankruptcy. ...involving many bouncing cheques... - another sensational reference to "many" but referencing just one case whose outcome is not even mentioned. ...among many others - yet another sensational reference to "many" with a singular citation of a tabloid news article. Cherry picking one of your edits: ...also known as Michael Ezra Kato - a senior contributor should know better than to provide an archived blog post as a reference. This was the balance you brought to the article to remove a NPOV banner you place on the article (could not help but take a negative shot at the man)? The subject of this page is known and dear to many. He might also have many enemies out there but Wikipedia should not be the place to settle such scores (going by their policies). This is not Michael! Please undo all your aggressive/ill-intended edits unless you have new FACTS to add to the article. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Every single edit I made is backed up by references. The one you "picked out" is not a blog post, but the text of an article published in the Sunday Vision in April 2004 and helpfully archived by somebody. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    I am following through with the recommended procedures of complaints but honestly have little hope for justice as he seems to enjoy the support of some of the other contributors/admins (and probably sits on the panel that reviews this escalation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhh... I have no clue what you're asking for here. Are these quotes from talk page discussions or something? If so, what is the point you're trying to make? Is this in relation to some specific article? If so, which article? We don't deal in justice here, so if your complaint is about editor behavior, then you should take it to WP:ANI, but try to be more direct and provide diffs to support whatever it is you think this user did wrong. If it's about something that violates BLP policy, we'd need to know what you think those violations are and links to the article in question so we can investigate it ourselves. As is, I don't see anything here to really go on, so not sure what you want us to do. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    This section is obviously a request for additional participants in the discussion here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brigitte Macron[edit]

    The Brigitte Macron page appears to be going through multiple rounds of edits & reverts due to concerted efforts by some to add transgenderism claims without citing reliable sources for the living person. Admin action was taken on June 20th, but today the issue has resurfaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4001:85D0:14D4:9116:55B9:EA5F (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing this out. I have semi-protected the article again, this time for three months. Let me know if any further nonsense arises. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Julie Johnson (actress)[edit]

    Julie Johnson was married to David Lee Johnson from 1997-2002 and had one child, Trey in 1998.

    Julie’s father was named David Lee Johnson, so when she married my brother David it created a lot of confusion with the invitations. This is also why Julie’s son is called Trey, since both his father and grandfather were named David Lee (though not related).

    Source: I am David’s brother and Trey’s uncle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.248.1.244 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources based off of one's unpublished personal knowledge has a shelf life. Do you have a published third-party source that corroborates this? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any source for that marriage or the marriage to Dylan Paul Thomas that was in the article, and so I removed it for now. – notwally (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohamed Ashmalee[edit]

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

    The article about Mohamed Ashmalee was (or is) in a horrible state. A large section, restored by multiple experienced editors since 2022 turns out to be a verbatim copy of the cited non-free source, et cetera. Courtesy ping Suonii180, LizardJr8, Kleuske and Midori No Sora who could perhaps have noticed this when verifying whether the section restored by them is actually backed by the cited source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't notice that there was a copyvio involved. In hindsight I should have looked a little deeper into how much text was added for the corruption allegation; but I don't see anything that disqualifies the source itself.
    I was not sure of the motives behind repeatedly removing text with no explanation other than "wrong", "untrue" or "truth" when I engaged once. I would agree a deeper look is needed into the subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted this only edit because I thought the IP address removed a large section of the article without giving a valid reason. I also didn't notice that section of the article was a copyright violation. Looking at the history, several IP addresses and users were indeed removing that section, but some weren't providing an edit summary or were explaining that it was "the truth" or simply: "yes", which sounded suspicious.
    I've also requested CSD of the image, as that portrait was taken from the person's Facebook account and was sourced as "Own work". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've opened a discussion at the talk page to discuss content addition proposals. I've also edited the article to remove generic urls that failed WP:V, unarchived dead links, and lots of stray caps (copyediting). I tagged unreffed claims; this content currently is the majority of the article. I have not removed unreffed claims that touch on notability, but a few unrelated ones got the scalpel. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Olu Jacobs (Case of death and Disruptive editings on the article page)[edit]

    There are death rumors surrounding this person. See Talk:Olu Jacobs#Is Olu Jacobs dead? and the article page and help revert Vandalism Wår (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Family Tree templates and BLP[edit]

    I came across this family tree today, which includes the full names of living (and dead) people, some with articles and others who are apparently non-notable, and it's all entirely unsourced. WP:BLPNAME suggests that we remove the names of living persons who not notable public figures—but that defeats the purpose of a family tree. Maybe that's a good thing?

    Category:Family tree templates is filled with family trees, though many of them are for (long dead) historical figures, historical dynasties, animal groups, languages—those should all be fine. But is there a bigger problem with family trees that are unsourced and/or include the names of non-notable living persons? Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The sourcing and whether filiation is contentious are the main concerns. But mere mentions of non-notables are less inherently problematic than they are a threshold determination for requiring sources and solid ones for contentious claims. JFHJr (㊟) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the tree you linked, the forefathers and siblings of Naqi Ali appear irrelevant. So do Hasnain Raza and Faiz Raza; they could all probably be removed unless there's some kind of relevance to an article's content and it's supported by a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the lack of sourcing is an issue, and that some content (at least) should be removed. But doesn't WP:BLPNAME suggest that we remove every non-notable person? Should we replace removed names with any placeholder text?
    I also wonder what the point is. A family tree might be relevant in, say, articles about royal families where everyone is notable. But what use are they when only half of the people mentioned are notable—especially if we end up having to remove the names of non-notables? Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clementine Ford (writer)[edit]

    I wanted to get some input here from others before I take a large action, since I see from the talk page of Clementine Ford (writer) that, while there's a lot of separate sections and concerns raised, no one has done anything.

    The entirety of the rather lengthy "Social media" section should just be removed, right? Like, pretty much everything in it is a BLP violation using individual news articles to discuss individual tweets or things on Facebook or other nonsense, right? I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing something obvious here. SilverserenC 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct. I'm handing you my cleaver while I step away for some time in the dirt. I'll check back in a few hours. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph seemed ok to me, but maybe I'm missing something. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my edit summary when I removed the section, I noted that some of the content could be potentially salvageable. But would need to be rewritten and reorganized. And probably shouldn't have its own section just for that. SilverserenC 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren: Great work, looks better! I agree with the WP:WEIGHT concerns: a separate social media section is probably not going to be up to snuff. With the same concerns, I've condensed sections for topical relevance and moved a glut of refs from the lede to the body (and removed one primary ref that served no purpose). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists[edit]

    I want some input. Following WP:BLP, @Avatar317 removed significant amounts of material from the TESCREAL article (See diff

    I'd argue material is fairly well sourced, and many of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE (i.e. Elon Musk, SBF, Sam Altman, and various high level philosophers).

    As per WP:BLP, in cases of conflict, I was told to escalate here on noticeboard for suggestions from community.

    Some background:

    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." ---Avatar317(talk) 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Avatar317: Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a reason why? We need specifics other than "I hate this article and will throw what I can as WP:WIKILAWYER".
    We addressed these are all public figures, that there is significant useful sourcing for most of these claims. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, nearly all figures in the section have multiple sources.
    Maybe Peter Thiel could be removed for now, as well as Ray Kurzweil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2 of the 9 paragraphs deal with Musk in this source. The formatting gets messed up on copy paste into here.
    """
    Tech luminaries certainly overlap in their interests. Elon Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, has expressed sympathy for longtermist thinking and owns Neuralink, essentially a transhumanist company. Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, has backed anti-ageing technologies and has bankrolled a rival to Neuralink. Both Musk and Thiel invested in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. Like Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, the messiah of singularitarianism now employed by Google, wants to be cryogenically frozen and revived in a scientifically advanced future. Another influential figure is philosopher Nick Bostrom, a longtermist thinker. He directs Oxford university’s Future of Humanity Institute, whose funders include Musk. (Bostrom recently apologised for a historical racist email.) The institute works closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, an Oxford-based charity. Some effective altruists have identified careers in AI safety as a smart gambit. There is, after all, no more effective way of doing good than saving our species from a robopocalypse.""" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this is an excerpt from a longer post, but this does not say that these people identify with a thing called "TESCREAL", rather it is a list of seemingly unrelated factoids. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Read the article if you want.
    "People who are very rich or very clever, or both, sometimes believe weird things. Some of these beliefs are captured in the acronym Tescreal."
    ...
    "Repeated talk of a possible techno-apocalypse not only sets up these tech glitterati as guardians of humanity, it also implies an inevitability in the path we are taking." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Including a list of specific people on an article about a pejorative political term seems to me like a quite obvious BLP violation -- would we have a list of pundits at feminazi, christofascist, SJW, et cetera, cited only to other pundits, who hate them? jp×g🗯️ 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have Big Tech, a "perjorative term" for big tech companies.
    There are some "perjorative" terms that occur on wikipedia that have allegations that public figures are them. They fall into the pattern you suggest "doesn't happen" on here. Many of these terms are far more perjorative than TESCREALists.
    Democrat in Name Only is a similarly "perjorative term" that alleged Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson as DINOs in the 200s.
    Republican_in_Name_Only alleges Brian Kemp and others.
    Cuckservative is thrown at Jeb Bush and John Mccain
    If we keep it in Wikivoice, and they are WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there are multiple opinions alleging them as such, we should include it with the appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also argue that "feminazi", etc. are internet jargon slurs used to demean. TESCREAL is originated by well published scientists and philosophers, i.e. Timnit Gebru, and Emile P Torres. Its roots are clearly scholarly and scholarly criticism of philosophies is generally not a perjorative political term right now.
    If you find a reliable source arguing otherwise (I've seen the rando medium post arguing TESCREAL is a conspiracy, its WP:SPS), then we should consider WP:BLP. It has no current perjorative connotation as it has not entered mainstream discourse, though it is useful enough of an organizing idea that multiple folks are now using it to describe current veins of thought regarding some AI leaders/philosophers. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Singer Konshens first picture is a different person[edit]

    First picture on wiki site Konshens is not actually konshens, but someone else. 2A02:2454:E60:5700:3149:3B55:1E22:93DA (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the image from the article ( Courtesy link: Konshens) because it was of a completely different artist named Tarik Davis that went by the name "Konshens the MC". Feel free to replace it with an appropriate image. Reconrabbit 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In vitro fertilisation[edit]

    In vitro fertilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    In this edit a previously uncited but vague mention of unprofessional conduct by unnamed doctors has become a direct accusation against a named person. It remains uncited. The editor who added the new sentence, who appears to have a conflict of interest, says they will edit war to keep the paragraph in place. Extra eyes would be useful. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the paragraph consisting of BLP violations. While the information added is likely true, the burden is on the editor adding the information to provide a citation. The behavior of SuperinfoTU on their talk page is not encouraging. It suggests that they see no issues in their policy violations thus far and expect to continue violating myriad policies. An admin should consider a NOTHERE block. Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Hovind[edit]

    WP:NAC: Answered. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Many of the “facts” in this page are inflammatory and overly biased. It makes accusations with zero evidence to back them up. It’s obvious to me that the person or persons who wrote this are seeking to use ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments to summarily dismiss Ken Hovind’s views which are held by many credentialed scientists with PHD’s from state universities. It’s a lazy, shallow attempt to attack the historical position of Christians without actually producing any evidence to support their claims. I don’t personally know Mr.Hovind or even agree with many of his views. This is nothing more than a hit-piece by someone with obvious bias. Is this the standard that Wikipedia aspires to? 69.77.210.17 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that this is a particularly serious request that editors on this board need to respond to, but it's Kent Hovind. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A WP-article about a person is supposed to be a summary about independent WP:RS about that person. If that is what the article is, then that is what Wikipedia aspires to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert off obvious flamebait. Do not reply to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jason Zadrozny[edit]

    Could someone double check and see if Jason Zadrozny#Personal life paragraphs one and three need to be there. This edit at Ashfield Independents is also relevant. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the child sex allegations would be appropriate to include if there is enduring coverage in multiple sources. Do news reports about the article subject still mention this, or was all the coverage from the year of the court proceedings? As for the fraud and election-related charges, those seem particularly relevant to a politician's biography since they relate directly to the reason he is notable. In general, I think privacy concerns have less weight for politicians than for other public figures and we should be more willing to include accusations in their biographies, although they still need to be noteworthy and reliably sourced. – notwally (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham E. Fuller[edit]

    I'm afraid I don't know much about BLP policies. Someone ought to look at this recent IP removal ([5] and the previous edit). The rationale is "Right to be forgotten, EU privacy" which I doubt has any standing over WP; to me the removal seems like an involved party removing cited information. But then again, I don't know the nuances of BLP, so if someone else could take a look, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aza24 (talk • contribs)

    I don't know that Wikipedia respects the EU right to be forgotten (and none of the individuals involved appear to be EU citizens anyway!) but "subject's non-notable daughter was married until 1999 to someone who was the uncle of someone else who wasn't notable at the time but now is" seems like a pretty tenuous link and I doubt it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Controversial content on BLPs should have multiple high quality sources citing it. I agree the link seems pretty tenuous. – notwally (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lea DeLaria[edit]

    More eyes would be appreciated at Lea DeLaria. She recently posted controversial comments on social media. We're getting BLP vio at the article and simultaneously trying to figure out the best way to cover the comments in this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a rush to include a statement only covered in a single reliable source from what I could find. My general opinion is that controversial statements should not be included in biographies unless there is enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and a lot of notable people say a lot of stupid stuff. I also left a more detailed comment on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmanuel Mogenet[edit]

    (non-admin closure): COI issue, no admin action needed. Article has been sent to AfD. Toadspike [Talk] 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    No one thought it odd at the time that Emmanuel Mogenet was created by Emmanuel Mogenet? Anything to do about it now? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After removal of WP:NOTCV info that was not supported by RS, this person's notability is unclear and may need an AfD discussion. I will prod it first. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it was previously prodded, I sent it to AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaskedSinger Thanks for catching this. For next time, this kind of report is better suited to WP:COIN and requires no administrator action. Toadspike [Talk] 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jean-Luc Mélenchon[edit]

    I'm concerned about the "Controversies" section of this article per WP:CSECTION and WP:BLP. Particularly concerning is the seven paragraph subsection on "Accusations of antisemitism". Note that this is not only a BLP but an active politician (not sure if that is relevant but it seems like it ought to be).

    I'd be curious to hear what those more knowledgeable about our BLP policies think about this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nina Power[edit]

    Could someone please look at Nina Power and especially Talk:Nina Power#She is a confirmed nazi now, where editors are seeking to include material about a libel case based solely on primary sources. I suspect that the core factual statements may well be correct, although the tone of the edits is quite lurid, but there's no secondary sourcing for anything beyond the initiation of the case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the stuff which were sourced to court documents and self published sources not from Nina Power. Possibly the best solution is just deletion though. From what I see, there are currently zero secondary sources about Nina Power in that article. Instead, it just seems to be sourced to what she has published in various UK papers etc. I haven't done WP:BEFORE so perhaps such sources exist, but definitely the article seems to be highly problematic as it stands. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I agree that it's all pretty marginal. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Power for some previous discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not clear what the actual problem is, folks. A look at the history shows that previously, secondary sources were removed (e.g. a pair of reviews of art shows mentioning her). And now, court findings cannot be included even when they bear directly on confirmed facts, or when they act as a secondary source confirming the subject's own words and actions?
    This is someone that's been a (generally minor, sector-specific less minor) public figure on a (public) political journey rightwards. The only edits I've seen in response to asking for tightening up the wording and sourcing has been over-broad and wholesale deletion of recent updates that form a part of that public political journey. Chaikney (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think court findings are WP:PRIMARY. We should probably wait for a secondary source, i.e. news media, to report, unfortunately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brief aside: It appears that she is known for her anti-trans advocacy (she has self identified as part of "TERF" island in one article). that's probably why there is a fair bit of interest on both sides now, and why many folks want to keep her article in the past AfD.
    I agree, starting an AfD may be best, there isn't enough independent sources about her. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm, change my mind, I see some sourcing that is significant. Many of her book reviews also include criticisms of her past history. Should be correct to include the book reviews, and include attributed opinions around her politics in her bio. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Karlton Hester[edit]

    It appears that uncited material was removed from the article but the notice tag remains unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:cd02:32b0:714d:c327:d7d0:c06e (talk • contribs)

    The article still needs improving, so the tags are valid IMHO. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1232968103"