Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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.

I'm wondering what y'all think of this--it's so odd. It looks like a kind of a COI contribution, but on the whole one can read it as a purely negative BLP as well, with just a single event and maybe a half. I don't know what to make of it. I'm not inclined to accept it because all the coverage is negative too and I don't see the subject being discussed outside of the controversy, as an artist. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator demonstrates noticeable COI. I was unable to find reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per WP:BLP, except the controversy. Think this can be sent to AFD. Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to respond in this forum, and seek guidance. Nikki Romney first came to my attention about 12 years ago when I was a journalist at the local Nelson daily newspaper and we published a story about her double identity. Stories in various other local media followed over the years. We eventually became friends for a while and even lived together for a few years, but parted company, amicably, some 30 months ago. I did not consider there was any current conflict of interest; just thought she made an interesting read and worthy addition to Wiki, considering some of the other people profiled there. I touched base with Romney and received her permission to submit a couple of her images to WikiCommons, and also referred a copy of the draft article prior to submission, and then consulted with her re some edits. She was generally happy with it as being fair and accurate, despite the negative aspects - figured it was all just part of her story as an artist. I note she posted a link to the article on her website which suggests this is so.

I absolutely did not seek or receive payment for the contribution - as a former journalist that was the last thing I'd want or expect. Perhaps there'd have been more media corroboration over the years but she has always been publicity-shy and turned down several approaches from national TV and other media. She also did not seek the Wiki entry, that was entirely my idea as I thought her story warranted it. And there were several news stories about her across some 9 years, including three separate controversies and her winning 1st and 2nd prizes in a national competition. There were a number of other local media stories which I didn't bother with.

I did anticipate that some people who have taken exception to her art might try to interfere with the Wiki posting, and appreciate the obvious commitment from Wiki editors to maintain checks and balances. JonJaySon (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Joanne Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting some other eyes on the Joanne Harris article. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores, an ex-student of Kate Clanchy is showing an ongoing interest in documenting negative coverage of writers who have criticised Clanchy (eg. Talk:Joanne Harris#Controversies!), misquoting some sources and applying synthesis when combining others. The current version of the article is using a lot of paywalled Times sources that I'm unable to verify. Belbury (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times published an article on Joanne Harris and Kate Clanchy (as did the Mail) containing allegations which they then retracted and issued apologies for. I don't think content from these disputed articles should be cited. Keyserzozie (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content in question was removed as "contentious and possibly libellous material" by Keyserzozie this morning, prior to their comment above. An IP has since posted to the talk page claiming to be Joanne Harris and saying that the cited and paywalled Times source, which NoorStores was possibly drawing from, was partially retracted by the newspaper because of "provable inaccuracies as well as some potentially defamatory allegations".

Since this may be Harris being guided by the Wikipedia interface to follow WP:COISELF best practice (remove the content then post on BLPN), this could use further review. NoorStores' response to the removal of the content was to restore it, so I've removed it again for now. --Belbury (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keyserzozie has posted that she is 'the subject of this page' meaning the Joanne Harris page so I think she is saying she is Joanne Harris. Happy to follow your advice Mr Belbury but I am sure that the subjects of articles don't get to interfere? I am upset she has put back a paragraph about 'recurrent themes' .It has not one single reference, this cannot be right. NoorStores (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Keyserzozie account didn't post that message, it came from an IP address, but I'm working on the assumption that the two are connected and the above message is one of a genuine concern from the subject.

Subjects of articles are permitted to remove defamatory statements and raise the issue here on BLPN, under WP:COISELF. Belbury (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, Keyserzozie has now explicitly said that they are not Joanne Harris in response to the question being raised on their talk page. It is only an IP that has ever made this claim. Belbury (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked up the corrections in the Times. Here they are in full.

WRITER’S RESPONSE

(Redacted)

And here is the link to them. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-pain-of-strikes-and-nhs-mismanagement-lmwzfnckf

But the article we cite is published after these corrections with corrections changed. We do not say any of things about sackcloth or investigators or any of that at all. We say Clanchy claimed Joanne Harris messaged her and said it was 'disturbing'. I don't think this is disputed or libel. NoorStores (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Times Article in Full

(Redacted)

NoorStores (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already listed on the COI noticeboard as well. I have just suggested there that @NoorStores avoid editing the articles of Kate Clanchy, Joanne Harris and the other individuals involved in the controversy around Clanchy's book and instead make proposals on Talk:, as we would expect of any conflicted editor. Almost all NoorStores has done in the last few days is edit these articles and her neutrality and interest seems to be of concern. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of NoorStores edits from the start in Nov 2023 have been around the writers involved in one way or another with Kate Clanchy and the issue mentioned. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 10:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your comment is absolutely untrue Antiquelight NoorStores (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To update this, Joanne Harris has now clarified that User:Keyserzozie works 'on her behalf' and has done so for many years, even setting up her social media accounts and taking selfies for her. User:Keyserzozie started and wrote the Joanne Harris page in Wikipedia and started and/or wrote most of the linked pages about Joanne Harris's books too. But she has never acknowledged that she is working for Joanne Harris. NoorStores (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is untrue, and you have given no examples of it NoorStores (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to "give examples"; I simply went to Special:Contributions/NoorStores and looked at your edit history.

If you want a more detailed answer, though: With a few exceptions, almost (almost!) everything you edited since 08:43, 7 January 2024, is about Philip Pullman or Joanne Harris. The previous couple of days you worked on other writers, but then a substantial proportion of your work in November and December was on biographies relating to the controversy around Clanchy's book.

I've not done any mathematical analysis, but I think it is safe to say that, since you created your account, the overwhelming majority of your edits — and the overwhelming majority of the text you have added or removed from articles — are on the articles of Pullman, Harris, Clanchy, Singh, Rajesh, Suleyman. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, what you have written is not true. The majority of my edits are on the following pages: The Complete Works (poetry) , Diran Adebayo, Saga Prize, Mukahang Limbu, Tomiwa Olowade, Roger Robinson, Momtaza Mehri. I can prove that, and I'm also going to ask @YellowFratelloto back me up here and say how much work I put in to help with his article.

Second, I have edited the Joanne Harris page quite a lot because it was written in the wrong style and had no citations. Now we have the explanation for that. It was created and edited by someone working on Joanne Harris's behalf. That's a conflict of interest.

Thirdly, my work on the Philip Pullman is similar to Joanne Harris page, cleaning up and organising. I'm going to ask @Pincreteand @Eswoteric to back me up on that.

But let's pretend that none of that is true. Let's pretend that I've only been working on the accounts you have mentioned. Why is that a conflict of interest? On the Wiki page it says a conflict of interest isn't the same as an interest. It's when you are working on someone else's behalf Whose behalf are you saying I am working on? How can you demonstrate that? More to the point, how am I supposed to demonstrate it isn't the case?

Last question: What's the difference between this and bullying? NoorStores (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may feel like that's where the majority of your edits have been, but from the data 272 of your 715 edits to Wikipedia have been to articles relating to Clanchy's publishing controversy (biographies of Clanchy, Harris, Singh, Rajesh, Suleyman, Pullman and the article on sensitivity readers), and 155 to the articles you list above. You joined Wikipedia in November last year and with a few exceptions your first 262 edits (your first month of editing) were to the Clanchy/Singh/Rajesh/Suleyman biographies and their respective talk pages.

Conflict of interest isn't just when a person edits an article under the direct instruction of its subject, it's when a personal connection to the subject prevents an editor from being able to be objective about their own writing, and about other editors' responses to it. You say you have a personal connection to Clanchy having once been her student, and your approach to writing about her on Wikipedia has featured many of the issues listed at WP:COI#Why is conflict of interest a problem? that such a connection can produce (omitting negative information, edit warring, overusing primary and non-independent sources, undue weight to certain ideas). Belbury (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that NoorStores has edited substantially outside the 'Clanchy controversy' area, so s/he isn't a SPA. In my very limited contact with them, NoorStores appears to be a little over-zealous for a new editor, but to my knowledge has done nothing to deserve censure here. I would advise NoorStores to perhaps ignore some comments here as being not worth replying to. The first time I was mentioned at ANI, I remember thinking that I was at the Spanish Inquisition and extraordinary torture would follow if I didm't answer every point!

I attempted to get to the bottom of the recent 'Harris' dispute, but couldn't. The Harris article itself appears to be basically sound, but not always well-cited, and occassionally a bit of a 'puff-piece' IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belbury, to save NoorStores responding, almost none - of the 31 Philip Pullman edits are in any way connected to the 'Clanchy controversy' area - NoorStores is quite correct that almost all of the editing there is 'tidying'. Much of that tidying is over-zealous IMO, but zeal and inexperience haven't yet been declared offences at WP AFAIK. I cannot speak about the other pages as I haven't looked at them. Trivial - sometimes personal - reasons have often led me to pages where I stayed to do tidying.

Evidence of a CoI hasn't been provided at all - it may have been a trivial past connection to one of the subjects that led NoorStores to these pages, but that's often the case. I've sometimes edited pages of people who I have met, some of whom I hugely admire, some personally detest, that doesn't mean I cannot edit neutrally. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoorStores has said they were once a student of Kate Clanchy. But evidentially proving some particular depth of COI isn't necessary, the issue is that this user is consistently not editing neutrally and within BLP when writing about Clanchy's detractors, for whatever reason. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support @Pincrete. The issue with the Harris page is that it was largely written by @Keyserzozie, an editor who has now stated that they act on behalf of Harris. Possibly as a result, it was a puff piece as you say, Pincrete, and other editors had noted this over the years. Also when I began work on it had very few citations at all, I think less than 10. For example, an entire passage labelled 'Recurrent Themes' laid out what seemed to be a (flattering) critical perspective, but which had no sources or proper quotations from critics at all. It was just something @Keyserzozie, acting for Joanne Harris, had written themselve. I removed that section among others and added more notable events which did have sources and I think that was the right thing to do.

But when Joanne Harris and @Keyserzozie noticed what I was doing they accused me of libel, and then of conflict of interest because I had said I was once a student of Kate Clanchy's. In my opinion, their joint conflict of interest is more serious than mine and I will leave a note about this on the board before I leave Wikipedia.

The problem with Belbury's many accusations against me- they are on my Talk Page, the Joanne Harris page, and the conflict of interest board too - is that they do not have context or examples. They are accusations about character and they repeatedly suggest I am acting for Kate Clanchy. I don't feel I can disprove this without stating who I am IRL. I find this very harassing. I don't want to give up my identity because I am a young Pakistani woman trying to find a job in British Publishing. I've got family issue and job issues and honestly I am sorry I even gave my real first name now.

So I have decided to leave Wikipedia. I'm sorry because I really enjoyed lots of it. It makes me very happy to think that my page on The Complete Works (poetry) is being useful to lots of people. And I can see good editors like @PamD and @Pincrete do genuinely valuable work. NoorStores (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns raised against your editing refer to specific examples of problematic edits, and this talk section was opened as a request for more eyes on one particular article.

I have taken your statement about being an ex-student of Kate Clanchy in good faith and haven't assumed or requested any personal information beyond that. I have never suggested that you are acting on Clanchy's behalf.

The open COI thread isn't an attempt to work out exactly who you are, where the outcome depends on whether we can. It's a concern about an editor making biography edits which repeatedly show typical COI issues whenever they write about the person they have a mild COI connection to. Belbury (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised no specific examples. None of your accusations are at all clear. You say things like 'I think NoorStores may be unhelpfully close to the subject here, and from the level of synthesis and primary sources in their edits appears to starting with their own perspective of events and finding sources to support each step, rather than writing neutrally based on what reliable sources have said. There's also a general sense that NoorStores sees Clanchy's critics as "controversial" figure'. You don't give examples, so I can't explain or deny them. You've also spread these attacks over several pages, so I am harassed and bewildered, and said nothing when editors have abused and threatened me in terms such as 'please do leave. You are a new, conflicted, and un-accomplished editor..In the past twenty years Wikipedia has dealt with many editors like you who only seek to deface articles for your own ends, so while for you this is a horrific confrontation, for us it's just Friday.' You have also joined in and encouraged Joanne Harris/Keyserzozie in many unfounded personal insinuations. Of course, when all the accusations are those sorts of insinuations, I want to clear my name. Of course I am tempted just to put up my email address and university - but I can't, for family and job reasons. You do not, excuse me, understand what it is to be a Pakistani woman in the UK. The pressure is making me too unhappy and I am going to leave Wikipedia.

I don't think you have behaved well in your role as Admin. NoorStores (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(The above is a duplicate of a comment that NoorStores had already posted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores, so I won't respond again here.) Belbury (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to college with several (now) famous people, knew Bill Clinton slightly at Oxford (and yes, he probably was telling the truth about not inhaling!), I have worked with other well known figures and at several well known institutions. I'm not an academic, but I imagine that any academic contributing to WP will know, and will have studied with or met, or worked with many people with WP articles. This is evidence of nothing unless there is evidence of biased editing. I don't see that, most of NoorStores' editing is completely unconnected to the "Clanchy dispute" - even if much of it is on subjects indirectly related to Clanchy. But she has decided to leave WP, so the matter is closed. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard post was requesting eyes on a specific article, which I'm glad to say it received, so this matter is closed. The concern over the user's wider editing pattern (including diffs to some relevant edits) is still open at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores. Belbury (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This COI notice mentioned above was placed by @Belburyat the behest of @Keyserzoziewho at that time had not acknowledged that she was acting on behalf of Joanne Harris. They alleged that @NoorStores was trying to insert 'contentious or libelous material' because she was using an article from The Times. Joanne Harris had sued the Times over this article, but @NoorStores was using the amended version of the article, so no libel could be contained in it. This was quickly obvious and so was the fact that @Keyserzoziewas a SPA acting on behalf of Joanne Harris. As soon as that became clear, @Belbury should have removed this COI discussion. They did not and instead allowed @NoorStores to be harrassed and abused on this thread and also at her Talk page and also at the COI page. As Pincrete so kindly says, there is no evidence that @NoorStores is a SPA, or has made non-neutral edits or of any other COI. She has worked on many pages and she deserved to be treated in good faith.

@NoorStores is now asking for the COI allegation to be removed. She requests @Belbury to stop interacting with her. If he continues to do so, she will seek arbitration and an interaction ban. NoorStores (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just respond to the false statement made on a public noticeboard, from that: I did not open that COI discussion at anybody's behest, and it pre-dates any contact I had with Keyserzozie. Belbury (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline, for information:

7 Jan: Belbury opens Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores

11 Jan, 09:06am: KeyserZozie edits Joanne Harris for the first time since 1 October

11 Jan, 3:32pm: Belbury posts a COI notice at User talk:Keyserzozie#Possible conflict of interest

PamD 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the article Chauvinism, we currently have the following:

An example of a modern-day British nationalist extreme enough to be labelled a chauvinist, as evidenced, for instance, in a 40-page background check by his own bank,^[1] is Nigel Farage.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]} Farage himself admits to fighting for, inter alia, chauvinism.^[8] His association with extreme nationalist views, including chauvinism, is so well known that it has been parodied.^[9]

Discussion (here) about whether this should be included has reached no consensus, so further input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether RS have made a significant connection between Nigel Farage and Chauvinism, the wording here just seems like an opinionated WP:SOAPBOX rather than something encyclopedic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is totally inappropriate. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt that Farage has shown chauvinist views, but that doesn't make him a poster child for the article more than anyone else who has done similar. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck would we ever use a living person as an example of an insult? This is silly. Are we going to start nominating politicians for the lead illustration on Douchebag? Not that I wouldn't have a few, it's just not appropriate jp×g🗯️ 01:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the contributor concerned has persisted in attempting to bludgeon this political soapboxing into the article, I've started an ANI thread, [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Playboi Carti's birth date has been brought into question following the release of his track H00dByAir and the release of footage of his arrest (with him saying his birth year at 10:43) in 2022. Consensus has not been reached, and editing has gone back and forth between the dates 1995 and 1996 for weeks without solid conversation. The majority of reliable sources state his birth date as 1996, but more questionable ones - such as a leaked driver's license state it is 1995.

This detail is being consistently contested, with edit requests and various users. I'd appreciate another opinion on how to proceed, as at this point I'm unsure whether continuous reverts is doing any good. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 00:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was filed at DRN about 36 hours ago. I advised the filer that BLPN would probably be a better forum. If reliable sources disagree on his date of birth, I would suggest that it be removed from the infobox, and a brief mention made in the article that different sources provide different birth dates. However, if all of the reliable secondary sources agree, then the inconsistent sources are not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue with this specific case is that the footage of the rapper's arrest would likely fall under WP:RSPRIMARY. Although it's difficult to acknowledge that we cannot take footage from the rapper directly as the end-all, I think it is necessary to do so in this circumstance. Do you think it's worth putting a notice at the top of his talk page, too, to draw attention to this issue? EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 23:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are no reliable references for 1995 (video on random Youtube account excluded for obvious reasons) and plenty for 1996. The only action needed is the warning, followed by blocking if necessary, of anyone adding the improperly referenced 1995 date). FDW777 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this judgement - thank you. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

陈牧驰 I am looking for help to remove those repeated defamatory claims under the section “相关争议”(which means “Related Disputes” in English) —“私生活争议、粉丝暴行”(which means “Disputes regarding personal life, Fan’s Vandalism” in English) with respect to the specific living person 陈牧驰, who is a Chinese actor. Edits under these sections repeatedly restored by the same user are pure defamatory, not neutral, substantially biased and without verfiability as those edits are poorly sourced to tabloid journalisms. It is against Wikipedia’s policy that “[c]ontentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Those defamatory edits has also make 陈牧驰 an attack page as “[p]ages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to;…… Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}} or {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.” Please help me to remove those defamatory edits and also please let me know how can I report the same user keep posting those defamatory edits or bring this user to the attention of administrators for blocking. Thanks and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedits4U (talk • contribs)

• User:Fairedits4U, two users spent a lot of time cleaning up your three requests and making them into one, but we still don't know what article you are talking about or exactly what the problem is. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this refers to this article on zh.wiki? The different language wikis are governed separately, and editors on the English wikipedia are unable to assist you here; you need to bring this up on the article's zh.wiki talkpage or an appropriate noticeboard on zh.wiki. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank u so much! It is indeed the article about which I am talking. And thanks for your advice, I will check out the appropriate noticeboard. Fairedits4U (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u so much! I am sorry for the inconveniences. I am not aware of that different language wikis are governed separately. Apologize again for the inconveniences. Fairedits4U (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains unreliable informations concerning his personal life. Special:Diff/1196185696 The sources are two unauthorized biographies of Jagger relying extensively on unverified gossips. The informations are also presented as facts although never confirmed by Jagger himself. Therefore, I believe it should be removed. I'd appreciate another opinion on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolamelody123456 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't at all see the issue here. Books being unauthorized doesn't mean they're less reliable or more biased, official accounts are prone to their own issues. As for Jagger never speaking on it, the man does not speak about a lot of things, for example he has never once mentioned the stillborn daughter he had with Marianne Faithfull or the pregnancy from him that P. P. Arnold terminated, that doesn't mean those events should be disbelieved.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow this logic then we can add any kind of gossip and all of the alleged affairs that Jagger had in this section, which mean that it'll never end. The section should focus on the most important and verifiable facts. The unauthorized biographies about him are a compilation of tabloid gossips put into books. Him calling Buell a mother of one of his children for years or him being the first to see her after giving birth has never been confirmed by anyone. At least Faithfull and him were an official/public couple and she confirmed it herself which give the information about their stillborn more credibility. Lolamelody123456 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Caeciliusinhorto here, I don't see any indication that the authors are unreliable or that their books should be assumed to be nothing but compilations of tabloid gossip. Again, something being "unauthorized" is not an issue.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be more skeptical over "authorised" biographies. While they're not automatically non RS, they definitely should be treated with care. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel exactly the same, there is likely to be far more bias, POV and censorship in those kinds of works.★Trekker (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If the question is whether the sources are reliable, WP:RSN might be a better venue, but I would note from a very superficial glance that Christopher Sandford (biographer) and Christopher Andersen are both notable journalists and biographers, and both of their biographies were published by major publishers; the presumption would normally be that they are reliable for Wikipedia's purposes Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no doubt this police officer has been suspended for allegations of mis-stating his military service, the article is now reading like a hatchet job with several uses of WP:OR to back allegations of other misconduct. There is also a lengthy section Nick Adderley#Media inaccuracies which lists media details claimed to be wrong but with no sourcing of the conclusion, just the original report. Nthep (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this seems to be a mess of stuff cobbled together (or inferred) from sources which happen to mention Adderley. At minimum it needs someone to take a hatchet to it (and for someone to have a look at both of the images, which are incorrectly licensed on commons, and may need deleting) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the worst excesses. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's some heated discussion and restoration of BLP-violating content.
I didn't start Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#Good_Evidence_for_Antineoplaston_Efficacy_from_Japan but much of the relevant discussion is there. Claims that no independent researchers have found Burzynski's treatment efficacious are false and defamatory. A large Japanese research group found a significant reduction in mortality, the primary endpoint in their study: PMC 4366171.

As my first attempt to address this documents with sources (and yet was reverted), ~half of his trial research has been published, not none.

To be clear, as far as I know, he's a fraud. I'm fine with much of the negative content about Burzynski and his Clinic. But in looking into it, I'm finding a lot of clearly false statements about him. I'm not a fan of fraud or defamation. Aside from the BLP legal issues, important though they are, there's another problem: Wikipedia will do a lousy job of convincing people that he's a fraud, if it continues to peddle demonstrably false claims about him.

I've removed them, and explained why I would be doing so before doing so, with a clear edit summary: rm BLP violation. See Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#BLP violation in Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#Good_Evidence_for_Antineoplaston_Efficacy_from_Japan.

I wrote there: Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. It's my understanding that BLP requires removing the false claim that "other investigators have not been successful in duplicating" any of his results. We all know: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. This is obviously poorly sourced as it is contradicted by w:V .gov sources. I've pulled it. If anyone want's to revert, I urge a visit to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a next, pre-revert step..
The reverter refused to come here, instead making multiple threats and false accusations on my talk page and in edit summaries; I explained this here. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is true or false here is not the issue. That is a matter of opinion. When we quote from an eminently RS like cancer.gov, do not alter the quote of a mainstream source so that it appears to support a quack therapy. The quote from the RS is not a BLP violation, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Based on your revert, we find your alteration:

• Original: "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results."
• Altered: "These studies often report remissions"

That's deceptive editing to frame Burzynski's results as somehow legitimate. The part you deleted disputes his results. The man's methods are quackery, so stop defending him. You are trying to right great wrongs and should not be editing this topic, especially when your editing is deceptive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Due to RudolfoMD's refusal to accurately sign their new comments with the right timestamps, the timestamps for their comments above can be confusing and make it appear as if my comment at 06:16 replied to all that is above my comment at 06:16. That is not the case. In the future, RudolfoMD, do not alter comments that have already been replied to or thread comments in a way that can create confusion. When replying to me, place your reply below my comment, not above it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

RudolfoMD, you refuse to acknowledge my point about that deceptive edit. Deal with it here, not on my talk page. You did alter an exact quote from a very RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is true, false, and defamatory, according to reliable sources is at issue. That's not a matter of opinion. What eminently reliable sources show WRT what's in the peer reviewed literature matters. Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. Knowingly putting false, defamatory info into the wiki is wrong no matter how much you want to insist that it's undoing vandalism.

It would have been better to delete the whole BLP-violating sentence instead of leaving the part that wasn't BLP-violating, but became what you, assuming bad faith, label as deceptive editing. It wasn't, and anyway, you reverted it already.

As I told you on your talk page, I removed BLP-violating statements that weren't quotes, I didn't alter a quote from cancer.gov. Yet you are repeating the claim again. That seems to be a deliberate falsehood. Why do that?

Again: To be clear, as far as I know, he's a fraud. I'm fine with much of the negative content about Burzynski and his Clinic. But in looking into it, I'm finding a lot of clearly false statements about him. I'm not a fan of fraud or defamation. Aside from the BLP legal issues, important though they are, there's another problem: Wikipedia will do a lousy job of convincing people that he's a fraud, if it continues to peddle demonstrably false claims about him. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing talk pages, as you did here - deleting an active discussion. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just archived a bunch of old and inactive threads. I didn't notice that you had left a couple of comments in them. I will restore those threads for you. In the future, start new threads instead of commenting on old ones. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about burying the lede! Self-reported remissions with failed replication is a canonical indicator of quackery! Guy (help! - typo?) 19:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. RudolfoMD, you have made many edits, and I did not revert all of them. I am only referring to one particular edit of yours. That was deceptive editing on your part. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The question of whether or not some experimental research results have been replicated is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia would simply need WP:MEDRS saying whether (or not) the research results have been replicated. Note: a thread was already at WP:FT/N#Burzynski (cancer quackery) where this might be better handled. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is BLP-violating content recently re-added to the article, as noted in my OP. The world and this section both don't revolve around you and what you care about - an edit I already addressed two comments above (2nd ¶, :45). A comment that warrants attention. Stop off-topic beating a dead horse. Defamatory content is a BLP issue. V applies when evaluating content as a BLP issue or not. What policy backs Bon's claim that verifiable governments sources show is false - that no independent researchers have found Burzynski's treatment efficacious - is not a BLP issue? It's a direct attack on his reputation - which would be fine if it was based in current, verifiable reality - as a good chunk of the article is, but a smaller problematic chunk is not. Outdated claims are outdated claims.
  Some of the problems I pointed out and persisted in rectifying have been partly fixed - the article no longer says that Burzynski has not published results for any of the many trials he ran, an outrageously false claim that was in the article for how long? As I documented, at least 29 were published. But our article doesn't tell readers that. He's run about 70 trials, again as I documented, not about 60. I documented that. But the article still says ... 60. Help! I'm told I can't fix it - that it would be edit warring, and vandalism. For re-adding "However, clinicaltrials.gov shows 29 studies with results.<< ref >>" to the article. Proof is ample:^[1]
  Additionally, the article has some other problems I just noticed and flagged. RudolfoMD (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Classic WP:CRYBLP. Whether not a treatment is effective is not a biographical question. This has been discussed before at length and the consensus is that BLP does not extend to a person's work.[2] Bon courage (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Bon courage: classic CRYBLP, of a pattern we have seen for years with this particular article. The simple fact is that Burzynski sells a ruinously expensive cancer "cure" with no FDA approval, no sound clinical evidence, and where most of the patients - including those featured on his website - die in line with original prognosis, plus the side effects of hypernatremia. Rudolfo is nitpicking based on age of sources (numbers that were accurate when published, but quibbles based on personal interpretation of primary sources as of today's date). We fix this with {{as of}}, not by substituting our own interpretations. This user is also advocating that Fauci is the father of COVID [3] (which arguably is a BLP violation), and various other fringe positions, so should probably be counselled on WP:FRINGE (which absolutely does cover Burzynski). Guy (help! - typo?) 19:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with BC and Guy that this is not a BLP issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a BLP issue. It's a disagreement over content and doesn't belong here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP noticeboard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Schierbecker (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Death Editor 2, who claims User:Death Editor was "banned by mistake" because he lost his password, continually adds "convicted felon" to the first line of Virgil Griffith. I tried reverting, but user immediately [de-reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgil_Griffith&oldid=prev&diff=1190677012]. It feels rude, because the first line of Bill Cosby is

William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/ KOZ-bee; born July 12, 1937) is an American former comedian, actor, spokesman, and media personality.

If Death Eater 2 had their way, it would be

William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/ KOZ-bee; born July 12, 1937) is an American former comedian, actor, spokesman, media personality, and convicted rapist.

Would love to get this disagreement settled. --TIB (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page User talk:Death Editor 2, it's just issue after issue. They seem to really like adding defamatory words to the first sentence of biographical pages. --TIB (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I keep updating this, I did not at the time know that they added 'convicted rapist' to the Danny Masterson page, but they did. I predict it appears on the Cosby page soon now that I have suggested it! --TIB (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If our Osama bin Laden intro is a pretty tame "was a Saudi-born Islamic dissident and militant leader," then "felon" may be a bit undue for a biography. Zaathras (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unbanned as the records of my contributions for that account clearly show. And 'felon' does not apply that someone is a bad person, it merely states that they were convicted of a felony which they may or may not have committed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I WAS banned by mistake because I kept reverting the edits that showed that various islamic terrorist groups were on the side of climate change. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm on wikibreak, I logged in to comment. Please remember that Cosby was never convicted of an offence which was called rape in the legal system where he was convicted. He was convicted of three counts aggravated indecent assault, his only one (at least for anything like this) and this conviction was vacated. For BLP reasons, we should always avoid renaming an offence in an article, especially when there is an offence with the same name in the legal system where someone was convicted. There are also a bunch civil judgments, handling those can always be tricky but whatever we do they're clearly not convictions.

In other words, we should never have called him a convicted rapist since unfortunately that was never true. I mean if editors want to say it's rape on talk pages, within reason, personally I'm not going to pushback on that. (Just like I don't mind say I find Cosby's lack of any conviction for rape unfortunate.) But definitely never in wikivoice in article text unless you can establish the vast, vast majority of RS do that.

Perhaps more importantly, I think it's well accepted that when someone's conviction is overturned we should never continue to say they are a convicted A no matter whether you can argue it's technically true. You can continue to refer to the overturned conviction but it needs to be done in a context where you quickly make clear it was overturned.

So IMO, if anyone now tries to add convicted rapist anywhere in the Bill Cosby article, they should be warned and then if they repeat either topic banned from BLPs or site blocked or banned. Heck even if they accurately name the conviction but don't make it clear within the same context it was vacated. So it's really a terrible example to use. Note that prior to the conviction being vacated, we did mention "being convicted of a number of sex offenses in 2018" in the first sentence [4].

George Pell is a good example where we don't label him a convicted anything but do mention the conviction in the lead along with it being quashed in the very next sentence. Note that prior to it being quashed, we did label him a convicted child sex offender [5]. Note also there was a bunch of discussion on how to handle this around the time it happened especially whether to call it a wrongful conviction. I think it was felt this was unnecessary when we're going to say it was quashed in the very next sentence.

More generally, the issue of labeling people convicted of crimes has been contentious for a long time. Two recent broad discussions I'm aware of are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Descriptions of BLPs and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 53#Labels again - request for clarification/clearer guidance. And the essay Wikipedia:Crime labels has some links to discussions on specific subjects.

Personally I support the essay's suggestion of re-working the lead to make them more descriptive and avoid labels. But as I said in the BLPN discussion, I don't think we're that consistent (or fair).

However in so much as there is consistency, I think Griffith is much more like Klete Keller (who we do sort of label) than he is Masterson or for that matter Cosby and Pell prior to their convictions being overturned. All three of these had extreme highly profile careers prior to their convictions so that they were extremely well known for these careers and remain so, although their convictions were for extremely serious crimes and very high profile. (Cases like Osama bin Laden and Elizabeth Holmes are IMO even more different so I'm not sure how useful they are to consider as comparisons.)

Both Keller and Griffith by comparison weren't so high profile even if perhaps they crossed the threshold for notability. Griffith seems to have done more different things that got some minor attention that Keller, although I don't actually see any source in the article that is on Griffith from before the conviction. To be clear, I'm not including the several which seem to be something he was involved in but where I'm guessing he's only mentioned in passing. But whatever the case, they aren't people who were particularly well known. However they were involved in quite high profile convictions. Griffith's seem more serious (in terms of the sentence) while Keller's seems more high profile. But ultimately we're talking about cases where it's quite likely that their conviction is one of the only reasons people even known about them, especially now.

Note that I still don't support labeling Griffith. However I do think if we remove the label, the conviction should be mentioned much sooner than it is since as I said it's probably one of the most significant things about him. More generally, given the previous discussions I think it's clear there's no established consensus on how to handle such things. Therefore I don't feel the change to Griffith can be said to be enough of a BLP violation that it needs immediate removal. Instead both sides need to avoid edit warring and discuss, and seek more opinions etc to try and resolve the dispute, which yes this is part of.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a person, who had a long previous career with notable achievements, is later convicted of a serious crime, tacking that onto the first sentence of lede is really messy and not an impartial tone. I would expect that conviction to be discussed in the lede somewhere, but ramroding it into the first sentence is sloppy and is strong evidence of pushing a POV into an article. — Masem (t) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Birthday again regarding sources for a living person's date of birth. Thank you. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have another actress with conflicting sources regarding her birth year. The source that's currently cited was published a couple months ago and says she's 42.[6] I've also come across other articles that claim that to be her age as well. However the source that was cited prior is an article that was published in 2009 and talks about how she just turned 30 and that she's three years older than Jay Baruchel(born 1982).[7] And in this article she says that she doesn't wish to be in her 20s again and in your 30s, you start to know who you are.

What should be done? Do we either

A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1980-1981) and put in a footnote saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.

or

B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I started a discussion over at Talk:Emily_Hampshire to see if a consensus can be reached. Kcj5062 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason that must be a conflict. They're both consistent with (early) 1980, likely not 1981. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 article was from October of that year. If she turned 30 that year, then her birth year would be 1979. And as mentioned above, it talks about her being three years older than Jay Baruchel who was born in 1982. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was thinking of it in a fuzzy "I just turned 30 at some point in the last few years" sort of way, but applied the uncertainty in the wrong direction; October 2009 is the latest possible date for her to turn 30, not the earliest. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For various reasons I believe the Toronto Star article more than the BBC one. Primarily: 1) it seems inherently more plausible to me that an actress in her early 40s would want to be seen as slightly younger than she actually is than that an actress in her late 20s would want to be seen as slightly older, and 2) in the BBC article the age is just an aside and it's the kind of minor detail that would be easy to get slightly wrong, whereas the Toronto Star article is a profile largely based on an interview where she specifically talks about her reaction to turning 30. My inclination would be to put the birthdate suggested by that article in the lead, and put the BBC discrepancy in a footnote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not by my computer currently, but I would suggest the opposite based on the multitude of sources pointing towards the BBC article suggested age. I pulled around 12 sources this morning that all pointed towards the BBC birthday of August 29, 1981, along with several self published aources on her birthday.

I'll follow up with the full reference list once home, but I would suggest a note suggesting something such as 'While most interviews point towards a 1981 birthday, in a X interview she stated she had turned 30, putting her birth year at 1979'. The one thing that is able to be sourced to her is her birthday is on August 29, of whatever year she was born on.

[8]

Reply to costar wishing her a happy birthday on Aug 29

[9]

Happy Birthday from the official Twitter account of her show on Aug 29

[10]

Same as above on Aug 29, different year.

[11]

post from costar on Aug 29

[12]

birthday cake post on Aug 29

Awshort (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Awshort Please enjoy this brief profile from 2013 when Hampshire was listed as being 32 (you will have to click the arrows to see Hampshire). I will let you do the math. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a article from The Globe And The Mail that was published in September 2012 and has 33 listed as her age[13]. This also implies a 1979 birth year. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcj5062 I suspect that further research would find that earlier reporting uses the 1979 birth date and later reporting uses the 1981 birth date, but there are likely to be fewer sources early in her career since she has less work to report on. I think we know what is going on here. Using the more common 1981 birth date with a footnote is likely the best course of action. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses Other than the quote which ironically enough is the only time she has ever mentioned her age, all sources I ran across point to the 1981 date. As I had mentioned in my previous post above, I also agree with stating the 1981 date and the 1979 date in a footnote. It is also worth noting that the Hollywood Reporter link below that has her listed as being 32, also features Jay Baruchel being 31 at the time of publication and included in the same list. It adds doubt to the "three years older" part that the original interviewer threw into the Toronto Star article.

• Montreal Gazette

Dec 11, 2011

The West Island-born actor, just turned 31,

(She just turned 30 rather than 31 if the math is correct)

• Hollywood Reporter

Sept 6, 2013

Emily Hampshire (32, Actress)

• The Star

Mar 16, 2015

The Montreal-born Hampshire, 33,

• CBC.ca

Apr 28, 2015

The 33-year-old says many Canadian

• Entertainment Tonight

May 17, 2017

the 35-year-old actress says.

• Page Six

Dec 14, 2018

Geiger, 30, and Hampshire, 37, first revealed

• Us magazine

Feb 11, 2019

does know for sure is that the Schitt’s Creek star, 37,

• Us Magazine

Aug 28, 2021

later, the Canada native, now 39,

• Entertainment Weekly

Sep 1, 2021

Hampshire, 40, revealed.

• Sunday Post

Jan 2, 2023

The 41-year-old Hampshire, from Montreal,

• Wall Street Journal

Apr 4, 2023

Emily Hampshire, 41,

• People

Nov 1, 2023

On Tuesday, the 42-year-old actress,

• BBC

Nov 2, 2023

Hampshire, 42, told her

Awshort (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit PursesYeah this is looking similar to the Rebel Wilson situation that occurred years ago where before she became famous, there were a couple of articles about her that were published that listed an age that matched up to a 1980 birth year and then once she became famous, articles started listing her age that matched up a 1986 birth year. And it turned that the earlier articles were correct all along. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same were to happen with Hampshire. Anyhow a footnote has been added to her page. Kcj5062 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to you before pointing our that the report that I resigned from the Lords following the Cyril Smith enquiry was wrong. I in fact retired as planned at the end of March on the 55th anniversary of my by-election! DS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3304:D101:6858:CE5D:5CE3:7C5E (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But decent sources seem to put the resignation as consequent.[14] Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a reliable source which supports this? The BBC and Guardian sources cited in the article David Steel regarding the resignation seem to support the claims that our article is making. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have to be very careful about interpreting sources, especially for articles about living people. However the Guardian article cited after that sentence in the lead says:

He said he had already been contemplating retirement from the House of Lords but would now stand down as “soon as possible”.

StarryGrandma (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations that district attorney of Fulton County Georgia Fani Willis had hired a boyfriend as special prosecutor have been widely reported in reliable sources.

CBS News article: A Fulton County commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation ... he would pursue a “full investigation”

ABC News source: would be "pursuing as full of an investigation as is permitted by Fulton County government."

Willis "sought to quash" the subpoena and accused Wade's wife.

PBS Newshour article: Fani Willis is accusing the estranged wife of a special prosecutor she hired of trying to obstruct her criminal election-interference case ... seeking to quash the subpoena.

Politico article: Willis moved to quash the subpoena

Certain editors would like to keep this information out of the article on BLP grounds. THe reason provide is Willis hasnt responded and we can only consider inclusion after an investigation is complete. The reasoning seems questionable. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because the editors are looking to include content that insinuates wrongdoing on the part of Willis, a highly visible figure who is trying one of Donald Trump's criminal cases (see 2020 Georgia election investigation and Georgia election racketeering prosecution for more on that). I will note that there is a section titled "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Fani Willis" at the racketeering prosecution article that I do not object to, as it is not a BLP and is the appropriate article for discussing pretrial motions.

This is one edit I've reverted. This is based on no concrete evidence that has been presented as of yet, but insinuations from the court filings of one of Trump's codefendants. The judge has yet to hear arguments relating to this. In addition to WP:BLPGOSSIP, there are WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS grounds to keep this out, at least for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not specifically endorse the edits you reverted, I would note that what comes to including basic facts per PUBLICFIGURE, your unsubstantiated references BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS have zero relevance. Please study the policies you cite and you shall see it yourself. Your claim that there is"no concrete evidence" is also irrelevant. What matters is that there are widely reported allegations and there is no indication that the allegations can be promptly dismissed as false. RECENTISM is an essay that is also cited BLPSTYLE, and may helpful in determining due weight, but the essay cannot subvert another policy, specifically PUBLICFIGURE. Politrukki (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could throw around more letters like WP:VNOT. You do so quite a bit. You need to study BLP protections more generally. Court filings are not "evidence" until a judge rules on them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since my edit is being referenced and again being misrepresented here, I'll chip in my take.

You have claimed repeatedly that this is only based on court filings, which is incorrect. RS have done their own research and reporting on this. RS report on Wade's lack of prosecutorial experience while being assigned the lead role by Willis in this case - per Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, based on their analysis of Wade's career and typical procedure. They note the >$650,000 he has been paid, larger than Willi's own salary, doing a job that normally is done by civil servants, per aforementioned WaPo article based on county records. They report on the investigatory measures taken by Fulton County audit chair sourced from him per NBC News. And some more up to date reporting includes NYT reporting backing up a relationship between Willis and Wade based on an independent witness. I'd also like to present that you seemingly? agree with me that my edit's presentation of content matches RS ("taking the words directly from sources"), after previously claiming bias.

Does your standard on "considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide" (mentioned below) apply for any of the people mentioned in the Fani Willis article's coverage of her electoral indictments, who are as of yet, unconvicted or sometimes not even indicted? Including Burt Jones, who a judge has explicitly blocked Willis from prosecuting? We have RS coverage of both Willis and Jones, including their own reporting, their own evidence gathering, their own analysis, etc. It makes perfect sense to me why Jones is included. It does not make sense why Willis, given similar if not more coverage, is not. In the talk page and here, you brought up inclusion dependent on judge's ruling. However, the judge in Jones' case ruled entirely for him and blocked Willis from prosecuting. I'm not seeing any consistent application of your standards. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not "my" standard, it's the standard we should all be following. Even the articles talking about the travel say Roman's attorney has not provided evidence, which I expect we'll see in the February 15 hearing. That they traveled together in and of itself means nothing. It would be a big deal if the judge rules that this is a conflict of interest. Adding the insinuations of impropriety on her part now is a BLP violation for all the reasons I shared below in my reply to Magnolia.

While you're trying a whataboutism in how our BLPs treat the people Willis indicted, I will note that they were indicted. And the court process with Burt Jones has run its course. It has not with Willis and Wade. Willis has until February 2 to file her written response. We need to exhibit patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm doing is providing examples that we presumably both agree are due for inclusion to show why the mention of Willis & Wade is also valid for inclusion, so that we have something to ground us on the same page rather than just speaking past each other. I'm concerned that the haphazard citing of BLP policies you did below is indicative of that; among the policies you bring up include BLPPRIMARY is when all the cited sources are secondary (Magnolia just restored my old edit, which is entirely based on secondary RS). I'm not claiming that indictments are 1:1 the same thing as Willis-Wade (although my examples include unindicted people), only that inclusion of content related to judicial proceedings is clearly not incumbent on a judge's ruling.

I agree that BLP is the standard we should all be following. Along with the examples from the Willis article, I can also provide the example mentioned in WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Seems pretty apparent that the Willis-Wade revelations are this very textbook example. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE; however the level of detail about the allegations disrupted WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true. This is a "meat and potato" case of including allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; Willis is a public figure, there are allegations that are noteworthy, hence it is clearly established that at least something should be included in the bio. I happened to take a stab at the bio by adding one relatively short paragraph. Now it is up to editorial discretion to determine how much content is DUE. Some of it cannot be done now, because the curtain is still open. The fact that there is also an article Georgia election racketeering prosecution where the allegations can be covered in-depth suggests that Willis's bio should only contain a short summary – at least for now. Politrukki (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme quickly show the text that Politrukki added to Willis' bio a few hours ago that I just reverted: On January 8, 2024, an attorney for Mike Roman, a defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution case accused Willis of prosecutorial misconduct. According to the court filing, Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade (whom Willis hired for the case) had a romantic relationship, creating an improper conflict of interest. The filing asserts that Willis went on vacations with Wade and so Willis profited from hiring him; it cited sealed records for the divorce of Wade and his wife.^[1][2] These unsubstantiated allegations, sourced to court filings, violate BLP. They are alleging misconduct without the proof, which we have not seen, being adjudicated upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case wether I think we should take a wait and see approach. A lot of accusations have been made but odds are good that what we would want to say about this a year from now will be different than what we would suggest today. These could be facts that kill her career but if proven false they may amount to just a footnote. There is no time limit. Springee (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was of skeptical of adding something at first, but I've come around to think we need something (though I would note that the unsealed divorce papers didn't reveal much^[3]. But not just anything: something that doesn't just copy the claims over wholesale. Boil it down to a couple sentences at most, general language that the accusation was made and noting that it is currently just an accusation (leave the discussion of any evidence for Judge McAfee's courtroom) to which Willis has not yet officially responded (a speech at a church is not an official court document). As for sources, perhaps stick to Atlanta area outlets that understand the nuances of Georgia better than national ones, like the AJC or one of the local news TV affiliates, as long as it isn't just reupping something from the networks/wire services. I think that strikes a nice balance. Paris1127 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage has been widespread, and sources cited are reliable. Fani Willis is a public figure; readers would benefit from a paragraph about this topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "widespread coverage" and "reliable sources" were the only considerations, I'd agree with you. But they are not the only considerations, and considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: What specific part of WP:BLP leads you to conclude that? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked.

WP:BLPSTYLE: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

WP:BLPBALANCE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.

WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

WP:BLPPRIVACY: The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.

When it comes to BLPBALANCE's "disinterested tone", I'm concerned with yours. You wrote one of the other editors who is pushing this content by saying Fani Willis is one of the "mischievous Democrats" and that Fani's poor judgment will unravel on the front page of every reliable source by the end of the week, and your edit will be in like the dirty shoe it is. Let it be noted that even if she is dating someone she is working with, this is not necessarily an unacceptable conflict of interest. At least you advised them not to violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we say here in Mississippi, you've been busier than a church fan in August, but a deeper read of each of those policies shows that few have much significance within the context of this article. The depth of coverage on this very public person is overwhelming. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the rub: the "depth of coverage" is all reliant on the court filings (see WP:BLPPRIMARY above), and mentions that Roman’s filing included no concrete proof that Willis personally benefited from hiring Wade.[15] If there's a "deeper read" of BLP to provide that overtakes that, I don't see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are only relying what reliable sources (many many of them) have reported. Isnt that what we do here? DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With caveats, as described (to a point) above. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP contributor is repeatedly ([16][17] [18]) adding a defamatory source about the subject (one which was deemed as unreliable at ptwiki) and being uncivil on the edit summary. DanGFSouza (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's more than incivility. It's an unsupported statement about the article subject. I've deleted the edit summaries. 2804:214:8625:CA00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was already globally locked. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• James Renner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something curious is up with the IP's interest in the article. First they deleted mention of Renner's termination from the Cleveland Scene. Now they're embellishing the account by claiming the Scene ran a news story it did not. More eyes on the situation would be helpful. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is a lot older than you think. Note the following:
  • Special:Diff/315954202 where JamesRenner (talk · contribs) tried to get the firing of Renner into the Kevin Coughlin article in 2009.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Kevin Coughlin from 2009
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Kevin Coughlin from 2009
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Request Block of JeffBillman from 2009
  • Single-purpose account Able Cunningham (talk · contribs)
  • Sockpuppeteer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renner3774 also edit warring over the firing of Renner and Maura Murray in 2020, but now in the James Renner article
  • Single-purpose account CaraDino (talk · contribs) edit warring in the opposite direction over James Renner and Disappearance of Maura Murray
  • Talk:Kevin Coughlin#James Renner, Kevin Coughlin, and the Akron Beacon Journal in 2009
• As you can see in particular from the latter, there have been problems with misrepresentation of sources over this one specific thing for 15 years. Cirt's and my protection of Kevin Coughlin for a fortnight and NinjaRobotPirate's protection of James Renner for a week seem incredibly optimistic in retrospect. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multiple WP:RS have stated Elizondo was the former Director of the AATIP program.

• Washington Post[19]: Luis “Lue” Elizondo is the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), an unpublicized U.S. government program created in 2007 committed to the investigation of UAPs. Elizondo joins Jacqueline Alemany, author of the “Power Up” newsletter and congressional correspondent, on Tuesday, June 8 at 3:30pm ET.

• NY Times [20]: Luis Elizondo, the director of a Pentagon program she had never heard of: the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

• More NY Times[21]: For years, the program investigated reports of unidentified flying objects, according to Defense Department officials, interviews with program participants and records obtained by The New York Times. It was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo, on the fifth floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, deep within the building’s maze.

• Politico [22]: According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.

• CNN [23]: Luis Elizondo, the former Director of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program at the Pentagon

• Representative Tim Burchett[24]: Elizondo is the former director of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which was created in 2007 to study UAP.

• Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried[25]: As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo’s involvement and leadership role in this program

I could go on with additional RS's but you get the gist.

His biography here at Wikipedia states that he is "Known for Claiming to be Director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program". His leadership of AATIP being reported in such a skeptical language all based on one article in the Intercept.

Based on both BLP, and WP:WEIGHT the article should say Elizondo was the director of AATIP with the Intercept article being mentioned as a minority opinion .. if at all because it seems to be so WP:FRINGE given its weight.

Id like to hear people not involved with this topic to weigh in. THank you. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that people read your talk page first. Did you come here from the Reddit thread or perhaps the one on X? Doug Weller talk 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, and I would politely ask you to Assume Good Faith on this issue. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this Reddit UFO group [26] , can’t find the X thread again right now. Very hard to show good faith after having read that thread and knowing about the big attempt to dox User:LuckyLouie. See also WP:FTN# UFOlogy promoter BLPs. Goodnight. Doug Weller talk 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting I am involved in a campaign to dox an editor? I certainly hope you have something very concrete to corroborate that as its a pretty serous allegation. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not what he's known for, and shouldn't be presented in the infobox like that. Otherwise, I think the article covers the disagreement of sources reasonably. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "what he's known for". Do we need the qualifier on it when the vast majority of sources do not use it including the Senator who created AATIP as well as the Congressman who interviewed him. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there is disagreement in reliable sources we cover that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what proportion? I can cite dozens of reliable sources which state unequivocally that Elizondo was director of AATIP. Those attempting to present this as something which is disputed have The Intercept? Doesn't it appear that's a WP:Weight concern on a BLP? DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources - news sources typically use the job title(s) given by the interviewee with minimal fact checking. Politicians are generally not considered to be great sources for factual claims either, to put it mildly. Sources that examine the issue in depth throw enough doubt on the issue that Wikipedia should not be uncritically taking the biography subject's side on this. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]