Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB 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.

Notice that the page on Russian scientist Anatole Klyosov contains politically charged comments about his work which are borderline slander. It is quite possibly grounds for defamation. You cannot just publish such comments without being a willing eco chamber for libel. That section must be edited asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1946 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ps1948. You will need to be much more specific. The article summarizes this article, and Foreign Policy is a reliable source. Please also familiarize yourself with No legal threats, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was a mainstream and well-respected scientist in the past and described as such on the page. However, after 2008 he proposed some "theories" (e.g. "white race" originating from Slavs) that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists. That is well-sourced and reflected only in a couple of paragraphs on the page. This is fully consistent with our WP:BLP policy. In fact, an effort was made to describe him in the most favorable fashion on that page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 77.100.225.124 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence ' ... after 2008 he proposed some "theories"... that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists ' is so politically charged and judgemental that I realize it is pointless continue arguing. Let me just say that scientific opinion is gradually accepting many of his ground-breaking research. Keep your toxic so-called article and be happy. Peace. Ps1946 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with politics, but we include peer reviews and opinions of significant people in the scientific community, both good and bad. The reality about science is that, despite all our vast knowledge, we really know nothing. Ignorant people are the ones who think we have it all figured out, but it's similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who don't know don't have enough knowledge to realize what they don't know, and the universe is small and simple to understand. But the more you learn the more questions you have, until one day you realize that all science is built on a vast web of guesses and theories that will one day be proven wrong. As Richard Feynman said, "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything... I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb."

Just look at history. Many of the greatest scientists were considered pseudoscientists in their time. Antoine Lavoisier was laughed at and even had his life threatened for promoting the oxygen theory of combustion. Thomas Young was beaten up for his theory that light was a wave. Alfred Wegener became the laughing stock of the scientific community for his theory of plate tectonics. Today, long after their death, these are considered some of the greatest scientists, but at the time they were considered pseudoscientists, and if Wikipedia existed back then we would reflect that in their articles. Now I don't know the first thing about this subject, but if some of his work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, then we are bound to say so in his article. Simple as that. In the future, if his work becomes accepted, then we will reflect that if and when it happens, but not before. But the reality is that any great leaps in science began by studying the fringes and challenging the accepted theories of the time, so the greatest scientists of today were the pseudoscientists back then. But we can only go with what we have right now and wait to see what the future holds. Zaereth (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ps1946. Of course there are topics like Genetic genealogy and Genealogical DNA tests that are very much mainstream (DNA genealogy currently redirects to population genetics). However, these mainstream concepts and techniques have been developed by people other than Klyosov. He has nothing to do with them. I understand that his "DNA genealogy" is something different, on the subject of "Slavic Arians". To be honest, I did not get what it is exactly. Russian version of his BLP page says his theory "is a mixture of biochemistry, history, linguistics and chemical kinetics". Wow! You might wish to contribute to his BLP page some content that would be consistent with our policies and explain what his theory was about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sion_Sono#Edit_Request

We suggest that the source is not a reliable source, is insufficient, and should be removed in accordance with the WP:BLP policy.

Reason :

• The cause of suicide is unknown, and no information exists anywhere to determine the cause of suicide.
• Writing on this page suggests that Sion Sono is the cause, and lacks fairness and neutrality.
• The information source linked as a source is "Shūkan Bunshun". It's tabloid journalism and not a reliable source of information.

Wikipedia's BLP policy states, "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."

• The source article is not open to the public. that is insufficient information source.
• The Wikipedia BLP policy states the following:

”contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.”

We kindly ask for your cooperation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Min01f (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a tabloid (I am aware of it, never read it before, but did read it now without translation). The tabloid is not a reliable source. The text was not supported by any other source. I removed both. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Who is "we"? It looks like you might want to read WP:COI. Depending on your situation, you may need to disclose your particular relationship with the subject or with a group (each time you post a new discussion or join an existing one). JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JFHJr, Thank you for your cooperation.

Sorry, I was wrong. The correct word is "I", not "We".

I didn't understand English very well. In most cases, I translate and read.

Thank you for your comment. Min01f (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A move request in relation to this article could have BLP and legal implications. PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move is just fine. The subject, a detainee, was found outside of detention per multiple reliable sources. Sue us. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also... The escape was only *alleged* perhaps while he was unaccounted for, before apprehension outside detention. I realize escape is also a crime he is charged with, but we have to use plain English in titles, and if the event is notable, then the move is a good idea. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the requested move; the topic itself seems to impact poorly with WP:NOTNEWS. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I piped to WP:BLP1E in my response. Personally, I'd rather not go for the jugular until the page is settled in its spot. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. BLPE1E, but I think BLPCRIME also applies. I know he was caught red-handed escaping, but we can't really tell that story without discussing why he was in jail in the first place. Those are some pretty stigmatic charges he hasn't been convicted of. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If alleged events lead to detention (CRIME, 1E), and an independently notable escape and capture occur (superseding, let's say), what result? I think CRIME means minimizing the WP:WEIGHT of text describing the background of the escape. In the present edition, that comprises about a third of the text, perhaps less. If you'd like to excise more, I might agree. But it seems pretty concise and neutrally worded to me. I think we'll only know definitively how CRIME applies once court finishes. JFHJr (㊟) 02:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the current article is trying to thread the needle by taking the absolutely bonkers stance that he only allegedly escaped and was allegedly on the run, and yet saying in wikivoice that he was recaptured. So the article would have us believe that it is possible that he was simultaneously in Wandsworth Prison and 14 miles away on the Grand Union Canal towpath in Northolt. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even an article? Non-notable person, no clear long-term importance. Failure to meet NEVENT and NOTNEWS. --Masem (t) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)PatGallacher[reply]

That may or may not be so and BLP1E/BLPCRIME may well be relevant. But, PatGallacher, why on earth is there an issue about taking "alleged" out of the article title. In your oppose on the talk page you refer to "legal" and "BLP" issues preventing the move. They might be relevant to whether the article should exist - but the escape happened. There's no doubt about that. Can you explain the issue you have with taking out "alleged" from the article title. DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started a discussion at Talk:Will Fowles#Do we need to add a section titled 2023 rape allegation? about whether a section of text in the article covering sexual assault allegations should be expanded upon. Experienced editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 07:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be very careful about walling off something in its own section, because that can create an imbalance by giving much more emphasis to it than is due. It's similar to the way newspapers use headlines to emphasize a story. Controversy sections, for example, do this by pigeonholing any negative information in a single section instead of distributing within the timeline of events.

In discussing what is due weight for the information, well that's more of a simple math problem than anything else, in figuring out percentages. It's necessary to weigh all the sources that exist about a subject against the sources containing the particular information, factoring in the weight of the sources themselves and how much they devote to the particular info, and with that determine just what percentage of the article should be devoted to that information in terms of space. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence, or would even that be too much? That is best done by those who have read and are familiar with all the sources, and that's what the talk page discussion should be focused on.

I will say that the other user in that discussion seems hell bent on including the word "arrest", as if it has some significance. In Australian law, just as in the US, and arrest occurs when "police take hold of you; or, police tell you that you are under arrest; or, you are arrested by written warrant." It's usually a part of the normal procedure of being taken in for questioning but, of course, it doesn't mean guilty, although to those who don't know enough to know better it may insinuate that, so it seems a bit sensationalist. But the significant information is what caused his resignation, and the rest is basically, "they asked him questions, let him go, and nothing happened" which sounds pretty insignificant when spelled out like that, doesn't it? The more important thing is to get the weight and balance correct and focus on the significant aspects of the story. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpringStreetUpdates, the editor above has some well said words. TarnishedPath^talk 01:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree actually, that makes sense. The fact of an arrest itself isn't necessary information for an encyclopedia, it adds weight to the seriousness of the sexual assault allegation and gives reasoning for inclusion of the allegation/investigation/outcome but is not a paramount detail. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Zimmer is an American linguist, lexicographer, and language commentator. I came across this biography as I recently AfD'd an article from the page creator. A cursory browse of the references section suggests the article presents considerable issues requiring clean-up, if an experienced editor has some time to expend. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue Overview: The "Lifestyle" section of Pastor Ed Young's Wikipedia article primarily relies on an investigative report from WFAA, which is secondarily supported by a Dallas News article. The latter mainly references the former, raising concerns about the independence and verification of the information presented.^[1]

Concerns: Source Reliability and Independence: The primary source, WFAA, relies on anonymous sources and lacks substantial corroborative evidence. The Dallas News article does not independently verify the claims but simply references the WFAA report, raising questions about its independence and the verification of its content.^[2][3] 5dondons (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source from Dallas News is an op/ed column which I wouldn't call a reliable source. It's written in a narrative style, which in itself makes it suspect. Same reason we don't use Forensic Files or Ken Burns documentaries as sources, but if you look closely you can see the author injecting their own opinions. The News 8 (WFAA-TV) source is a well-written news article, and I see no reason it shouldn't be used. Of course, there's a matter of due weight and balance to consider, but I see no reason the source can't be used. Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I agree the Dallas News article's narrative style and op/ed nature make it less suitable as a reliable source for factual content in addition to using the WFAA as its source for the contentious material, particularly in a biography of a living person.

Regarding the WFAA article, while it is well-written, I agree we must consider the due weight and balance. The reliance of a single source for potentially contentious material in a BLOP is problematic.

Given these points, we should continue to seek additional independent verification. If we are unable to find additional support for these claims, we may need to reevaluate its inclusion. 5dondons (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal doesn't agree its an op/ed however I do, and listed the reasons it is in a reply to him. To address his concern about it being used as a source for other pieces of the article, i have since found new sources for those pieces. I will give more time for other seasoned editors to weigh in however with only 1 source being used for contentious material I don't find grounds for due weight and I believe it should be removed entirely. 5dondons (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial source is legit, the second source is not an op/ed but a lifestyle piece, but all it does is confirm that those things were said. As the sentence stand, it's not even an accurate reflection of the source material, as neither source claims that the jet was purchased by the subject or his church; one source says "operated by", the other says it was leased

We do have enough to say that he was criticized for living a lavish or expensive lifestyle, and the second source citing the first shows that that criticism was seen as significant, but the details are a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the clarification on the nature of the sources is helpful, it underscores a fundamental issue: the existing sources do not robustly support the claims made in the "Lifestyle" section of the article. The distinction between "operated by," "leased," and "purchased" significantly affects the factual accuracy of the claims related to Ed Young's lifestyle.

Furthermore, the narrative style of the Dallas News piece and its reliance on the WFAA report, which itself uses anonymous sources, raises concerns about the overall reliability and independence required for such content in BLOP to ensure it does not perpetuate potentially misleading or unsupported claims. 5dondons (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can a source be counted as 'reliable' if it does not add any additional information on the topic but solely quotes another source? All the Dallas News source does is verify that the WFAA article was written. 5dondons (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. it is reliable for the fact that the WFAA makes its claims, and an indicator that the WFAA coverage is of interest. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the linked references are used in the article. Why they being brought up rather than the ones in use?

I cannot access either of them. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, these are the articles I was referring to, they are the ones sourced on the page:

WFAA - https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/prominent-grapevine-pastor-linked-to-luxury/287-338287756

Dallas News: http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/pastored/ 5dondons (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like user Zaereth clicked the links within the actual article and was able to access them from there. His points should still carry weight. 5dondons (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.

I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. 5dondons (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the Dallas News article again and its definitely an op/ed. It uses a subjective tone, includes the author's opinions, and focuses on broader commentary about Ed Young's ministry practices. It opens with a personal anecdote and provides subjective analyses, such as saying Young "knows how to titillate and provoke." These elements, along with a lack of immediate newsworthiness, mark the piece as an op/ed rather than an objective news report. 5dondons (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes it a magazine-style article, which is an acceptable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth:, could you respond to the arguments that the Dallas News reference that was actually being used in the article is not an op/ed? --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been past attempts to WP:WHITEWASH Dominic Ng, including by paid editors who were subsequently discovered, and it would be good to get more eyes on this to see if there is presently an attempt to whitewash it. - Amigao (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an attempt to censor the Cantonese-language name from a very prominent figure in the Chinese-American community, which seems bizarre for a BLP. Anyone encountered this sort of thing before? - Amigao (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to gain consensus for disputed edits for inclusion per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support including the name in the article. However from my experience it's hardly uncommon that editors insist such inclusions are generally unnecessary on the English wikipedia, for people who live in an English speaking country or even feel that their are "othering" the person. In this case it's complicated by the fact he doesn't seem to use his Chinese give name in English but does I assume use it in Chinese. But still seems a fair chance this remains an issue of editors disagreeing on whether the English wikipedia needs such details. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’d like to ask for some comments on a contentious matter relating to the article for Simon Williams (chess player).

The subject of the article is a minor chess grandmaster (currently rated 1,303rd in the world), and also a youtube streamer and chess author. He is relatively well-known in chess circles, but is by no means a public figure under the Wikipedia definition of that term.

In the recent past Williams was mentioned in a determination by the UK pensions regulator re: some events that occurred while he was the trustee of a pension scheme. This has received a limited amount of press coverage, which has prompted some discussion on the talk page for Wiliams re: whether or not the matter should be mentioned in the main article.

(It’s not really relevant to the underlying issue here, but some of the edit summaries / talk page comments in relation to this matter miscategorise the events in question as ‘fraud’. The pensions regulator’s involvement was actually solely in relation to the way in which the scheme was administrated and did not relate to fraud.)

In trying to resolve whether or not some reference to these events should be included in the main article I checked the guidelines on biographies of living persons. To the best of my understanding, the relevant section would appear to be under WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE:

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

In the case in point I’m interpreting that as meaning that for a minor chess grandmaster we only include ‘material relevant to their chess career'. On that basis it seems (to me at least) that the matter described above should not be in the article, even if it has had limited coverage in broadsheet newspapers.

I have no connection to the subject, just giving my interpretation of the relevant guidelines. Am I correct? Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv's version of the material (diff) seems fine. I think given the in-depth coverage in Financial Times and The Times, it should be okay to include. WP:BLPCRIME may advise us to err against including this kind of information for people who aren't public figures, but I don't see that as being intended for someone who's getting this kind of coverage, and additionally William's career as a streamer/commentator/selling chess courses kind of relies on him being a public figure to an extent, at least in the chess world. Perhaps less importantly, it seems like there isn't actually an accusation of criminal wrongdoing here, so there may be less of a BLPCRIME concern. I think as long as the article is based on the FT and Times articles and not the primary source Ombudsman report, it's fine. Endwise (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts here. You've put your finger on what seems to be the key point, which is...

Does being relatively well known in a pretty obscure subculture make someone a public figure (and no longer subject to WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE)?

I'd imagine that in the UK fewer that 0.1% of people are even vaguely aware of Williams' chess-related activities (and even fewer elsewhere), so I'm struggling to see how he constitutes a public figure by any normal definition of that term.

If somebody could clear this up for the sake of my understanding it would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Williams is certainly a "public figure" in the sense of Wikipedia jargon. He has sought attention through his role in the ECF, courses, books, commentary etc. He promotes himself through the name "GingerGM". This doesn't mean he is "famous": he doesn't have to be someone that 0.1% of Brits are aware of because that's not related to the criteria. A lot of people misunderstand what "public figure" (or synonymously, "high-profile") means in Wikipedia jargon. It doesn't even require a figure to be notable: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

The text I wrote wasn't intended to accuse Williams of criminal wrongdoing and describes factual events with quotes on his behalf. I think it's quite a generous framing, backed up with substantial coverage to show this is encyclopedic content. Apologies for not realising there was related discussion on the talk page and thanks for bringing this to BLPN. — Bilorv (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point re: seeking out media attention, but my assumption is that the quote you give is intended to refer to media attention with rather greater exposure than low circulation industry/hobby publications.

Simon Williams' chess-related activity has never been covered in any form of media beyond chess magazines and chess websites and, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't sought to promote himself outside of that very small pond.

There are a huge number of individuals who maintain some form of youtube presence to assist with sales of books, DVDs, etc. on niche subjects (chess openings in Williams' case), but I'm far from convinced that that constitutes 'seeking out media attention'. Axad12 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To give a comparable example, if an individual had a youtube channel about fishing and used it to leverage sales of their own brand of fishing bait, I don't think there would be any suggestion that they were seeking out media attention. Axad12 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Endwise. It's a little unfortunate it's a separate section, but it doesn't really fit in an existing section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that I’m very much in the minority here, and also less experienced than the other users to have commented. However, I’d really be grateful for some clarification of how Williams’ rather small-time activity to promote his books etc solely within chess circles constitutes ‘seeking media attention’.

If it doesn’t constitute seeking media attention then it still seems to me that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and the pensions material doesn’t belong in the article.

By comparison, if the 1,303rd ranked golfer in the world was censured by an ombudsman for his performance while doing a part-time job, I hardly imagine the matter would even be up for discussion. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's seeking media attention, yes, within the context of the sport he participates in. I don't like the jargon "public figure" and "low-profile" but that's what we use and the examples given at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual of low-profile individuals are people who are unwittingly or unknowingly wrapped up in something, or only speaking on behalf of an organisation. He's not reached his position (of being somewhat well-known among the English-speaking chess world) unwittingly. Williams has successfully created a persona and brand, within the world of chess, with the name "GingerGM"—presumably because only the very top players in the world can make a living from chess competitions but many more strong players can make a living from coaching, courses, commentary etc. — Bilorv (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(A bit late, but) I have no idea who the 1303rd ranked golfer in the world is, but they likely have a lower profile than Simon Williams, for a similar reason that the 1302nd ranked chess player also likely has a lower profile than Simon Williams. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section was balanced, factual, and supported by high-quality sources. It should be restored. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of that is relevant if WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies... Axad12 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“It could be harmful to my reputation to have my misdeeds, which are much better sourced than any other part of my biography, described neutrally and accurately” is a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD), but it is not a general shield that prevents the inclusion of neutral and accurate information that happens to reflect negatively on article subjects. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that I am Simon Williams then I'm afraid that you are (a) wrong, and (b) making a serious allegation of COI which is frankly ridiculous. However, well done for having the courage to make the allegation while hiding behind an IP address. Axad12 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you did not create this article I can't see how you can possibly interpret the IP's comments as suggesting that you are Simon Williams. Back to the matter at hand, without taking any view as to what if anything should be said on the pensions thing, it seems to me that Williams clearly is not a low-profile individual as that term is defined by Wikipedia at WP:LPI, and therefore, WP:NPF does not apply to him. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the basis of the comment 'a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD)' - which implies that I have some kind of COI here and might wish to take the extreme course of trying to get the article deleted.

Also on the basis that a different IP user has previously accused me (on the article talk page) of pursuing this issue in bad faith and of being a sockpuppet.

However, I have no particular views on Simon Williams either pro or con. I've only ever been attempting to get clarification on the correct application of the relevant policy.

I'm very grateful for your comment above (and also for the recent comment by Bilorv) in clarifying that my understanding of the relevant policy was faulty. I will now take the issue back to the article talk page to discuss the best form of words for the issue to be included in the article. Axad12 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if the article creator is the subject but it's very common for article subjects and others with a CoI to create articles at a time when the promotional coverage is considered useful and then later it becomes a problem for them when something on them blows up. We non-CoI editors need to deal with it as we can when we become aware there are issues, which can including sending the article to AfD if the subject doesn't seem notable. Assuming there is reason to think it may have been the subject who created the article, it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge these 2 common trends. Even if the original CoI editor is still around, we don't want them making more problems by sending the article to AfD. That should be decided by non-CoI editors only. So if the IP was suggesting you had a CoI but should send the article to AfD frankly they should be ignored. But I see nothing in their comment to suggest they intended to suggest that you seem to be connecting those two related but distinct points in a manner that wasn't intended. (Per WP:BLPREQDEL the subject's opinion may be relevant, but it should still be non CoI editors deciding whether it's even worth discussing.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. The IP comment that you are referring to was clearly inferring that the subject created the article (the basis for which suggestion seems entirely unclear), and/or that I might wish to refer the article to AfD if I had a COI and found the contents of the article inconvenient in some way.

Since the discussion up to that point had related solely to a policy question I hardly see why the IP user thought it necessary to make any suggestion of possible COI in relation to this article.

I've removed the pension-related issue from the article on, I think, 3 different occasions over recent months - but surely the discussion on the article talk page and my decision to bring it here to get a consensus decision demonstrates that I've been acting in good faith. So, again, why was there any need for the IP edit to bring COI into the discussion at all? And since I was the only user in favour of removing the material, who could he have been referring to except for me? Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. Which you have received; and now because you don't like the answer you are engaging in extremely heavy deflection. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I retract this part of my statement, as it seems the edit has been reinstated and you have stated you don't object to that. I'm sorry you are so worked up about things I didn't say, that wouldn't make sense if I had said them; since the substantive question is settled in what I consider the appropriate way, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I couldn't be less invested in the outcome, hence my genuine thanks above to Bilorv and Caeciliusinhorto, which I'm happy to repeat. I'm very glad indeed to see that there is consensus and resolution - which is what I came here for.

Your introduction of COI into the discussion, on the other hand, was entirely uncalled for (as was your misguided ad hominem comment directly above). Axad12 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest to BLPN watchers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (2nd nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about repeated addition of content that looks WP:UNDUE. Subject has an arrest record without convictions. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the unsourced/poorly sourced information, and will try to keep an eye on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite receiving attention on and off Wikipedia before and during COP28, there has been no update on Sultan Al Jaber to communicate the results of this event.

I would like to disclose my Conflict of Interest in regards to this article and request some changes to address missing information. I have proposed language at the Talk page for consideration, for which I would gratefully appreciate the review of people familiar with BLP policies to ensure the tone is totally neutral. Many thanks! Dedemocha (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has added content which violates BLP guidelines, specifically unsourced allegations of sexual abuse [1]. I've reverted, but it probably needs to be scrubbed from the history. Similar allegations about this person go back a long way, but reliable sources are rarely, if ever, added. It's a difficult case for various reasons, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Fixed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I work with Andrew Schneider and can confirm that the photo featured in [| this page] is not him.

The man in this photo is the Andrew Schneider that the above page is referring to.

The erroneous photo is the first image that appears when "Andrew Schneider showrunner" is searched, which has caused confusion at times.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism to article and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly inserted as if factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenwiki2050 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's only contributions to Wikipedia are on Liang Wang's article. There seems to be a conflict of interest. Womenwiki2050 keeps removing allegations which are now part of an ongoing story with responses by Wang's colleagues. The allegations are sadly germane to the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpetrep, this edit you made[2] does not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Kizer said that Wang handed her a drink that she later suspected was drugged. Neither the Vulture nor the NY Times references[3][4] states that he allegedly drugged her when there's another person that could have done it during the night. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed article is Liang Wang (oboist). However, it would be helpful to provide dif links to the disputed edits. In reviewing the misconduct allegations section, it's not clear if Wang should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE v. WP:NPF Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for clarifying. the language is much more accurate. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good point. may be NPF. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did Emil "attack" Starfield's players. He posted claritifications about game development after being the subject of intensive harassment and hate online - harassment which took place shortly after his sister's death. The wording on the following sentence is highly misrepresentative of what he said:

"After the game's mixed reception after launch and further souring in reviews post launch, Pagliarulo attacked the game's players, stating they where "Disconnected from the Realities of Game Developing."

He also didn't "attack" negative reviews. The source provided in the article itself makes that clear.

″Specifically, Pagliarulo attacked negative reviews asking for features common in more modern RPGs that were noticeably absent from Starfield.″

The source used in the article itself makes it clear that Emil isn't wrong about the process being hard, and that he perhaps stirred up the pot unnecessarily:

"Ultimately, Pagliarulo's not wrong. Even getting a small indie project from concept to launch is a Herculean feat, and as much as the "lazy developers" trope has taken hold in recent years, the reality is that just about everyone involved in making a game is fully committed and working hard to make it happen. It really is, as Pagliarulo said, just about a miracle that a lot of these games ever see the light of day."

https://www.pcgamer.com/starfield-design-director-calls-out-unfair-game-criticism-dont-fool-yourself-into-thinking-you-know-why-it-is-the-way-it-is/

The wording on Emil's article is unnecessarily aggressive, not to mention based on false information, directly feeding hateful discourse around game developers online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.0.171.152 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise the following talk page topic for review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Lugavere#%22Known_for_Fringe_Dietary_Claims%22

To summarize, the statement in the article's infobox that Lugavere is primarily "Known for" specifically his "Fringe Dietary Claims" appears to be unsourced.

I believe we need a reliable source(s) that we can clearly attribute to the specific assertion of being primarily known for "fringe dietary claims" or the contentious statement should be revised/removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalem014 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all - I've updated this page with more links and citations. Kindly suggest if there's something else that needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankalprawal (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sankalprawal, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edit to Ravi Ravindra. Your edit added promotional language ("a prolific writer", "publishing numerous books", "numerous writings in academic publications", "well represented in the Theosophical literature"), too many publications (including what appear to be self-published works), links to lectures and interviews (many of which appear to be copyright violations), and also way too many external links.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to dispassionately summarize what reliable, secondary, independent sources have written about the subject. That means reputable newspaper and magazine articles, book, and other sources about Ravi Ravindra. Those are the types of citations that the article needs. Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article is filled with contentious and potentially libellous material which is very poorly sourced - almost exclusively from The Jewish Chronicle, a paper widely known for aggressive smears against it's political opponents.

Attempts to remove the material, as per the BLP policy, is repeatedly reverted by obviously disingenuous editors.

Please consider protecting this page from further vandalism and smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirik1 (talk • contribs)

@Peirik1: The Jewish Chronicle, per WP:Perennial sources, is judged as "generally reliable". The material in question (Maté's reporting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria) is sourced to The Guardian (also considered generally reliable) and Monthly Forecast, a publication of an organization known as Security Council Report, an independent organization that monitors and reports on activities of the United Nations Security Council. The material to which you object may not be pleasant, but it is backed by reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I repeat what I wrote on the talk page: the listing for The Jewish Chronicle on WP:RSP that source specifically says:

There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics.

To therefore suggest that this source is in any way reliable about a far-left blog like The Greyzone, is borderline ridiculous.

Regarding the Guardian source I refer to my other comments on the talk page. Peirik1 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Chronicle is used to cite the fact that Maté works for The Grayzone. Your edits don't dispute that fact; you've left that fact in your version of the article. So what's the problem? If your problem is with the characterization of The Grayzone as supportive of Russia, Syria and China, there are multiple sources cited to verify those claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article refers to Sunny Hostin as a journalist and I question that considering she never received a journalism degree, she never was a news anchor, or wrote for newspapers or magazines. She's been on TV as a political and social commentator and legal analyst. On her own website she refers to herself specially as being "widely known as a social commentator and has covered many of the major legal, political, and cultural community stories of today".^[1] It's more appropriate to describe her as a social commentator and/or legal analyst than a journalist. I know there are several sources which describe her as a "journalist" but I can't find any sources with evidence of her journalism career. There needs to be a distinction between actual journalists and television personalities. The One I Left (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems entirely reasonable to call her a journalist given that a wide range of RSes do. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning whether we should rephrase to "legal journalist" per my reasoning on her talk pageThe One I Left (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have editors continually restoring assertions in the infobox that the motive of this was "Islamic extremism", implying the suspect has committed a crime, despite the fact that no conviction has been made. They base this on a video produced by a witness claiming the attacker spoke Arabic. The police investigating the incident have said they believe it is religious extremism but have declined to state the religion. There have not been any charges made yet, let alone a conviction. Can we have more eyes there please. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto Ran across this on the way out of the door, but just wanted to suggest being mindful of 3RR since you are at 4 reverts so far of the info. I'm not saying you are right or wrong about the removal and am just making an observation.

Awshort (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per [5], am I reasonably right, or is "former" actress ok? Subject has opinion:[6]

A non-working actor who is available for casting is still an actor, just as a writer whose latest book has failed to find a publisher is still a writer. She will be "former" only if she indicates in some way that she is no longer seeking roles.... and taking some other job does not count as an indication, for out here in the Los Angeles area, many a job is filled by those with screen credits past and upcoming. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now requested to have the page semi-protected. While most of the good edits of late have been from IPs, so have the bad ones, and with the article running it risks becoming a madhouse anyway. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the recent controversy regarding the creator be mentioned in any way? Trade (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the controversy related to the web series or just the creator? Some links about this controversy would be helpful. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link --Trade (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. If there is only coverage by gossip or clickbait style sources, this controversy should not be on wikipedia at all. However, if there are RS about it, this controversy should only be mentioned if it impacts the show (like if advertisers withdraw). Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]