The section "On the Palestinian Authority and Hamas" cites editorial summary as fact, using tendentious and potentially libelous language not present in original source rather than quoting it directly. Specifically, the cited Jerusalem Post article characterizes a rote description of shock and awe as "praise", a misleading paraphrase which is not supported by the original text. The link to the Jerusalem Post summary should be replaced with a link to the original article on Electronic Intifada, and the tendentious paraphrase should be replaced with direct quotes.

Note that the user who added the unreliable Jerusalem Post citation has already been flagged repeatedly for NPOV violations, so correcting this would not be unprecedented.

Note also that Electronic Intifada has already described the Jerusalem Post summary in question as being related to a coordinated campaign by a former IDF spokesperson trying to convince Columbia University to revoke Massad's tenure. The ongoing conflict surrounding this campaign is noteworthy as it mirrors the previous campaign described under the Columbia Unbecoming section. However, any secondary sources (i.e. sources other than the original Electronic Intifada editorial written by Massad) should be carefully screened for NPOV, which would disqualify both the Jerusalem Post summary and the Electronic Intifada article about the campaign.

Note finally that I deliberately logged out before posting this comment because I don't trust the sorts of people who post content in violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. (Obviously, logging out before posting this means that I cannot subscribe to this page for updates.) — 68.199.153.120 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider, New Arab, and the ADL also characterise his essay as praise for Hamas.[2][3] [4] We can attribute the characterisation to sources rather than using wikivoice. It is not good practice to use primary sources as you suggest we do here - we should use reliable secondary sources about what people say and do, not their own writings. Fences&Windows 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows I think the sources you've raised seem to reflect the issue well. Indeed we should use reliable secondary sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following his ousting from OpenAI, there is renewed attention to an allegation against him made by his sister, which is now discussed by some reliable sources. Should it be mentioned? Please discuss at Talk:Sam Altman. Fences&Windows 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, for admin attention: Should this be revdel'd? Fermiboson (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People on the talk page are allowed to criticize BLP's when relevant Trade (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, talk pages are not exempt from BLP. If an editor makes potentially libelous claims, whether that is on the talk page or in article, that needs to be revdel'd. NPOV doesn't need to be adhered to on talk pages, but I feel that the diff above goes beyond NPOV issues. Fermiboson (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just made aware that this discussion exists over here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sam_Altman

To copy the content from over there:

Dispute overview

The dispute started over this diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Altman&diff=next&oldid=1186011017

The issue went to RSN, at the request of (anti-inclusion) editor User:Nil Einne, with numerous additional sources listed as possibilities in case there were issues with the sources in the diff. RSN came back on the side that RS has been met, and the remaining issue to establish is DUE, not RS.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others

However, this has not resolved the conflict, with editors either continuing to pursue RS arguments (despite the RSN), or claiming that accusations are not appropriate BLP, even when labeled as accusations, are on a topic that they admit is serious, and are backed up by RS. Editors also generally do not dispute that the current article has bias problems and reads like hagiography; this was discussed in talk before the current topic came up.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[12] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This request is for dispute resolution on the topic of whether "serious allegations" (the serious nature being agreed on by both sides), backed up by RS as determined by RSN, matching the description laid out in the sources and properly attributed to them, warrant a couple sentences in a BLP, or not.

Also requested is a view on whether RS should stop being relitigated now that RSN has weighed in.

Thanks! -- Rei (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Caeciliusinhorto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I came across this dispute yesterday, through the discussion at WP:BLPN#Sam Altman. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether we should include some mention of the allegations in the article, but it seems to me that in the existing discussion there is at best no consensus to include them, and the most recent version included in the article (removed in this edit) is clearly in violation of WP:BLPSPS which requires that we "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article".

If Rei can suggest text that they want to include which complies with WP:BLP, then discussion can take place as to whether inclusion is due. Their repeated assertion that the allegations are serious and therefore the content is due for inclusion has no basis in our policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT and is not helping their case. Indeed, one might argue that the seriousness of the allegations means that the threshold for inclusion is higher – these are accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat them carefully and sensitively.

I further note that, contrary to Rei's claim, the RSN discussion did not conclude that the sources they mentioned were reliable. Cortador said that the Mary Sue article was an opinion piece; ActivelyDisinterested said that the previous discussion had not challenged reliability of sources but due weight; JPxG and GretLomborg discussed the appropriate use off opinion pieces. None of them actually comment on whether any of the sources Rei cited, other than the Mary Sue, are reliable for the statements Rei wants to use them for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I would request that third parties taking part in this discussion read the RSN discussion themselves. -- Rei (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Does this addition violate BLP per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist leader where he claims that the person in question helped escalate a separatist movement based in India because he wanted revenge for Pakistan's defeat in some war with India which is obvious gossip material. It is further being put on the lead as if its some key detail/summary of the body.

Full discussion with another editor who doesn't agree at

Talk:Khalistan_movement#November Kiu99 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a BLP issue, since Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto has been dead since 1979. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But what is being claimed here is still a rumour and there is no proof he actually said these things. Is this allowed? Kiu99 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Apologies if this is not the most appropriate page to raise this matter, but I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this article because it has been the target of excessively detailed editing by an almost completely SPA editor (and possibly COI as well) for some time and who has managed to gradually re-add over recent months a considerable amount of excessive detail (and possibly added even more) and POV and peacockery comments which was removed last year when this problem was first noticed. I have rolled the article back to what seemed to be the last good version before the re-adding of the excessive detail. As the editor also has some article ownership issues, which are apparent from his/her comments on the article's talk page, I am expecting further problems due to this. With thanks. Yahboo (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there is a more appropriate noticeboard please advise and I will move things there. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yahboo: WP:COIN is usually the best place for stuff like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sarah Jane Baker's page has become a hotbed for T.E.R.F.'s and transphobes to write defamatory and potentially libellous comments about Baker and from poor sources.

user Sweet6970 often misgenders Baker and should be banned from editing this page as they have been warned about their use of gender and commenting on contentious source.

There have also been uses of poor sources to write false information on Baker's page.

This page needs monitoring to make sure information is as neutral as possible. Editors frequently use adjectives to hyperbolise her and her crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are deleting her other known achievements that they view as positive despite them being relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twistflam (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The post above was by Twistflam. I have never misgendered Baker. I don’t know what Twistflam means by ‘using poor sources to write false information on Baker’s page’ and ‘deleting her other known achievements’. No diffs have been provided. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not all of this refers to you, but there is parts of the talk where you have misgendered on the page but it has then been corrected. The they I have used is a general group of users who are editing the page. I have edited my post for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t know what you are talking about. And – don’t edit a post after someone has replied to it – except to strike something out. And – you should sign your posts by using this sign ~ four times. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twistflam: This isn't the right place to bring up editor behaviourial issues, you should to take that to WP:ANI or WP:ARE or whatever. But also, accusing another editor of misgendering someone where ever you do it is a very serious accusation since realistically in a situation like this it can only happen once by accident. So you need to provide WP:DIFFs. If you are unable to do so, you need to withdraw your claim ASAP or you are the one likely to be blocked for personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Sweet6970 has not been misgendering Sarah Jane Baker. However, a different editor on this page, Jim 2 Michael, definitely has been. He never uses the pronoun "she" for Baker, often going to great lengths to avoid pronouns, and at one point did in fact slip up and use the pronoun "his".

I also echo the general BLP issues that Twistflam has with the page. I think in particular it's concerning that Baker's previous name is used both in the article and on the talk page despite her notability happening exclusively after transition. Some very salacious details in the article (including an accusation of rape) are currently sourced to photos of tabloids. Loki (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been aware of the article for a while now. I tried removing Baker's former name earlier this month per MOS:GENDERID. I also agree with Loki, and have said on the article's talk page that I believe Baker was not notable under her prior name. I'd have taken this further, but due to some health issues I've just not had the spoons to do so. There's definitely a bunch of clean-up that needs to occur on that article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I fixed the tabloid issue, so here's the diff for proof this was a thing. Loki (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Buffy Sainte-Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well this is quite out of control, and apparently triggered by a news report last month. An edit that preceded the lock Special:Diff/1182110005, and recent talk page posts include Special:Diff/1186583059; Special:Diff/1186583237; Special:Diff/1186582490; Special:Diff/1186581664. It's right that editors discuss discrepancies and work things out, but both the article and talk page comments have been skirting WP:BLP violations, and merit rev/deletion consideration. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Given lack of response, I'm surmising that there's nothing here that requires immediate attention. I'm happy to withdraw the report. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that it's crossing the line to start ascribing motives to the article subject. Yes, the article subject has proven to be extremely unreliable for autobiographical statements. We can leave aside the motives. The reliability of the source is definitely within talk page scope, though. Some more eyes on the talk page discussion might be worthwhile. Uncle G (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are article edit summaries like Special:Diff/1184859138 that might be over the line too. We shouldn't be talking about abuse and assault in edit summaries. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dominick Fernow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several recent edits on this BLP by 107.2.11.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have added strong claims about the subject. I've removed one source that seems inappropriate, but I do not consider myself qualified enough on the subject matter to judge the reliability of the remaining sources. I would appreciate extra eyes on this from editors more familiar with this subject and these kinds of sources to evaluate whether the sources are reliable enough to substantiate the claims made. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've since reverted my removal of the source I believe is inappropriate, without any discussion or comment. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns regarding the sourcing are certainly valid, the latest source being added was to a wordpress doc, and I've again reverted the IP. Given the nature of the edits and the sources, some sort of consensus will be needed for inclusion in the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. For now I've blocked 24h for 3RR (they're up to 6 by my count). --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them anyway. Of the two sources left: One cited as its sole source the same Substack page that the previous BLPN discussion on this person found to not be a reliable source (by way of a different article which did the same). The other hardly even mentioned Fernow in passing, much less anything to do with his personal history. That leaves no reliable sources, and thus no basis to keep the edits. 74.196.6.231 (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Quietus is a reliable source and covers the links to far right musicians.[6] Fences&Windows 23:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, the blog post from which that particular article drew all of its information was not, and simply being cited in said article did not make it one. This was the conclusion drawn from the previous BLPN discussion on this same subject. 74.196.6.231 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, it was reported that Business Insider has named a new CEO and that Henry Blodget was leaving his position as CEO to become chair of the company. (https://www.wsj.com/business/media/insider-co-founder-henry-blodget-steps-down-as-ceo-amid-strategy-shift-11a91da7)

Blodget's Wiki page was recently edited with these erroneous statements: "on November 14, 2023, Blodget was fired as the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider, now a general news website." Also, "He no longer contributes articles (see: hit pieces) to Slate, Newsweek, and New York magazine."

Two things of note: 1. Blodget was not "fired" as CEO, and 2. Blodget's journalism pieces to Slate, etc, were not "hit pieces." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add that Blodget's page has been under attack recently. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add this to his talk page? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims that Blodget was fired and unsourced descriptions of his articles as hit pieces in wikipedia's voice are both clearly inappropriate, and I have edited the text. Looking at the article history, it doesn't look as though there's a big problem with blp-violating edits, though; you could simply have reverted this yourself. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule of thumb, I would go easy on editors who have arrived on Wikipedia because they want to address an issue about a living person, and saying "it's just a wiki" aren't necessarily helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that simply saying "it's just a wiki" isn't necessarily helpful, I believe that advising that in future someone can make a change themselves while also making the requested change is helpful. Doing some further digging, however, it appears that MrMarioNateRuizJr probably should not be making changes themselves, however: in this discussion on their talkpage they say that they are a PR representative for Insider, the news outlet which until recently Blodget was CEO of. In future, MrMarioNateRuizJr, you should disclose this when making a request related to your conflict of interest. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an addition error I'm hoping can be fixed:

In the first paragraph of Blodget's Wiki page, it reads "Due to his violations of securities laws and subsequent civil trial conviction, Blodget is permanently banned from involvement in the securities industry."

However, there was no trial, nor any conviction. Rather, there was a settlement, which is addressed correctly further down on Blodget's page, here:

"Fraud allegation and settlement

In 2003, Blodget was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[7] and settled the charges with a payment of $4 million without admitting or denying the allegations and their underlying facts and findings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this to "conviction" and added the source in the lead to the body that verifies the decision to bar him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there was no conviction. There was no trial. It was resolved via out of court settlement. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put into context: at the time, the SEC would settle with people in this situation, and not require any formal admission of wrongdoing. Contemporary newspaper coverage would typically say that an individual neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. (They changed this police around 2012, see [7]) The Justice Department, meanwhile, would typically not pursue prosecution, viewing the remedies that the SEC would require as sufficient. So: yes, Blodget settled, there was no prosecution, and it isn't accurate to say that he was convicted. OTOH, he presumably settled with the SEC in part because he thought that it was likely that if he did not, then he would be prosecuted, and that there was a good chance that he would lose. So, while we should not say in Wikivoice that he was convicted, we should also somehow make clear that the settlement is in lieu of a guilty plea. I am not sure of the best way to do that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page for the author A.J. Finn had a definite advertorial spin and played down a controversy involving Finn in a way that was one-sided. On November 23, I edited the page to make it more balanced and to add in more information about the controversy. User:Accura9—whose user history on the site consisted of solely editing this page and other pages related to Finn's work—has repeatedly reverted my edits, claiming that issues with POV/promotion don't exist when there are citations. Accura9 has reverted my edits to the A.J. Finn article multiple times today, and has also started to go through my contribution history to Wikipedia and revert edits I've made to other pages on the site, unrelated to the A.J. Finn article. Advice from more experienced editors on what to do here? siriaeve (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have put eyes on it, undid some promotional edits, restored sourced material, addressed some review quotes that were selected as if aimed for a book jacket rather than an encyclopedic summary, killed some WP:BLPSPS, stuff like that. More eyes would be welcome. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this recent edit on BLP Caitlin FitzGerald: [8] regarding a home invastion and kidnapping. I can't seem to find any additional sources to further back this rather shocking claim. I do not doubt this happened to the subject, but should I place a template for a better / additional source? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to remove it entirely unless a better source can be found. While The Moth does say in its FAQ page that the stories told must be true, they don't seem to make any claims that they are fact checked, and this is not exactly the run-of-the-mill stuff that we usually use WP:BLPSELFPUB sources for. I also cannot find a secondary source reporting on this, which given that Fitzgerald apparently first told this story back in 2017 suggests that secondary sources either do not believe it or do not think it important. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking as well. Thank you for your insight. Maineartists (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor (User:Beccaynr) is frequently nagging for 3 weeks that attributing the statement "that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi" to Divya Dwivedi is a WP:BLP violation.

But the cited source clearly says: "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India." And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea".

Then we also have her own article from 2019 which is here or you can click here for full preview. It says "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised. Although many upper caste leaders found the foreign term “Hindu” objectionable. Gandhi also contributed to the later invention and promotion of Hindi with Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. Hindi was explicitly conceived as the language of the “Hindus”."

I am sure this not a BLP violation, but Wikipedia process certainly requires us to entertain certain disruptive editing as a part of dispute resolution and this is why I am here. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant discussion includes: Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Unsourced contentious content and WP:BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr is quite correct that we cannot interpret what she has written in any way, doing so it a WP:Syn violation. So that means for any interpretation we only have The Print. But The Print is largely just quoting her in a debate so isn't that useful either. In any case, I'm fairly confused what is being asked here. Beccaynr doesn't seem to be trying to revert mentioning the controversy completely. Instead they have reverted your attempt to change the wording [9]. Beccaynr's version seems significantly better to me since they are quoting Dwivedi which since the only sources we have are what she has written and the report on what she said in a debate, reduces the risk we may mislead people on what she has said. (It doesn't eliminate it since it's easily possible to mislead with an entirely accurate quote by taking it out of context etc.) 08:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a reminder in BLP cases, WP:BLPUNDEL says that removals on good faith BLP grounds can only be readded if there is consensus. It doesn't matter how long the text has been stable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nil Einne If you are really saying that quoting Divya Dwivedi is more important then what was wrong with this edit by another editor? The part in question is: "In 2019, she co-authored an article with Shaj Mohan titled "Courage to Begin" in The Indian Express, she wrote "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised."

It clearly quoted and cited Divya Dwivedi's own article which she has referred to often, such as here on Print article in the words that "I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’." 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the full text of that addition on the article talk page, before [10], [11], and after [12], [13], [14] it was made. The co-authored Indian Express article is currently listed in the Selected works section of the article; discussion on the article talk page about the list of works includes: Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Proposal_for_Selected_works_section. Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nil Einne: Can you answer the question that was asked above with regards to citing Divya Dwivedi's own article since that is exactly what she had also said in the debate instead of systematically removing the quote which Beccaynr is doing? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Aman Kumar Goel, I removed your recent addition of a quote that appears to be selected by you from the article [15] with the edit summary "Rm per WP:BLPUNDEL, being discussed at BLPN, out-of-context and misattributed, editor-selected OR", and this is shorthand for policy-based reasoning that I have stated in the diffs in my comment above related to BLP and NPOV policies, and issues related to editors selecting quotes instead of relying on independent and reliable secondary sources to determine what is WP:DUE to include.

  In your most recent addition [16], your edit summary states "nothing wrong with this", but there appear to be several policy-based problems:

  1) this is written as if "she" wrote the quote, instead of accurately attributing the Indian Express article to two authors; I have previously noted this as an issue with potential BLP problems.

  2) this quote is also cited to the longform journalism Mathrubhumi source, which could make it appear as if the journalist highlighted this quote, which they did not. Even if this citation is removed, it still appears to be WP:UNDUE and disproportionate to include an editor-selected quote. The placement of the quote also seems to make it appear as if the journalist then comments on the quoted aspect instead of on the Indian Express article as a whole, which seems to create an undue emphasis and potential misrepresentation of the journalism source.

  3) this quote appears related to the dispute over the editor-selected Gandhi-related content in the 2019 news report in ThePrint, and as previously discussed, there also does not appear to be independent, reliable and secondary sources focusing on this. The debate quote that independent, reliable and secondary sources focused on are included in the article. I mention this because the 2019 debate is related to criticism/harassment/death threats against Dwivedi, and WP:BLPBALANCE also discusses the use of reliable secondary sources, and the responsible, conservative, and disinterested presentation of material.

  4) if this quote is included, and if the disputed editor-selected content about Gandhi from the 2019 news report in ThePrint is restored, this would seem to have the effect of creating an original interpretation about Dwivedi that is not supported by independent, reliable, and secondary sources. There would be an undue focus on Gandhi-related statements even though such sources do not focus on this. In the context of independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the years-long campaign of distortion of what she has said, along with social media campaigns of harassment and death threats, there appear to be significant BLP policy reasons for us to exercise care with sourcing and the development of this article.

  Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Print is a secondary source which you have rejected.

The Indian Express is a primary source which you are also rejecting.

Your entire argument is focused on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Now instead of filibustering, you need to drop the WP:STICK. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of ThePrint has been discussed here and at the article talk page in the discussion section referenced above; it is one source close to the event that highlights a quote also highlighted by independent, reliable secondary sources published years later, and that quote is included in the article. Policy-based objections to the use of an editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express article has been discussed on the article talk page and here, as noted in my comments above. According to WP:BLPUNDEL, it appears discussion should continue and consensus should be developed for inclusion of this disputed content, instead of e.g. the recent attempts to restore it while this discussion is pending [17], [18]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot reject Indian Express article since Divya Dwivedi has said she has "jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters" on that article as mentioned right above.[19] See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have outlined the policy-based reasons above - this is not a rejection of the co-authored Indian Express article, which is referenced in the article and placed in context by independent and reliable secondary sources. This is about the addition of an editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express article, that does not appear to have support in independent and reliable secondary sources for inclusion according to WP:NPOV/WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION policies, and further raises issues related to WP:BLPBALANCE, as well as misrepresentation and misuse of a source in the article, i.e. as if a secondary source emphasizes the quote when it does not.

That Dwivedi referenced the entire co-authored article as context does not appear to support an editor selecting one quote to include in the article, framing it as if only she wrote it, and placing it in such a way that makes it appear as if a secondary source emphasized this quote. Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"selecting one quote to include in the article" is necessary because that it was behind the controversy.

Since you are rejecting Print over that particular quote, Indian Express should work out. But here you are simply out to WP:CENSOR the quote anyhow with this absurd WP:WIKILAWYERING which is not gonna work. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not appear to have independent and reliable secondary sources indicating that this editor-selected quote is what was behind the controversy. Instead, we have multiple independent and reliable secondary sources supporting the inclusion of a quote from the NDTV debate, which was quoted in the 2019 Print news report as well as independent and reliable secondary sources years later, which indicates (including per WP:NOTNEWS) that this quote has enduring encyclopedic significance. This quote is in the article, because it has support from multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.

The editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express article has been removed because it does not appear to have support according to core content policies, including WP:NPOV, and because there are significant WP:BLP policy concerns related to Dwivedi being targeted for harassment and death threats, both recently and in a campaign reported to have extended for years, and how this is reported to be related to her statements being taken out of context.

The lack of independent, reliable secondary support for inclusion of this editor-selected quote, the attribution as if only she wrote it, and the placement of the quote as if there is secondary support when there is not and as if a secondary source emphasizes this aspect when it does not, all appear to be policy-based reasons for exclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Print is presenting her own statement she said it live as confirmed from the video and it caused the controversy. Why you are censoring the statement? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if I have explained the policy reasons to have high-quality sources supporting inclusion, both on the article talk page and in this discussion, but I will also refer to the earlier comments by Nil Einne in this discussion, [20], [21], because I think these comments are relevant to the policy and sources discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall a single message of yours that has made any sense so far.

Print.in is WP:RS and that's all you need to know. The entire article lacks "high quality sources" (academic sources) and according to your logic we should delete entire article.

Nil Einne is saying that it is better to use her own writing when in doubt but you are removing her own write-up on Indian Express with regards to this dispute. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care has been taken to include independent, reliable secondary sources, including academic sources and longform journalism in the article. I have planned to continue working on this article, but this present dispute appears to need attention instead.

I think it would be best to permit Nil Einne to participate further if they wish; from my view, our policies discourage the use of original editor judgment to select a contentious quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay, which appears to have no support for inclusion in independent and reliable secondary sources, as well as significant BLP policy implications based on the context reported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.

There are additional issues I have outlined related to the recent attempts, e.g. the placement, attribution, and apparent misrepresentation/misuse of a secondary source and additional BLP policy issues. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single academic source used in entire entire. All we have is interviews and news sources, thus your use of the term "high quality sources" is absurd.

There is no WP:BLP issue when you are citing the statement made by the subject. That is the case with Indian Express.

Similarly, there is no concern over the sourcing when what we have is a video that is being quoted by a reliable outlet. That is the case of Print.

Your entire dispute is based on nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear from the references in the article that academic sources are used. As to this disputed content, in a diff from the article talk page [22] noted above, an academic (professor Anthony Ballas) is among the later sources highlighting the quote from the NDTV interview included in the article. And a source previously noted on the article talk page [23], Rajesh Selvaraj, (referring to a more recent France24 interview: "Then, many friends and I watched in horror as her name began to trend in social media and threats being thrown like chaff and dust into the wind, while her words were being distorted and mutilated to mislead the people by the far right media") is a professor of Tamil literature and philosophy [24]. And it is WP:BLP policy that tells us, Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources; this discussion also includes WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE policies. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the comment at the beginning of this discussioin, the IP includes a quote from a subheadline in The Print, which is not a reliable source. The related Dwivedi quote from this news source summarized in this article for WP:BLPBALANCE is

“There are several academic studies on this much discussed matter. One can refer to D.N. Jha (Looking for a Hindu Identity), Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron (Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity), and the Census of India report of 1921,” she said. “I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’.”

This offers context for the 2019 NDTV interview as reported, by referencing a lengthier joint statement and academic studies, and this context appears to help make the article fair to the subject according BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are academic sources. They are simply news sources published by news outlets.

You don't even know what WP:SCHOLARSHIP means.

What you are doing is simply whitewashing. The Print meets the definition of WP:RS here and you don't get to twist the statement of the subject according to your own convenience. If you have issue with The Print then take it to WP:RSN where you are absolutely going to fail given earlier discussions about this outlet before.

See the last long discussion which concluded Print.in is reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Scroll,_OpIndia,_The_Wire,_The_Quint,_The_Print,_DailyO,_postcardnews,_rightlog_etc.

Now that I have debunked your false assertion that the Print.in unreliable, are you up for self-reverting already? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an initial matter, I am tiring of what has seemed to be a lot of unhelpful personalization directed at me during these discussions, and I think it would be helpful to improve efforts to focus on the content.

I recently pointed out that the IP range editor quoted an unreliable portion of the Print source, and cited the guideline to support this; what is discussed here at length is the difference between using multiple independent and reliable secondary sources to support inclusion of a quote from the NDTV interview (per NPOV and BLP policies, included in the article) and an original editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay that creates undue emphasis without such support (removed because this does not reflect NPOV, appears to be OR, and particularly with the contentious context, contrary to BLP policy).

This dispute is about more than the reliability of The Print, which is included as a source for content in the article; it appears the reliability of the non-headline portions of the 2019 ThePrint source does not give an editor the ability to conduct original interpretation about what quote from the Indian Express essay to emphasize, to misattribute the quote, to place the content in a way that seems to misrepresent another source, and to add content that appears contrary to NPOV and BLP policies. Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• So we have two sources here for the concerning statement she directly made in this video, 1) Print.in, which is being being deleted for practically no reason. There is no evidence if its not a reliable source or it has engaged in any malice. 2) IndianExpress, but it is being removed because the article was co-authored by her despite she has taken full responsibilty for it. I don't see any sense in either removals. Dympies (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, there are 3 sources cited for the quote from the 2019 NDTV interview video that is included in the article; Mathrubhumi (Nov. 2022), Protean (Ballas, 2023), and The Print, (2019). This has not been deleted - it is included in the article, because multiple independent and reliable secondary sources highlight the quote.

  The Indian Express source is a co-authored essay by Dwivedi and Mohan that was written before the 2019 NDTV interview. The co-authored essay is referred to in the 2022 longform Mathrubhumi journalism source, and by Dwivedi in statements to ThePrint (2019) after the 2019 NDTV interview. The Indian Express article is referred to in the article, and included in the Selected works section. There have also been attempts by an editor to add a quote from this essay, without similar independant, reliable, secondary sources supporting inclusion of the quote. In the Print, Dwivedi referred to the co-authored essay as a whole, i.e. a lengthier statement, not the quote. And in the recent additions [25], [26], [27], the placement of the quote also appears to misattribute the quote and misrepresent the secondary source cited, and misrepresent how the secondary source is used after the quote.

  Dwivedi has also been for years, and recently, subject to a campaign of harassment and death threats; this BLP issue is based on sources, including one I noted here that discusses her statements being distorted as part of this campaign [28]. It therefore seems that much more important to rely on independent and reliable secondary sources, not original editor interpretation, to determine what, if anything, is due to include and appropriate according to BLP policy from the co-authored Indian Express essay published before the 2019 NDTV interview. Beccaynr (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As further context, the previous attempted addition of the disputed editor-selected content [29] included the non-RS portion (the subheadline) from ThePrint as a quote in the citation - this non-RS portion from ThePrint is what the IP range editor referred to in their opening comment here.

  This previous attempted addition also included the editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay. I revised this addition [30], [31], and it was discussed on the article talk page [32], [33], [34]. This is the current version of the article section. Beccaynr (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FILIBUSTER. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new writes and edites come to make subject article as reports in far right media and media social campaigns against the subject. This can be libel also not? Terrible business. Guillaume R Legrand (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note both User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Dympies have continued to re-add this material while this discussion is underway, and the former also opened a WP:AN3 complaint against Beccaynr, which I have denied as there is a BLP concern (and the filer has been edit-warring themselves). Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See section at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried about use of the word fraudster, in the first sentence of the lead section. Numerous editors have objected to this term, due to its tone issues. The same issue came up at Elizabeth Holmes, the RfC LINK found use of the term problematic and it was removed from that article. Nevertheless, a small number of users have been insistent and adamant in labeling Sam a "fraudster" vs more objective and simple phrasing, like convicted felon (he is convicted of felony fraud and felony conspiracy). -- GreenC 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it sounds really awkward to use a British English term in an article written about an American, in the US, written in American English. It's a bit like using the term "lorry" to refer to ford trucks. The term is really not used much in American English. Second it's a rather hollow term anyhow, and is far too open to interpretation. Instead of telling me he's a fraudster, it's far better from the reader's point of view to simply show me. People who are not writers often don't realize that, but from the reader's point of view, it's just an empty label and comes off as unnecessary filler. The old saying goes, "Show. Don't tell", and it's just as true in encyclopedic writing as it is for Stephen King or CS Lewis. At best, it's poor, uninformative, and lazy writing. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a huge issue in multiple articles, using up lots of time and energy. I don't know what it is, but some editors become obsessed over wanting to use this word, particularly right after a conviction. We really need specific guidance about it in the MOS, BLP etc.. somewhere, to avoid the time sink, it's been disruptive (there is now an ANI thread open). Elizabeth Holmes this debate went on for years in multiple threads ending in an RfC. Then editors turn around and say that RfC doesn't carry any weight in other articles where fraudster is used, and it starts all over again. I'm not a linguist and I have trouble expressing all the issues, but if anyone wants to create WP:FRAUDSTER that would be super helpful. -- GreenC 05:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue that arises here often too, but not limited to that one label unfortunately. A lot of it, I believe, comes from the way our brains (and likely the brains of all mammals and any other animal with an amygdala) are wired. We're emotional creatures who find it easier to use stereotypes and emotionally charged labels rather than look at the facts and actions of a subject. Like it or not, the way we process information, decide what to store, what to discard, what to ignore, and even what to recall, it's all based on our emotions, and thus it's easy to see if we can eliminate those pesky facts and actions we can go directly for that emotional reaction. (For more, see: User:Zaereth#Little boxes) It's a problem that has existed since the beginning of time, and is the root of all prejudice, propaganda, and blind hatred. It's a difficult thing for most people to set aside, because most people are not even consciously aware of their own prejudices. The problem, of course, is that it serves the writer's needs and desires, not the reader's. It's damn difficult to remove those rose-colored glasses and see things from another's point of view, in particular the reader's. That's what separates the good writers from the wannabes.

What I think people need to understand is that writing well is hard work. Writing neutrally is even harder. It's very unnatural, and takes great work, patience, and practice for even the most talented of writers. A story is told through the action alone. Labels are really meaningless, for they mean something different through the lens of each person's own colored glasses. Showing me what the subject actually did, now that's the real story, and anything else is just fluff which distracts from the real story. Fluff which any good editor will be ruthless about cutting out. That's why I say, using these types of labels is simply poor, lazy writing. As Zinsser's law says, "Easy writing makes for hard reading."

I think what we really lack are policies and guidelines on good writing practices. For example, if I write, "Darth Vader is evil." it's an emotional term, but is devoid of any substance or value for the reader, and frankly is both condescending and boring as hell. If, on the other hand, I say, "Darth Vader blew up an entire planet and killed any of his generals who made a mistake." I have gotten the same point across, giving the reader the impression they've arrived at that conclusion all on their own. It's not boring nor condescending, but tells an actual story, which in turn is far more effective and believable to the reader. If people only understood the power of good writing, I think they'd be far less apt to try pushing for these silly labels in the first place. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has very little on how to write well. Zaereth (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaereth, Thank you for this thoughtful and examined reply. I completely agree Wikipedia lacks good guidance on how to write well. I'm guilty of it myself at times. Wikipedia has a number of common problems, another is repetition of information, the essay WP:ELVAR one of my favorite essays on Wikipedia, it has had real influence on my writing. It was even mentioned in The New Yorker ie. essays can have real influence on culture, even outside Wikipedia. A similar essay for labels would be helpful. The recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53 was an attempt to modify the BLP for labels, it didn't succeed but could be material for building an influential essay. Along with the material you posted above. Within the essay there can be sub-sections for certain common problems, like "fraudster", where WP:FRAUDSTER lands. -- GreenC 17:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Man is a fraudster. BLPs are convicted of fraud. Sennalen (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great example. Do you see how utterly childish that sounds? Sticks and stones may break one's bones, but names are meaningless blather. The above statement actually tells me zilch about the music man. The thing is, when people start calling others names, they are almost always describing themselves unconsciously, and even children know that, hence the phrase "I know you are, but what am I", or "I'm rubber, you're glue..." I know the stuff I'm talking about is not what they teach us in grade school, but is stuff they teach in advanced writing classes, but seriously, why would anyone think such terms carry any weight or have any impact whatsoever? It's what I call flat-Earth thinking. It actually has the opposite effect than the one intended. Reader's take it as a silly, childish remark without any real meaning. It most certainly doesn't come off as informative nor professional. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point Sennalen was making is that TMM is a fictional character, so BLP vio isn't an issue? Valereee (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That, plus the folksy sound of "fraudster" fits the period setting of the musical. Sennalen (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point, and still think it was a great example. If it was a British musical, I would be inclined to agree, but "fraudster" is not an American English term, as any dictionary will attest, so it doesn't really fit that particular musical. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudster isn't not AmEng, I don't think. It may be more BrEng, but it's definitely used here. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster says that fraudster is "chiefly British", but American sources (CNN, CNBC, Washington Times) use the word specifically to describe SBF, so whether or not it is acceptable AmEng seems like a really pointless hair to split, unless anyone wants to seriously suggest that it would be acceptable to refer to SBF in the lead as a conman or swindler or any other suitably Americanised equivalent. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Valereee (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all are conflating two different points, a tangent about a musical and the entirely separate issue of statements that are no more than conclusions without any substance. But whatever floats your boat. You do you. As an analogy, watch any court show on TV. Judge Judy. The People's Court. Judge Mablean. In nearly every episode you see the judge say, "That's a conclusion. I don't want to hear your conclusions. Just tell me what happened!" Usually they have to tell people multiple times, and those people often end up losing their case simply because they could get out of their own way. Now, imagine the reader is your judge. The average reader is not an idiot, so its counterproductive to treat them as such. Reader's know when they're being talked down to, being led by the nose, and being fed conclusions they may or may not arrive at by the actual events. When they read a person's writing, you can bet your ass they are judging the writer very harshly. Nobody wants our conclusions. They just want the story delivered as concisely and precisely as possible. And that's not only true for bios, but scientific articles, technical articles, geographic articles, and even articles about musicals or science fiction. I know it seems counterintuitive, but people more often than not reject what they're told outright. They're more apt to believe what they're shown. No matter how one tries to rationalize it, the only reason for using such labels is because it makes the writer feel good on some unconscious level. Not because it's helpful to the reader. Zaereth (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what points you're saying are being conflated? Valereee (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this concern in general and can't see any reason why an encyclopedic article about a BLP would include "fraudster" in the lead other than perhaps some odd quote. I personally think the label applies but that is different than thinking we should include it in an encyclopedic article. Springee (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of labels continues to cry out for better guidance, and BLP guidance would seem to be the page to include such guidance. Perhaps there is a better solution, or the Essay on the topic the OP suggested. I think the general idea here is that some guiding text ought to be developed to more quickly resolve these many endless, redundant rhetorical battles. (This would not be the place, specifically, to re-argue the issue of "fraudster" on the Sam Bankman-Fried article, that would be better done on its Talk page.) Per the previous discussion on this page, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53, I tried to get some text started - roundly rejected, though I was practically begging for modifying/developing edits for weeks. I agree it is not a simple or easy task. Often a way to get started is just to put something down, and immediately notice that it is incorrect. But, it appears that many of you can't get started unless you are presented with an edit war (or the appearance of such); I suspect you deal with such things so often, they are now part of your DNA. Wikipedians are brilliant and great writers (particularly those that patrol such pages as this), and I am sure you all can develop some text. If only we had some means or method to communally and quickly develop text. Bdushaw (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Djair Parfitt-Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor claiming to be subject of article says name now Djair Parfitt and has deed poll and passport to verify this. Not sure what normal procedure is here. Anyone?--Egghead06 (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We have to go with what reliable sources say. We can't use passports or other such official documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The usual procedure is to revert, and then try to explain to the subject why it was reverted, and what they can do to change it within the scope of policy. If this is truly the subject, one option at their disposal is to get this information out to the people we use as RSs. Give interviews. Hire a PR agent. Stuff like that. We usually title an article to the name a subject is best known by, which is not always their real name, but by that used most predominantly in RSs, but either way, RSs are what we need. If they can find such sources and bring them to the talk page, that would be their best bet, but we need secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• After the whole Lourdes debacle, we really need to demand proof when people claim to be notable people. Without this person providing proof that they really are who they claim to be, then we shouldn't take any action. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry. "Lourdes debacle"? What on Earth is that? I think the action taken by Egghead was correct, to simply revert the page-move made by the subject (if that's who they truly are; I usually give people the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason than to be courteous, all the while keeping in mind it may be a hoax). I really don't think the person claiming to be the subject needs to prove who they are, otherwise we could just accept their passport. All they really need to do is provide the types of sources we can use. Zaereth (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you been living under a rock? The former administrator User:Lourdes revealed themselves earlier this month to be a sock of the banned former administrator User:Wifione. It's discussed in this recent Signpost piece Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-06/Arbitration report. What the piece doesn't mention is that in their private correspondence and in their edits, the Lourdes account pretended to be the Spanish singer Russian Red, and they got away with it for close to 8 years because they were never properly VRT checked to verify who they said they were. We simply cannot take IP/anonymous users at their word that they are notable people without VRT verification. That said I don't think that verification would be necessary here if the IP user can find better sources to change the title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess so, because this is the first I've heard of it, or the names Lourdes and Wilfone for that matter. But there are many places in the bowels of Wikipedia where I never go, and places where stuff like that happens (ANI/ARBCOM/etc.) I tend to avoid like the plague. Never read the Signpost before. My time online is usually limited to just a few minutes a day, and some days none at all. (Too much I'd rather be doing in real life.) Still, I think when people come here claiming to be the subject, it's a different matter than what you're describing with a sockpuppet admin. It happens here at BLPN all the time. Many times they are who they say, just wanting to correct something they see as a mistake in their article, and it comes off as rude and insulting to start off by claiming they are not. When it comes to editing articles, it really doesn't matter who someone claims to be, because even with proof of identity we can't just take their word for any claims they make, or else we'd just be facebook. Whether real or fake, we still need RSs in order to make such changes, so it really doesn't matter who they are in real life. The requirements are the same either way, so I've never found it productive in such cases to even bring it up. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough about not knowing about it given your circumstances. I agree about your point about needing RS (which I stated above). I also agree that it is always a good idea to treat account/IPs claiming to be notable people respectfully, regardless if they are verified or not. My point is that they need to be gently but firmly told to verify themselves, not because we're trying to be mean, but because we want to avoid people being impersonated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst you two are catching up on current events, don't lose sight of the fact that two potential sources have already been offered twice, days before this came to this noticeboard, once in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1186677382 and once on the talk page in Special:Diff/1186864162. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that www.transfermarkt.co.uk is not considered a reliable source among those familiar with editing football articles. Use of it as a source in a football article will almost always see it removed very quickly.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Monty Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Texas real estate mogul has made "publishing and politics his new battlegrounds".^[1] Should the article include or exclude a sentence summarizing RS reports that he said he was present outside the Capitol during the January 6 United States Capitol attack?^[2] There have been reverts and deletions, and talk page discussion may be at an impasse. More contributors to the article could be helpful. Llll5032 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the question might be constructed more broadly: under what circumstances should a bio specify the presence of the subject in the vicinity of the January 6 United States Capitol attack? I would generally think that people who e.g., entered the Capitol or were charged with crimes in relation with that event should have that noted. I'm less sanguine about someone who was just "there" but didn't do anything. BD2412 T 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For additional context, Bennett was a speaker at a political event where he was describing his presence outside the Capitol to dispute reports about the January 6 attack. Llll5032 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone posted without sourcing, in the middle of an irrelevant paragraph, the name of the subject's three minor children (here). I've reverted it, but should it be revdeleted for concerns of child protection? Thanks a lot. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last remark regarding Case closed has no citation and is vague. It is a highly respected work and only disregarded by Conspiracy theorists who often lack evidence or present hearsay as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redonefifty (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redonefifty, I think this is what you meant: [35]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Ferguson (news presenter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been a persistent alteration of the spousal information (from Mrs Jayne Ferguson to Dennis Ferguson, a convicted Australian child sex offender who died in 2012.) by 120.19.142.138 on 27 September 2023, 120.17.162.40 on 16 September 2023, and 120.18.61.11 on 6 September 2023. This vandalism is distressing not only to Mr Mark Ferguson but also to his wife. I note the Wikipedia policy is to issue warnings to desist, but this is not practicable with anonymous posts. I respectfully suggest that this page needs to be protected (which I have requested) and would welcome any other advice from this noticeboard regarding appropriate action. Adamm (talk • contribs)

• I have revdeleted the BLP violations so they are no longer visible; however there has been no vandalism for over a month now, so I have watchlisted it and will protect or partial-block if it continues. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks Adamm (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the discussion at Talk:Klete Keller regarding non-specific descriptions and also lede content when it comes to "convicted felons". However, I've also seen what has happened on the R. Kelly page; also a convicted felon. Not only does his "short description" state: "American R&B singer and sex offender" but the very first lede sentence reads: "American convicted child sex offender and former singer, songwriter, and record producer." This was something editors at the Klete Keller page discussed at length over with edits and reversions as to what to even call the BLP. They finally settled on "convicted participant". The R. Kelly page even displays a mug shot in the infobox. Danny Masterson's page does not read like R. Kelly's and he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 30 years in prison. What am I missing here? Is "known for" subjective or objective? and how does one decide? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this article incorrectly states that Des Rocs is influenced by "Grandson". This is not the case. This is a contemporary who Des Rocs has toured with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLipton88 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexLipton88, I've removed it because none of the cited sources mention Grandson. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]