Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Click here to post a question to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard

Risk of drawing attention to defamatory material

The instructions for this noticeboard say:

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

But the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight say:

You must never draw attention to suppressible material, or any links to suppressible material on Wikipedia or any public venue.

It would be nice if the instructions here included some guidance on when to post on the public noticeboard, when to request revision deletion (RevDel) privately from an admin, and when to request suppression from the Oversight team. Jruderman (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Julie Lythcott-Haims Article

I work for Julie Lythcott-Haims. The current page about her has a section called "Sexual misconduct" regarding sex with a student, while working as a dean. I have the following complaints regarding this section:

• The section is WP:UNDUE, taking up as much space as her entire career
• It relies heavily on weak citations, such as gossip rag Daily Mail, local news Palo Alto Online, and student-run university paper Stanford Daily.
• It relies heavily on quotes to add excess detail and editorialized language, which is discouraged by MOS:QUOTE
• This line in the article is factually inaccurate, “The relationship violated Stanford policies, which forbid sexual or romantic relationships between deans and undergraduate students.” In the San Francisco Chronicle article cited in the Wikipedia article, it is reported that, “It wasn’t until 2013, a year after Lythcott-Haims left Stanford, that university officials changed campus policy on “Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships in the Workplace and Educational Setting” to prohibit staff members — “including deans” — from having such relationships with students, because of their “broad influence or authority over students and their experience.”

Julie did have sex with an adult student and apologized publicly. There are credible citations about it. However, the current page seems excessive and un-encyclopedic. Thanks to anyone that takes the time to chip-in and let me know if I can be of any assistance. Best regards. JLHAssistant (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There was a huge amount of content added that is undue, so I have removed it. What's left is sufficient. I also added "adult". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And I have been reverted. Maybe someone else wants to take a shot at getting rid of this massive amount of undue content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And that has been done, and I have added context for the legal (though inappropriate) relationship between two consenting adults, removed a false statement, and made numerous MOS fixes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The SPA is back again. Some of what they want might be defensible, but I saw multiple aspects that looked like BLP violations to me. I reverted once more, and requested page protection following another revert from SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Representation of Danyl Strype

Tēnā koutou, I am featured on WP in various articles about cannabis law reform campaigning in Aotearoa. I have no problem with this material in itself, from what I've seen it's all accurate. But it gives a disproportionate weight to one small slice of my activist work.

I've spent just as much of my career working on animal rights campaigning and vegan advocacy than on drug law reform, important as it is. I've probably spent more of of it on environmental protection activity. I've certainly spent far more of of it working on independent media and free culture projects, including co-founding Aotearoa Indymedia and Creative Common Aotearoa/NZ.

What I could do is gather some references about my other work, in publications I believe will pass muster as WP sources. Then start a stub page on myself, mentioning only facts found in those references. But that idea feels a bit self-indulgent and... well... icky.

Also, many of my activities did not get me 15 Minutes of Fame. Perhaps partly because I've never sought it - even avoided it - because the thrust of much of my work is that corporate media don't get to define the boundaries of what's important. Plus I don't want to go to the effort only to have it flagged for speedy deletion.

But the disproportionate weight issue remains. I know the basics of how WP works, so if my issue with a bio article about me, I'd just comment on the talk page there. Supplying information and references to help other editors improve the weighting. But I'm not sure what the best approach is here.

Any suggestions? Danylstrype (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The four pages where I find your name mentioned all do so appropriately -- they are passing mentions in regard to your position in NORML or in the specific political party, and nothing where it would be appropriate to add "Strype (who is a nice dude and advocates against meat consumption as well)". So if you wished to see a fuller picture of you presented on Wikipedia (which is not inherently our goal), I see several possible paths:

1. Create a page about yourself. Because you have a conflict of interest with regard to yourself, you'd have to submit it through the articles for creation process, and it would have to show that you are sufficiently generally notable, which would largely depend on reliable third party sources doing in-depth coverage of you (as opposed to, say, the passing mentions of the sort that are here on Wikipedia.) This is apt to be a fraught effort... and even if you succeed, it may not go to your liking. Once there is an article, other people are actually more free to edit it than you are, and some might make it an article you'd rather not have up. (Note: this is not a specific comment on you; I have no idea if you have enemies or closet skeletons.)
2. Suggest edits on the Talk pages of other articles, ones which are legitimately missing something because they don't already mention you. This would have to be done with proper references to show that you are important to the subject at hand, and are apt to face close scrutiny.
3. Create - again, using the Articles for Creation process - articles that should reasonably have a place on Wikipedia and which would reasonably include a mention of you. For example, you could create an article on one of the groups you founded, and which thus would reasonably mention you. However, they would have to meet our guidelines for notability of organizations in order to qualify for having a page.
4. (and this is the one I recommend) Forget Wikipedia. If you're not looking for fame (not that a Wikipedia page is a fame generator, trust me), and there's not so much information here that someone who really wants to find out something about you will be satisfied, you are probably much better off putting your energy into having your own website about you, making sure it's stocked with all the information about you that folks might want to know, and making sure the search engines know about it. The best way to control your image is to make sure the biggest, best source of information on you is under your control, and that's something that Wikipedia is never going to grant you.

I hope this advice is of some use, and if not, have a fine day anyway! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

gypsy rose Blanchard

she is not a munchausen by proxy survivor. they were malingering. deedee was never diagnosed. it was a defense created by the D.A and articles like these are making a murderer infamous Undernewt (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

On the surface, I can't say I agree with you. Her story reads like the textbook definition of Munchausen by proxy. On the other hand, the nearest ref says nothing about the disorder. On the third hand, text in the lede doesn't necessarily have to be referenced as long as it's referenced in the body of the article. On the fourth hand, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article; the next use of the term is in reference 39, which is an IMDB article about a Dr. Phil episode about the subject, where he uses it in the title. Dr. Phil is not considered a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, nor does he ever diagnose his guests on the air (regardless of the headlines he uses).

Add all that up, and I'm not sure we have any kind of verifiable diagnosis, regardless of how obvious it is to the general reader. There's a long list of sources, and I don't have time to read them all, so I'm not sure how many, if any, support this claim, but it seems to me we need some very good sources, and it should first be expounded upon in the body of the article before we could use it in the lede and infoboxes. Probably would be best to simply omit the term until it gets properly sourced. Besides, no need to state the obvious. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As it's not supported by the source in the lead and not in the body, I have removed it. All of the symptoms of Munchausen-by-proxy could equally well have a much more mundane explanation, like garden variety child abuse, so unless a source supports the much rarer option and we discuss it in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

About the biographies of living persons

I was told the best option was asking here about how do I change a picture of a living person if they are not accepting an Instagram one, with the link what is necessary to change the photo (they have a very old photo and the person looks very different) the person has done a face surgery so he doesn’t look like that how do I do it, I even got to talk to the actual subject and he is asking what do we need to prove his permission because somebody replied we need his permission how does he give it? Also the name has been changed the whole name years ago, so that person doesn’t exist anymore under that name right because he legally changed it, so I tried to update that as well but they said that’s not true I was texting the subject about this and his willing to provide any information or photos but someone replied that the ID is not a good idea because it has to be public for everyone to see so how do we prove the name is different now? Help please Bby.Nizz (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

my question as a start is what do I need to change the picture and give evidence and the same goes to the name how do I prove it what documentation or proof do I need to look for ? Bby.Nizz (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to give any kind of specific answer without knowing the specific article in question. As a general thing, if you took the picture yourself then you own the copyright to it. In that case, all you have to do is follow the instructions in the upload wizard. If you did not take the photo, then you have two options, you can either 1.) have the owner of the pic upload it themselves, or 2.) get their written permission to upload the photo which you can then provide. You can find some other useful info at WP:A picture of you.

When it comes to things like a name change or facial reconstruction, that gets a lot harder. Info like that needs to come from a reliable source, like a newspaper, magazine, or book. We can't use birth certificates or government IDs, nor anything like that, so if reliable sources haven't discussed it then neither can we. Even if they do report it, that may not be enough to change the name of the article, because we go by the name they are most known as. For example, Buck Dharma is known by his stage name and his real name is less known, so we use the stage name. Unless the subject's new name is used in the sources more than their old name, we'd probably have to stick to what the sources use most. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject is Dalas Review who is a Spanish YouTuber on his YouTube (YouTube channel) he had shown his audience his face reveal after the surgeries, before that he wouldn’t show his face for a certain period of time, he used an Avatar (computing) specifically an anime-styled one. Also I do have his permission to use his photos but how do I prove it where do I provide the written consent? Bby.Nizz (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You having the permission means nothing as you aren't the one hosting the image. Wikipedia would, and we as a community decided against fair-use images for living people a very long time ago. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s why I’m asking, because @Zaerethsaid I have 2 options and I’m asking where do I upload the written permission or what is the process for that , I already mention the motives he doesn’t look like that the Wikipedia rules are different every place I have written the answer changes, why ? Bby.Nizz (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have checked for the photo thanks already I will proceed on that for now at least Bby.Nizz (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @Zaereth Bby.Nizz (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A couple months ago a YouTuber tried to tell us something

Dalas Review

The following is a copy paste of what he has written on the talk page with no good answer and I think it needs another review :

Sorry If I put the title or tags wrong, first time doing this. Hello. This is the real Dalas Review and I can prove it if any administrator wants to reach me out in my email address linked to this account. Long time ago I requested the removal of this page from Wikipedia as it consists of mainly defamation and violation of European Laws such as "derecho al olvido" and explicit defamation mixing up information and presenting it with very deformed words to make it look as I'm guilty still instead of having been acquitted by 3 judges and won every single criminal case against me and won every single one against others. I don't look forward to try to discuss every single detail on every single topic, because there's a whole lot of information that would take me literally too much of my time, and I've already done that several times throughout this 8-year legal nightmare that ensued against me. Just to put some examples, the editors of this page have managed to twist words in a way where they present misleading information on purpose on the trial I had to endure the year 2018, saying that "I got free because of the lack of proofs against me", when the reality is that those "proofs" are the actual testimonies from the people who were filling that criminal case, some of them actually were banned from the trial for their bad behavior, they were caught in group conversations leaked by one of the parties involved talking about how to lie to the police and not a single drop of proof of any kind was presented, and even worse, I brought to the case more proof that I couldn't have done such a thing because I was in another place at that time. I'm not willing to go to every single discussion of this topic because this is an ongoing topic that the abusers (like the ones who wrote this horribly written page) always try to get by disinforming people and people do not want to view hour-long videos showing actual court papers who prove I'm not any of those things, they just come here and edit the wikipedia Page as they wish. Funny thing is that my wikipedia page is even longer than other way more famous and important people in the planet; And I'm not even that important, just a YouTuber with some crazy people overly obsessed with me. I've red all the articles required for deletion, and this page does not only violate EU laws, but it also falls under the Wikipedia ToS where a page is dedicated for harassment. I don't care that some editors are saying "there's no defamation here", you're no lawyer, you know nothing about my life, and you purposedly mix up information and use specific wording choices to make it look as I'm guilty although I'm not. I would gladly discuss this with an actual neutral moderator who would be willing to permanently close the page for editing and allow me to write it myself with all backing proofs and court documents I do have, but I will not discuss this matter with people clearly dedicated to my harassment and spread of misinformation which have been the subject of this 3-year long prosecution on Wikipedia. It's pointless and I take nothing of value from that, like that "Germanico" user which is really laughable saying that "this is not defamation", which it clearly is. It's been almost 3 years since I requested the deletion of this page and moderators have been ignoring such request. I will be filling a lawsuit against Wikipedia because this page is clearly an abusive page and dedicated only to harassment towards me. Thank you for reading this text. Bby.Nizz (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the request, he needs to be blocked if he intends to follow through on legal action. He'd also get a better responce if this wasn't an impenetrable wall of text.

As to the merits of the article, this is not something where I'd have the ability/inclination to wade in to handle this, as it seems most of the sources are in Spanish and there's a lot of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think he will go on legal action I think you should actually READ you are not reading, you are misinformating on Dalas Review He wanted it deleted because of that he went into some legal trouble but he never was on jail or anything because he is not guilty and even on the third External links on the page if you go to page 19 (PAGE 19) and translate it that is exactly what it says that he is not guilty so the problem is you google him you get this Wikipedia page with the information not up to date!! You just need to update the page I’m trying to help not to clean his image or anything but yes it’s defamatory, the sources are in Spanish because he is a Spanish YouTuber I speak Spanish and I’m perfectly able and willing to help. It’s a joke how the page follows by sensationalism and violence against him. He also speaks English I don’t understand why speaking other languages is so hard for Americans and this is not xenophobic but even most of his audience is not in the US, why does he only have an English page and now you excuse with the language and your own neglect to read. Bby.Nizz (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. Editors here can't particularly help you with why things are the way they are on other language wikis. If you want to know why there isn't an article on the Spanish Wikipedia about Dalas Reviews, you would need to ask there.

If you want something about the English Wikipedia page to be changed, it would be very helpful if you make a specific request saying what the current text is, what you think it should be changed to, and what source supports that. Currently it is very hard to tell what you actually want changing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently it is very hard to tell what you actually want changing. Not if you read his message, it isn't. He has specifically stated that he wants the page deleted. He doesn't then need to list the full contents of the page to say "this is what I want deleted." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they haven't. They say that "he [Dalas Review] wanted it deleted" but "you just need to update the page". Presumably if they think the article "just" needs updating, they don't want it deleting.

If they want the page updated, it would be helpful if they proposed a specific change. The thing they seem to be suggesting is "not up to date" is that Dalas Review has been found not guilty of something. Looking at the article, it does in fact say that "In December 2018, the Provincial Court of Madrid acquitted Dalas due to lack of evidence" so I'm not sure if he has since been found not guilty of something else (in which case what?) or if Bby.Nizz just missed this, or if there is some other issue with the article and I don't understand what they are objecting to. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"It's been almost 3 years since I requested the deletion of this page and moderators have been ignoring such request."

The subject has asked for the page to be deleted.

He definitely passes notability, but frankly this page is a BLP nightmare and whole swathes of it need to be removed. There is so much WP:UNDUE stuff there it's mindboggling. The paragraphs about the dog and the case he was acquitted on need to be drastically trimmed down. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

EXACTLY @Lard Almighty Thank you there is a lot of moves on his page a lot of vandalism and that’s why he wanted the page to be deleted I suggested him is best to just update it because many information there is all messed up with gossip lies from when he was experimenting all that defamation back then. The YouTuber has many haters, his ex sued him and lost yeah but we are losing the point on the Wikipedia page about him if he is famous for something is about being a famous YouTuber (his videos are only in Spanish) and when you are famous you also get bad fame, but the page shouldn’t be just hate, one of his books was a bestseller I don’t see that I don’t see his achievements and there are many there is a reason he has many followers till now. Bby.Nizz (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone -- specifically someone who is not me -- needs to create an essay called WP:YOUTUBERDRAMA to explain why we don't need to cover every bit of how Sam reacted to what Becky said about Delayne, or whatever. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe just redirect it to WP:GOSSIP? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that his videos and information online is mostly in Spanish and it appears the editors don’t even know what they are reading about him and then the admins will just check it a bit and be like oh it’s just correct. Please try to at least use google translator if you don’t know how to read Spanish I’m not saying this specifically to you but anyone reading me. @Caeciliusinhorto

Also thank you for your answer I’ll try to be more specific. Bby.Nizz (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

To help clear up some confusion, we can't just delete an article. Except in extreme circumstances, we have to go through a process of achieving consensus before an article can be deleted. Anyone, including the subject, can nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. However, I can tell you that it would be a waste of time because the number of sources show he's definitely notable by Wikipedia standards.

The article most certainly needs a lot of work, though. I agree with Lard Almighty that huge swaths of it can probably be cut, and it's likely that certain info needs updating or clarifying. I don't have time to do this, plus translators don't usually work all that well because they're too literal. For French and Swedish they're not bad, but those languages make up most of English. The less related to English a language becomes, the worse those translator programs function. It'd be best if someone fluent in Spanish could dig into this deeper. Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean I could dig into it deeper when it comes to information and sources, as I said I’m trying to help on this but I’m new to Wikipedia when it comes to all the tags I need someone available to work with me as a teamwork. Any offers? Bby.Nizz (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman and The Keys to the White House

I should have started this thread on the Project page instead of here. I've moved it. Further comments should go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Allan Lichtman and The Keys to the White House. JamesMLane t c 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism sidebar

Can we get a few eyes over at Template talk:Antisemitism sidebar#People section (Nov 2024) Moxy🍁 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)