Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
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.

Alice Ripley

• Alice Ripley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP has removed a cited block of content from this article, stating "There is an active lawsuit and Wikipedia will be on the hook for libelous material. "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." The content wrote about certain accusations that were in the news, in the voice of the multiple cited refs rather than in WP's own voice and seemed careful to avoid implying any of it was true. Ordinarily, I would simply start a talk-page discussion about it, but the IP has also removed that discussion from August 2021 on the same basis. Therefore, I'm coming here for others' input on whether the talk-page discussion, and beyond that the article content, should be kept.

Pinging Jbbdude who wrote the original article content after commenting in the talkpage and Sunshineisles2 who recently overhauled it. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There was actually one cited ref, but it included quotes/info from several others. DMacks (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there better sources about this than the WP:DAILYBEAST to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There are The Independent [1] and the Metro [2] in the UK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

per WP:RSP, the Independent is considered a reliable source while the Metro isn't. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be exactly one original source, an "exclusive" by WP:DAILYBEAST, and other tabloids/news outlets duly parroting what Daily Beast reported for a few days, and then radio silence. The gossip column Page Six printed an "exclusive" of their own, with Ripley again denying the allegations. After almost a year there appears to be no subsequent coverage of the allegations or further developments in reliable sources, and very little reason to include this blip in a BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like TMZ broke the unified story first (reporting on multiple others' previous social-media posts, and Ripley responded). To be clear, the content isn't "Ripley did this", but instead "there's a lot of social media about Ripley doing this, and Ripley has responded to it". So I think it's at a minimum reasonable for the talk-page discussion to stand and now with link to this BLPN thread, even if a non-credulous discussion concludes (as Animalparty says) that it wound up being just a blip. I also don't see any substantially more recent coverage in the news about it. I did turn up a Rolling Stone story using the Ripley situation as the starting-point for a more wide-ranging discussion of various related topics, the month after the TMZ story. Not sure that's enough to cross the threshold of "highlighted as an example/secondary-source providing context". DMacks (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Alice Ripley.

I am a friend who will not be editing Alice Ripley's article. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines here only because no one else mentioned them. Please check that the guidelines are relevant and that my comments are neutral. Thank you. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)JunoSpriteRocket

Per WP:RSP, The Daily Beast does not have the icon denoting "generally reliable," rather it has the icon denoting "no consensus" on the reliability of The Daily Beast and reads "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The Daily Beast's own editor from 2018-2021 called it a "high-end tabloid." This is the second sentence in the article. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Daily Beast is a self-identified tabloid, a tabloid is a poor source, thus the contentious material should not be added to the article. (If A=B and B=C, then A=C.) JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. [...] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not particularly invested in this situation, generally, aside from wanting Wikipedia to be as complete and accurate as possible (which I hope motivates all... OK, most editors). I edited the page one time a year ago, which I did after I encountered a conversation among theater people which casually referenced some allegation. I found nothing about it on Wikipedia despite multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy.

It seems pretty obvious (to me) that a) the deletion from the talk page was straight-up vandalism (I wouldn't have named the section "vile acts", but I didn't start the talk page section) and b) there should be some mention of this incident in the article given the multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy. The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims. Again, this situation was reported on by multiple reliable outlets over time, with one particularly extensive exposé. To me, it seemed like a case of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

As a separate issue... This feels like a WP:COI situation. I say this purely as speculation (again... feels), with no knowledge other than 1) the edits, 2) them coming from an IP user (an IP which has only edited these two articles) (an IP in a block assigned to Charter in Queens, NY; Ms. Ripley lives and works in NYC, and a quick Google search suggests Ms. Ripley may live or have lived in Long Island City or Ridgewood, and at some time maintained a fanmail PO Box in LIC), and 3) the discussion of ongoing, and threat of potential further, defamation litigation (something that I haven't seen reported publicly; another quick Google search brings up a GoFundMe supposedly from Alice Ripley herself, but no news coverage of a lawsuit or that GoFundMe; curiously, the user posting as Ms. Ripley suggests in that GoFundMe that these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable). (Obviously... that's a whole lot of original research and none of it would belong in an article, but the info seems relevant in this context) These are pretty standard indicators in such cases, with lawyers or PR folks or subjects themselves editing, no? Regardless, though, that's speculation (though I wouldn't call it wild or unfounded). More significantly, the edits clearly did not come from an NPOV perspective.

As far as the law goes, IANAL but a) NYT v Sullivan lays out a pretty high bar for public figures, and b) I wrote my edit to report on the reporting without taking a stance on truth or falsity of the allegations. The editor cited the need to remove contentious material that was poorly sourced; the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced, and was not at all libelous. It's true that those things were reported. If there is a lawsuit, and some decision is made about something, that, too, would likely be notable, would be reported on by notable outlets, and would then warrant inclusion in the article. If there's news coverage of such a lawsuit now, it should probably be in the article now. All of this is to say, Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing. Here, there's credible sourcing. No malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard, a clear belief that there is a public interest in knowing this information and that the information presented was accurate, reliance upon reputable sources for the information.

I am unaware of any requirement for ongoing coverage of a controversy or the presence of new updates/information to justify the inclusion of such a controversy in an article. I don't see anything about it in the BLP guideline pages. I would genuinely appreciate information on such a standard, if it exists, to improve my editing in the future.

If the issue is sourcing, there are many reliable sources commenting on the allegations, at least on their existence if not the truth of them. Again, Ms. Ripley herself seems to (can't verify who's running a GoFundMe) claim that it's a notable enough situation that it's impacted her career. Also again, keep in mind that the article's subject is known for theater, not film or TV or whatever megastardom results in constant breathless national coverage of scandals. This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications, but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive. I'm not sure how any of that means it's not notable information.

I'm curious to see how this discussion shakes out. At a bare minimum, I will restore the talk page content, which is an entirely separate issue from the removal of the article content.

To paraphrase a quote variously and likely apocryphally attributed to Pascal and Twain, apologies for the long comment. I did not have time to write a shorter one. Or one with fewer parentheticals. Jbbdude (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would respond, but it's been over a week, so you're stuck with me.

1. The comment has the word "notable/notability" nine times, but only once is it used correctly. Per WP:N, sources must be reliable, not notable. Information must be verifiable, not notable. This isn't just semantics; this is about following Wikipedia guidelines to make one's point.

• "Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". Alice Ripley is notable, thus she has an article.
• Information added to an article must be verifiable. To call the allegations/claims/situation notable is to say that they merit their own article, and no one is proposing that.
• Verifiable means coming from a reliable source, of which there is none, so saying "multiple reliable sources" is also inaccurate. (See earlier comments.)

2. The deletions do not appear to be vandalism. They appear to be per WP:RS: "Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "do not move it to the talk page [emphases mine]. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space".

3. I disagree that "The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims". What it seems is that the claims are false. What it seems is that there was insufficient verifiable proof for a reliable source to publish the story. The accusers, by their own admission, never called for an investigation, not by Actors' Equity nor by the police, even though the original accuser said that "one of [Ripley's] insane fans tried to kill me". What did happen was a "trial" by mob conducted on social media (TikTok, Twitter, YouTube). When caught in a lie, an accuser publicly admitted it, yet refused to take their tweet down.

4. I'm posting in three parts to make it easier to respond. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

5. The editor put what they felt was Ripley's IP address locations. This is disconcerting because it disregards the likelihood that Ripley received death threats because of the allegations.

6. Fortunately, the fact that the IP address of the user is in Queens, NY means that it is not Ripley, as she is currently in Barcelona, Spain, per Variety and Broadway.com.

7. The editor wrote that the GoFundMe page says "these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable". It's not curious; it's that the first use of 'notable' is correct, while the second use is not per WP:N, so they're not comparable. It was the false allegations that got Ripley canceled, and the info was removed because the allegations were not verifiable.

8. Editor: "the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced..." Yes, it was: The Daily Beast is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. "...and was not at all libelous". The information is libelous and Ripley's lengthy official statement is available. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

9. Editor: "This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications..." I haven't seen this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. For one thing, the main industry publications did not cover the story: Playbill.com, Broadway.com, and BroadwayWorld.com.

10. Editor: "...but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive". It hasn't resulted in a single word on any page of The New York Times, nor even a shallow dive in The New Yorker.

11. I agree with one thing: "Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing". Ripley is not being protected. That the addition of unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations was done with "no malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard" is not clear. What is clear, as seen on Ripley's View History page, is that much of it met Wikipedia's standards for vandalism and was repeatedly, properly removed. Let's continue to keep Ripley's article and talk page accurate. (See the May 1st removal as one example; I'm not referring to what Sunshineisles2 added on Mar. 19.)

12. To that end, I am requesting deletion of the first line in section #6 on Ripley's talk page, as well as a re-naming of the section title because both are contentious and unsourced per WP:RS. I will use the proper template, if necessary. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have renamed the Talk Page as no one owns the title and it was unnecessarily harsh, though likely not policy violating. Same for the discussion itself as it is a sourced discussion, not musings of editors.

On the content itself, BLP policies lean strongly against including accusations that do not have sustained coverage. Given the lack of media followup, I do not think it should be included. Though the IP is wrong that the alleged defamation lawsuit plays any part in why the content should not be included. Slywriter (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the renaming and for this, which I did not know: "BLP policies lean strongly against including accusations that do not have sustained coverage". JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

JunoSpriteRocket, you have crossed the WP:AGF line in your #11. The allegations might be undfounded, or even an intentional and malicious whisper campaign, but all that WP had done was report on the reports. It's a neutral fact that the accusations were made, were reported in public media, and she responded. It's an unfounded accusation by you that they were added to WP with malicious intent, and given they do have cited refs (and by extended discussion here involving multiple editors in good standing), are not in the realm of vandalism. As you can read earlier in this thread, there is a legitmate debate about the reliability of the sources, some of which are reliable on their face in general even if with a deeper dive they might all derive from a source with questionable or poor reliability in this specific instance. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not cross the WP:AGF line in #11 because the vandalism I was referring to was when you see that word on the View History page (on May 1st, for example), not about what Sunshineisles2 added on Mar. 19. The cases of vandalism that were removed did not mention reports or have cited refs.

I'm not sure I'm understanding... it's acceptable for editors, for Ripley's article, to cite a source that is "reliable on their face in general"? I thought sources had to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. WP:RSP, WP:BLPRS, WP:BLP were the ones I mentioned (July 9 to 11) and I sought feedback about whether they were relevant, but no one responded. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the poorly-sourced, contentious allegations based on the WP:DAILYBEAST from the article. I think we should follow the caution noted in the WP:RSP entry: Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I also think the contentious and unsourced allegation made on the Talk page by an editor with one edit in their edit history should also be removed, per WP:BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC) - fixed 'not a tabloid' link, although WP:NOTGOSSIP also applies. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Update: I removed the contentious and unsourced allegation made on the Talk page by an SPA, after reviewing the article history and noting similar activity by SPAs had also been removed from the article, and noting the page protection that followed revdelled content that includes visible edit summaries referencing the Daily Beast. Beccaynr (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Looney

Bernard Looney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. I noticed some changes that were made to the article about our CEO, Bernard Looney, back in February that I think are inaccurate and not representative of more current sourcing. I have made some edit requests related to that content and one inaccuracy has been corrected, but I still have concerns about the neutrality and relevance of the content present in the article.

The content in question was added as the events of the Russian invasion of Ukraine were just beginning and things were moving quickly. Much has since changed in bp's relationship with Russia. This added content focuses heavily on Rosneft and includes a large amount of information on Igor Sechin, which is not relevant to an article about Mr. Looney. I believe this violates the guideline on due weight. The way this information is included ties Mr. Looney to the Kremlin in a way that is inaccurate, and other information has since become outdated, as within days of the invasion, Mr. Looney resigned from the Rosneft board and bp was one of the first companies to announce it was cutting ties with Rosneft. Furthermore, this language was inserted in a way that I believe violates guidelines on impartial tone. My concerns were dismissed by the editor that reviewed my initial edit request, but I feel it is important to revisit this issue.

I have drafted potential replacement content that I believe significantly improves the neutrality of this content and provides needed additional context. I am hoping an editor here will provide additional feedback on that content and reassess its potential inclusion as a means to help this article improve the neutrality of its text and remain focused on Mr. Looney.

If this is not the right place to post such a request, please let me know and I will go to the appropriate place. Thank you in advance for reviewing this. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arturo. First, thank you very much for disclosing your conflict of interest and working to do this the right way. You've obviously done your research on policy, which is refreshing.

That said, here's the difficulty. This is all reliably sourced as far as I can tell. Now admittedly I didn't have time to read through all the sources, but the ones I did check had the subject as a central piece to the story and not just a passing mention. This is why Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. This often becomes a problem when an article is as short as this one, because what we have now is basically half of the sources all about this one event. In determining weight, what we do is "weigh" those sources against all of the other sources out there on this subject (not just the ones in the article, but all sources). Then we try to apportion everything in the article accordingly. If 50% of the sources are about this one thing, then 50% of the body of the article should cover it, as should about 50% of the lede. If it's only about 25%, or 10%, or even 1%, then we should also reflect that in how we apportion the article.

So, as you can see, judging due weight is a very challenging task. Not all sources give the same amount of coverage nor carry the same weight. A source that only mentions him in passing is not as good as one where he is central to the story, nor is a low quality source as good as a high quality source, for example. That's something that needs to be carefully worked out on the talk page. If you can find more sources about other things he's notable for, you can better argue that the weight is not right, but what this will likely end up doing is expanding the rest of the article rather than shrinking what is already there. That's not always a bad thing, because weight can be a bigger factor to the reader than content. That's something to work out on the talk page.

Now, about Mr. Sechin. That is also reliably sourced. You may have the makings of a good argument that much of it is irrelevant and may need toning down. I don't know. Maybe they just served on the same board together and were not BFFs, but whatever it was, that at least seems to deserve some mention, simply because the public likes to know when notable people have relationships with each other. That's something you'll have a hard time getting rid of entirely, but maybe you have the ingredients for a good argument that it is being given too much detail and weight within itself.

However. I do see other things that seem a bit of a problem. First is the misuse of the word "controversy". This is a particular pet-peeve of mine, because a controversy is a "widespread public debate". A controversy is not any old event that is viewed as negative. I see nothing about a public debate, and especially not a widespread one. The thing is, news rarely ever covers an actual controversy, because they create and partake in them instead. Thus, "controversy" sections should rarely be found on Wikipedia, but rather they should be given a more neutral title that reflects the actual event, or just worked into the timeline of the article. These sections often just become a dumping ground for anything negative, and the title itself can have undue negative connotations. Then there is the use of several sources interstitially dispersed throughout single sentences. If you need more than one or two sources to make a single sentence (and especially if those sources need to be interstitially dispersed between every clause), that raises a big, red flag for WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not saying that it is, because I haven't gone through all the sources, but it always raises that flag. You shouldn't need to construct a sentence out of multiple sources like a preacher would a sermon. It just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

So, there's not much we can do from here, I don't think, from a BLP standpoint. I'd try gathering all the sources you can and take it back to the talk page, and discuss, discuss, discuss. If that fails, you can try WP:NPOVN to get further input, or even go through the dispute resolution process. Take it to WP:DRN, or open an WP:RFC. Those are the hoops you'll have to jump through. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and a bit of advice. Try tackling these issues one at a time. You'll have much better luck at getting each one its individual attention, and it will be less likely to break the discussions into a thousand little tangents. Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth: Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and detailed reply to my query. You have provided me with a lot of good insight and offered concrete next steps that I can pursue for others to review the issues I have raised. I understand what you mean about weight and inclusion of reliably sourced material. I still do believe that the content on the Bernard Looney article contains neutrality issues and is not representative of more current sourcing; I will see what I can do to tackle these little by little through the processes you outlined above. This has been very helpful. Thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, Arturo. And thanks again for doing this within policy. Yes, neutrality, weight and balance can be tricky things to work out. Some issues are pretty blatant, and that's what this board can help with, but others are more subtle and debatable, which is where it needs to be discussed with the people who are most familiar with the subject and have read all of the sources, which is why you should at least begin at the talk page. You have the beginnings of a discussion there, but, from an outsider's standpoint, there should be more discussion, so I can really see what the logic behind each side's argument is. That's very helpful to the next board you take this to (if it's not able to be resolved beforehand). Technically, this all falls within WP:NPOV. Just keep in mind, weight and balance can be a double-edged sword. People often come here with the idea of setting the story straight with more sources, and that should be done if we got something wrong or later sources have a better perspective, but that also adds more weight to that one thing. Just something to consider. Once again, thanks for adhering to policy, and I wish you the best of luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

James Lu

James Lu entry has an IP address 80.58.155.14 that repeatedly inserts negative and non factual information. It cites articles on the website that is incomplete and also conflicting. Upon removal of this information, the user inserts it back again. It is causing vandalism of a living BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnessjames (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected that article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

William Timmons

William Timmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kimsguccis has persistently introduced unsourced or poorly sourced material into the article, despite reverts and warnings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Kimsguccis from editing that article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case

Accused non public figure Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case. I tagged for speedy. Per WP:SUSPECT. checking if I am right, because the editor (User:Jax 0677) removed the first PROD, and I clarified the BLP issue and tagged it for speedy. Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bruxton. I certainly agree that this is a crappy, poorly referenced article that ought to be deleted. But which specific WP:CSD criterion does it fall under? WP:SUSPECT is not a valid CSD criterion. An article about the crime may be appropriate, but this is not it, by a long shot. I suggest WP:AFD, hoping for a snow close. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You state that "An article about the crime may be appropriate". If that's the case, then would the correct action be a "delete" or a "re-name"? I'd think, the latter. Not the former. And, certainly, not a "Snow Delete". No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I shall. Bruxton (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Julie Budd

• Julie Budd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several accounts have recently attempted to rewrite this to a blatantly promotional version. If it continues I'll request page protection, but in the meantime, more eyes will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Damani Nkosi

Damani Nkosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The user InglewoodTK has removed sourced content from the article and appears to be inserting content that is non-neutral. The way they talk makes me think that they could possibly have a COI related to the subject. I would appreciate any outside help as I am not well versed in dealing with disputes like this. Thank you. StartOkayStop (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted again and left them a note about edit warring on their Talk page, hopefully they'll respond to that. Neiltonks (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have pageblocked InglewoodTK from Damani Nkosi, although they are free to make edit requests on the article's talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Gloria Tesch

Gloria Tesch Came across on NPP and I am little concerned with the negative tone about someone who seems to be borderline notable. Much of the notoriety stems from actions of her father while she was a minor. Short conversation on Talk page as well between PetSematary182 who created article and I. Please take a look. Slywriter (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god, this article is awful. I'd say much of this is OR, and the whole thing should probably be deleted. Without even getting into the the writing, the first sources is Conjugalfelicity.com. This is a blog site where their stated mission is to give "snarky critiques". What's worse is, this source is used 3 more times, and most of what is found in our article is not found anywhere in the source. The source consists of 3 short paragraphs, and says nothing about any fraud, which is a very serious accusation. Fraud is a crime, but puffery is not. Our article is making a lot of serious conclusions not found in the source. In fact, we are citing way more information than is found in the source.

Then we have source 2, IMDB (of course) which isn't reliable at all, and probably got that info from Wikipedia. Sources 3-5 are to the actual books the subject's father authored. Source 6 is an exposé, but it does mention the father and accuses him of having been convicted of fraud sometime before the subject was even born, with something related to a charity I guess, but the story doesn't say but only briefly implies it. He is not central to the story, but it only mentions him in passing, in a couple of sentences.

And that leads to the question, why is our article all about the father and not about the subject? We are going to huge levels of detail to call this man a fraud, and conflate some mysterious past-conviction with puffing up his daughters writing career --about a man who is not notable enough to have his own article! I mean, who is the subject of this article anyway? There are some huge BLP violations there, and I would say anything about the father should probably be removed immediately on those grounds. We're accusing this man of a felony on the shakiest of sources, and more often by misinterpreting the sources, and all of that needs to go.

Then there is the rest of the article. The Tampa Bay Informer looks marginally good, but the rest are crap. Youtube. Youtube. IMDB. Conjugal Felicity. And the list of lousy sources goes on from there.

And why is the Domestic Violence Registry being used as a source!?! That looks like a clear BLPPRIMARY violation.

I would say that, in the interest of BLP, this article should just be deleted. It's one, sole good-source isn't enough to show notability, and the problems are so numerous and BLP vios so great that it would probably be best to just delete it on the spot. If anything is a case of WP:Blow it up and start over, it's this. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Welp, I've "trimmed" the article, hoping there'd be something to keep—but there's not. If there aren't any reliable, secondary sources, it should just be deleted. Woodroar (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Woodroar. In my opinion, this and Bernard Looney up there are good examples of why Wikipedia needs much greater standards for notability. I'd like to see at least, at a minimum, 10 good sources on a subject before ever even considering an article for them. But, of course, it's not always that easy to quantify, because sources are not created equal. We should have enough info on a living person to create a decent article of C or B class, that is, if it shows potential for future expansion. Little, stubby articles are bad for living people, because they can become far too off-balance way, way too easily. A Wikipedia article is not a prize to be won. It's not something that anyone in their right mind should aspire to, one would think. At least when it comes to living people, I think we need to set the bar much higher, to help prevent many of these problems from occurring in the first place. Zaereth (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. Been a day of attack pages and misguided editors and wasn't sure if I was at the point of seeing bad everywhere. Though looking at Woodroar's edits, it wasn't even close and I missed some obvious sourcing issues. Also agree with Zareth that BLP standards are too lax and a few keywords can make it difficult to get rid of a poorly sourced article. Slywriter (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Angela Rayner

I'm concerned about edits and talk page comments over the last few weeks by an IP editor at Angela Rayner.

Last month I reverted edits by 2a00:23c7:988:6601:19e0:4a92:5dcd:bb7b (various IPv4s, henceforward "2a00") relating to the rather silly affair in which the Mail on Sunday accused Rayner of attempting to distract Boris Johnson in the House Commons by crossing and uncrossing her legs. As my edit summary there explained, I think 2a00 added claims not supported by the sources they cited, and misrepresented on-background comments from a source ("A senior party source told the BBC this had found Ms Rayner herself had 'made the comments'") as fact ("an internal Conservative Party inquiry concluded that Rayner had in fact made the comments herself").

They reverted, characterising my edits as vandalism. I began a discussion at Talk:Angela Rayner#‎Mail report, requesting clarification. Bellowhead678 agreed with my reasoning and reverted 2a00 again. 2a00 restored the content with several lengthy edit summaries, and two long talk page comments.

As I've just said at the talk page, my sense is that we're dealing here with someone who's not here to build the encyclopaedia and who believes they're righting great wrongs. As such I haven't commented further on the content. More eyes, and any thoughts on whether I've taken the right approach or am overreacting, would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts, I think you can probably safely revert. The IP hasn't edited in a week, definitely seems to be NOTHERE, and from a quick glance the disputed content doesn't pass the WP:TENYEARTEST. If they revert again, come back and ping me. valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I reverted shortly after posting this; they've reverted again today. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've partial blocked the /64 from the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Vagif Dargahly

Name of the article: Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

I believe that statement about Vagif Dargahly violates BLP policies for several reasons.

1. The statement is referencing the headline of the source; The content of the source does not state anything about threatening. Instead, the source clearly states that Dargyakhly said about the possibility of striking at the nuclear power plant, answering the question about the possibility of Armenia striking at the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir. The article implies that Vaqif Dargahli made a statement without reason, which is not true. The source clearly reflects that Vaqif Dargahli was commenting on the possibility of a strike in response i.e. striking Metsamor in response to Armenia striking Mingachevir hydro-power plant. Incomplete information can create misperceptions about the BLP and is useless for an encyclopedia.
2. There is no reliable source describing what Vagif Dargahly said as anti-Armenian sentiment. The source clearly states that Vagif Dargahly was just commenting on the possibility of a strike in response. Inducing the statement of Vaqif Dargahli into the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan creates the wrong perception that Vagif Dargahly made an Armenophobic statement and may damage his reputation.--Abrvagl (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is a BLP issue. The article implies that Vaqif Dargahli made a statement without reason, which is not true. The source clearly reflects that Vaqif Dargahli was commenting on the possibility of a strike in response - Article is correct, there was no reason, it was an idle imaginary threat claimed by Az government that Armenians didn't make, RFE source. Meanwhile, the Azeri missile strike on Armenian nuclear power plant was a real threat made by the Az defense minister Vagif Dargahli [3], [4]. See the discussion on the article talk page for more details Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Missile_strike_on_the_nuclear_power_plant_in_Armenia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the Armenians really threatened to strike an Azeri dam. What matters is what was actually said. If according to sources, Vaqif Dargahli threated to strike only if the Armenians attacked an Azeri dam then we need to make this clear in our articles. Anything else is indeed a BLP violation. We should also mention there was never any Armenian threat on Azeri dam if that's what RSes say although that's not a BLP issue so is less urgent. However the RFE source is fairly unclear on this point and I don't understand Russian so I can't modify the article. Note there is an important distinction here. If Vaqif Dargahli in responding to reports of an Armenian threat on an Azeri dam said we might strike their nuclear power plant but never said we'd only do so if they attack our dam or otherwise set a precondition for such a strike, that's a different thing. We probably should still report the context of the remark, but it's not a clear BLP violation either since Vaqif Dargahli did threat to strike their nuclear power plant without any clear preconditions. The fact it was in response to reports of threats against an Azeri dam doesn't change the nature of the threat. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nil, thanks for spending your time to response. I agree with you. Vagif said what he said, but there are no reliable sources claiming that his commentary had Armenophobic intentions. If one says that they going to hit you, and you reply that if they hit, you will hit in response, it does not mean that you are hateful against them. Yes, you receive threat and respond with threat, but neither of these are about sentiments. Abrvagl (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne The actual defense minister quote doesn't mention threats at all: [5]

• “The Armenian side must not forget that our army's state-of-the-art missile systems allow us to strike the Metsamor nuclear plant with precision, which could lead to a great catastrophe for Armenia.”

And RFE attributes the fake threats to speculation:

• “There was speculation that the Armenian side had first hinted it might somehow strike a civilian target – such as the Mingachevir Dam -- but there was no evidence of any official making such a threat”. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Disengaging answer from the question does not make any sense. As Nil Einne mentioned above, it does not matter was there threat to hit dam or not, what matter is the question which defense minister was commenting, and it is crystal clear from the source that he was commenting on the question about possible threat from Armenia to hit the dam. More, there is still no RS describing it as anti-Armenian sentiment. Abrvagl (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It does matter and there isn't "disengaging" here. Defense minister quote didn't include anything about threats, and imagined threats are WP:UNDUE here, especially when even WP:RS describe them as speculation, which they are. Nil Einne I'll wait for your response to my points and what do you think. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not a speculation, here is the source: Karabakh Army Chief Warns Of Missile Strikes On Azerbaijan (azatutyun.am), you can find both threat to hit the dam, and response of Vagif. Still it does not matter, because you can not just cut the response of the Vagif out of the context even if he was commenting on the speculation. Abrvagl (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that I'm making a WP:UNDUE argument here since it's a complete threat speculation stated even by WP:RS, RFE source ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Also this is a BLP noticeboard, disagreement is a natural course here in case you didn't know. Just because an editor said something here doesn't mean it's an indisputable fact, consensus is reached through back and forth discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Andy Slater

There is an NPOV dispute on this page Andy Slater, yet there is nothing to substantiate it on the Talk Page. Please take a look for removal of the notice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoon87 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute was, but I find no particular justification for an exhaustive list of different things Slater has reported. A handful of particularly notable incidents where Slater was verifiably part of the story may be relevant, but biographies should not devolve into indiscriminate lists, and many of the sources were marginal at best, or did not support the claim made that Slater was "first" or "exclusive" to report something. Whether it's encyclopedically relevant that Slater was "first" to report that, for example, a person is interested in buying a sports team, seems to me questionable at best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Akshata Murty

Akshata Murty I don't know what's happening at this article that I created in April this year. In the past few days, different IP addresses and I think mobile phone accounts have all done similar actions to remove small bits of cited content from the article about the subjects country of residence, family connections, parent's jobs etc. None appear to have edited anywhere else in the encyclopedia. It's strange, but also I don't know what to do. Is it a coincidence that various different people all decided to remove content, I doubt it. Should I ask for page protection? None of the edits alone could fairly be labeled vandalism. CT55555 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, such editing activity is broadly typical with high profile India BLPs. Lots of editors with little understanding of how Wikipedia works. Edwardx (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In case people are unaware, it's likely she is receiving a lot of attention recently as her husband is currently frontrunner to be next prime minister of the UK. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka

So there's a lot of unsourced content between the two articles. They're serial killers and the main reason I care is because I grew up in Niagara Falls and St. Catharines. I heard a lot about them growing up, especially in my high school law classes. I tried to fix some of the content and I'd thought I'd be okay because I already knew the horrible details to some extent... but I'm not sure it's nessecarily the best course of action. I've had some nightmares since and that's typically a really bad sign that I should not be doing whatever I've been doing lately for the sake of my own mental health.

Anyways, the sourcing really isn't ideal. These articles have collectively recieved ~120,000 pageviews in the past 30 days so ideally something should be done. They're serial killers and I really don't want their crimes to be whitewashed, but at the same there's some potential WP:BLP violations that should be dealt with. Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Going to have a look, but it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific as to where you think the problems are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Well one potential issue is the Scarborough Rapist cases subsection in the Paul Bernardo article, which includes a list of rapes that's almost entirely unsourced. The main thing that I think is not ideal from a BLP violations perspective is that there's a lot of unsourced content about their crimes between the two articles. I will say that nothing really quite stands out to me as glaringly untrue, but still. Clovermoss (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There's been tons of stuff written about them and their crimes. Books, magazines, newspapers, TV shows, documentaries, the internet, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention, court transcripts, appeals, legal documents, etc. So, I suspect that sourcing will not be a problem. If the statement offered in the article is indeed true, I am sure there are many sources out there. But, yes, I agree that unsourced material should be sourced ... but, it should not be removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes. My point was more that I can't go through it all right now because of the nightmares. I tried to improve the articles and things did not go well for me even though I thought I would likely be fine... but I've also experienced trauma so it makes sense. I'm very aware that they did awful things, I don't want their crimes to be whitewashed. I just wanted to bring attention to it on here because there really shouldn't be the amount of content that's unsourced in the article (even if sources exist) for stuff describing rape, kidnapping, murder, etc. Clovermoss (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate

Andrew Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of recent controversy. A large number of accounts have been restoring a version of the page that includes a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Despite request for adequate citations for the content, discussion on the talk page, and temporary full protection, the problems persist. FrederalBacon gave a good breakdown of the recent issues, but this discussion has been largely ignored by accounts attempting to restore the content. In the most recent diff the editor only justifies the restoration by declaring it more accurate.

The subject of the article has a website where he advertises courses that teach people how to use affiliate marketing, etc. to get rich, and based on requests like this I think there's some reason to believe he may be incentivizing or requesting that his students maintain a certain version of the page. Popoki35 (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You consider sourcing information from a full interview of Jim Chanos poorly sourced information? And the fact that I was taking direct quotes from his interview without any changes strengthens my case that you're just doing this because you're a hater. James5Knight (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And you're attempting to defend the subject from said "hater"?

Not that I think Popoki is, but, I'm curious as to why their neutrality is immediately questioned. I have assumed that they were operating under good faith from the beginning of this, and they have consistently shown a desire to fix the BLP issues on this page. The version you keep restoring lists a romanian gossip site as the proof that the subject was innocent of the kidnapping charges, but they phrase it like this

"These are the proofs that the Tate brothers did not kidnap the American woman, especially since the two are surrounded daily by beautiful women, they are extremely rich and they own cars worth over 10 million euros."

So this is the source that you, and other, keep restoring, which is clearly not a reliable or neutral source. Most of the article you and others have restored is filled with self published sources, blogs, personal websites, etc. The removal is legitimate, and the attempts to revert it (which have been coming in since within hours of it being changed) are simply attempts to water down the subject's obvious controversy. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't read Romanian but I have to say assuming the translation is accurate any source which says something as dumb as that FrederalBacon highlighted is so clearly unreliable it should be thrown in the trash bin and never touched ever again. It's the sort of source which if it's used enough, frankly I think unlikely for a Romanian gossip site, needs to be deprecated. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

william benton

I am william benton, a poet and novelist. I was put on wikipedia years ago by David Murray, a librarian, who has since died. I'm 82 years old and don't belong to any social media, but I have tried to keep my wikipedia page up to date, at least as far as books published. Obviously I'm not doing things right. Can someone advise me about this? My books are published by reputable publishers -- I'm not a self-published writer. My work has appeared The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and many other publications. Articles and reviews have been written about me and my books in national and international publications.

I recently saw the notices on my page, about a stronger opening and more citations, and had begun to address this. (I also tried to add a photo.) But I must be doing things wrong, since it provoked the same notices, and a newer one that now questions my "notability."

I value having the wikipedia page. I'd greatly appreciate a response.

William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafcadio4 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lafcadio4 Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Assuming the article is William Benton (writer). A little background. The article was created in 2013, and WP:s rules on sourcing etc has got stricter over time, but since we're all volunteers/hobbyists, "updates" only happens when someone notice/feels like doing something about it.

What the article needs first is sources that demonstrate it meets WP:s criteria for "should have an article", WP:GNG. These are sources that are at the same time, reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail. What is wanted is a for example a The New Yorker article about you, not by you. I will take a look and see what I can find. Some may already be listed in the article, I haven't checked, but if so they are not used correctly. @Theroadislong, pinging you if you're interested.

Per the WP-rule WP:COI (conflict of interest), please don't edit the article directly, but you are welcome to suggest sources and changes at Talk:William Benton (writer), the article talkpage. You should also "disclose your COI": click the redlinked "Lafcadio4" in your signature just above, type something like "I am the the poet William Benton and interested in improving the WP-article about myself, William Benton (writer)." and publish.

We can discuss adding a picture at Talk:William Benton (writer), there are some strict rules to follow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you so much for responding. It's nice to hear a pleasant and human voice. As you can probably see from my page, I had only recently begun to address it (wrongly, I now know). I was starting to track down and add exactly the kinds of articles you mentioned (not by, but about, me). I tried to add a second article from The New Yorker, and two or three reviews of my novel MADLY. That novel, by the way, was published in 2005, and has never gone out of print. Counterpoint Press (previously known as Shoemaker & Hoard) is one of the most prestigious literary publishers in America. Blurbs for MADLY were written by James Salter, Ann Beattie, and Philip Lopate. I had also tried to address the opening of the article, which one of the notices flagged as insufficient. (I was brought up in an age where self-effacement was valued.) Anyway, I tried to add more about myself. Besides being a poet and a novelist, I write other things. A play of mine (listed on my page, OUT OF THE BLUE) was produced Off-Broadway in 1999, a musical for which I wrote music, lyrics, and book. There are reviews from that. Another play of mine, called ILSA, was previewed at the Austin Film Festival in 2019, and starred Kate O'Toole. There are articles about that. We were, in fact, scheduled to go on tour, but covid cancelled everything. I also write about art, viz. My books about Elizabeth Bishop, Joan Brown, Ted, Waltz, and the essay collection EYE CONTACT. Anyway, I was attempting to add more of this kind of thing to my page, but tripping over my own feet in the process. How shall I sign this -- Lafcadio4 or William?

Lafcadio4 Lafcadio4 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lafcadio4 And it seems you have had a career as an art-forger. Signing is automatic if you use the [ reply ] link. Further discussion fits better at Talk:William Benton (writer). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian describes Benton as an art curator. I have found no sources suggesting he is in any way connected to art forgery. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beccaynr I didn't see this before I posted at the article talk. Art forger was a joke of mine, but based on [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha -- yes, let me know if you'd like an inferior Diebenkorn. I hope I'm writing this in the right place. Here are a few links about -- not by -- me, in this case my book EXCHANGING HATS. There are articles, some more important, about this book that are oddly not on line. I remember a piece in Vogue, written by Susan Minot, and a piece in the Times Literary Supplement, with a lot of color reproductions, but I can't find them. I'll also search for other links re other books, plus OUT OF THE BLUE (the times critic hated it. I more or less agreed, it was a terrible production). I'm very grateful to you for your help.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/books/art.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/books/elegant-gift-books-to-admire-and-even-read.html

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/05/15/the-many-arts-of-elizabeth-bishop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/08/19/easel-2

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2011/nov/03/elizabeth-bishop-exchanging-hats-in-pictures

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-08-9612080176-story.html

https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/3/not-so-innocent-eyes

https://www.missourireview.com/elizabeth-bishop-and-the-art-of-the-tablecloth/

https://elizabethbishopsociety.org/bulletin/2012-2/tibor-de-nagy-exhibition/

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2012/01/17/pronoun-trouble/

I am William Benton (writer), trying to learn how to do necessary maintenance on my page. Lafcadio4 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lafcadio4, posting links like these on the article Talk page would be very helpful. Click on the New Section tab at the top, add a title to the section, explain what you are offering, and then sign your post. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, advice, and joke. If I become a professional art forger, I'll up my contribution to Wikipedia. 65.65.159.176 (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, more information about signing posts is here, and logging in to your account will also be helpful for conversations. Thank you very much for your help with this article - I think it is developing nicely now, and please feel free to ask questions and let us know if you have any concerns. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Roland Cloutier

The website above portrays the picture of TikTok's CSO, not the hockey player.

google link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.216.52.127 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Google and Wikipedia are not the same entity. We have no image of Cloutier, so this is a google problem, not a Wikipedia problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Javier Milei

Javier Milei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The opening sentence links Javier Milei with a political doctrine usually related to things like neonazism and racial supremacism, but the references are not valid: two are opinion pieces (and conspiracy theory opinion pieces, at that), and the third is an interview. Opinion pieces are not valid references for statements of facts per WP:RSEDITORIAL, and neither are interviews: they may be useful for "X says Y", but not for plain Y.

I explained this at the talk page, but the user that keeps restoring this material says that opinion pieces are not opinion pieces unless the newspaper places them inside an "opinion" subsection. There's more at the talk page, but this is the main point of dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Aca Lukas

IP Addresses 77.28.50.29 and 37.25.87.44 have continuously been attempting to change Aca Lukas' nationality from Serbia to Bulgaria without consensus. Many sources, both reliable and unreliable currently agree that Lukas is a Serbian singer.

Report article at WP:RFPP if issue is pure disruption without sourcing or discussion. Slywriter (talk)

@Slywriter: Will do. Thanks! InvadingInvader (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

no problem. No need to play whack-a-mole when others are not editing in good-faith. Slywriter (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Talal Yassine

I'm getting close to edit warring with one editor over the "Controversies" section. The issue is sourcing:

• Independent Australia - a political opinion blog
• Honi Soit - a student publication
• Farrago - a student publication
• Crikey - an online political comment site

I am not disputing the material, just the sources. This seems like a pretty cut and dried matter to me. Content critical of the subject must have solid sourcing. If it isn't covered by a reliable source, just how notable is the material?

Could I have some more eyes on this, please? --Pete (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete,

Independent Australia is an electronic newpaper and not a 'political opinion' blog. Similarly, Crikey is an electronic newpaper and not a purely 'political commentary site'.

Buzzfeed is also a cited source.

Cheers,

Baba El-Baba (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from "Crtiicism" sections often being poorly structured and imbalanced cruft magnets (note "Controversies" implies plural, but this section only discusses one), it is somewhat concerning that the majority of sources in that paragraph (including juicy quotes like "ruthless hardball") are from student newspapers (Farrago Magazine and Honi Soit; the "Independent Australia" citations are merely repackaged Farrago Magazine content). WP:STRUCTURE and WP:BLPBALANCE argue this 'controversy' shouldn't be highlighted by its own devoted subheading, even if it rises to the level of enduring notability (c.f. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:RECENTISM). See WP:RSSM for considerations about using student newspapers. Addendum: and as pointed out on on the Talk page, the author of the Crikey piece and the Farrago piece may be directly involved in the controversy. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed section.[7] I saw some UNDUE quotes in the first sentence and detail that was not directly verified by the source. Pete, both of you are at 3RR, but your removals seem to fall under the BLP exemption. This issue should be resolved by discussion and consensus at the article talk page before re-adding the section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I pointed this out on the talk page, but it seems to have been missed: the authors of the articles in the four sources listed by Skyring were personally prominently involved in the campaign to oust the leadership of the Co-Op Bookshop and the subject in particular, so were not just publishing in questionable sources but had a massive conflict of interest. I believe past discussions have sensibly held that Independent Australia is not a reliable source - it's a political blog with minimal journalistic editorial control. Crikey is a hit-and-miss source that I don't think should have a hard-and-fast rule either way (due to the amount of freelance content they publish) - but should absolutely not be considered in this due to the authors' conflict of interest. The only legitimate source here is the Buzzfeed News article (dating from the period when they had a professional news bureau in Australia, and written by a then-and-now professional journalist), which could only be used to source a much more limited paragraph about the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Buzzfeed. I was overwhelmed by appall that a "criticism" section was so thinly sourced. IA has some low standards - think Breitbart or Infowars - and shouldn't be used as a source for anything let alone the sensitive bits of a bloke's biography. Thanks, DW, for uncovering the COI aspect, and on that note I should really disclose that I'm a part owner of the enterprise as well. I have a Uni Co-op card somewhere, unused for many years. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable input!

With regard to 'controversies', it was titled in that fashion because the allegations and reported happenings - albeit related to the one institution - were multiple in number. El-Baba (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Tzipi Hotovely

Several editors (mostly IPs, so may only really be two) are edit warring about whether Tzipi Hotovely should include "Hotovely rejects Palestine's right to exist" OR "Hotovely rejected Palestinian statehood aspiration". I try to avoid anything Israel/Palestine myself, so am not going to get involved. Edwardx (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Takarafuji Daisuke

Takarafuji Daisuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Takarafuji Daisuke states that Takarafuji is a sandanme (4th) division wrestler. This is false, he is competing in the highest division, makuuchi, fighting in the 2022 Nagoia basho right now.

Depp v. Heard

More editors with BLP experience would be helpful here to keep this article and other related topics under control and properly sourced. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

exchanging hats

These are articles and reviews about the book Exchanging Hats, the paintings of Elizabeth Bishop, edited with and introduction and afterword by William Benton. I would like for them to be posted on the William Benton (writer) page. Lafcadio4

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/books/art.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/books/elegant-gift-books-to-admire-and-even-read.html

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/05/15/the-many-arts-of-elizabeth-bishop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/08/19/easel-2

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2011/nov/03/elizabeth-bishop-exchanging-hats-in-pictures

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-08-9612080176-story.html

https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/3/not-so-innocent-eyes

https://www.missourireview.com/elizabeth-bishop-and-the-art-of-the-tablecloth/

https://elizabethbishopsociety.org/bulletin/2012-2/tibor-de-nagy-exhibition/

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2012/01/17/pronoun-trouble/ 65.65.159.176 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but you might want to make an edit request on the talk page if you want to propose an edit for an article. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said above, Talk:William Benton (writer) is the right place for this. And remember to log in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Rick Day sexual assault allegations

Would some others mind taking a look at Rick Day#Sexual Assault Allegations? The section was added earlier today by what appears to be a SPA account (only edit made so far was to add this section). The sections in just a few sentences long and it is supported by some citations, but I'm not sure how strong they are for a claim such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Marchjuly, removed per WP:BLPCRIME. There's only one source, the Advocate, as the other two are not reliable sources and are parroting Advocate anyway. More importantly, there appears to be no follow up, so no justification for inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Slywriter. The first time something was added about this, it was just an unsourced blurb added to the lead; so, I removed it. This last time it was a bit more developed with some "sources" cited in support. I imagine that there will be another attempt made to add it again sometime in the not too distant future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Atakan Karazor

Atakan Karazor isn't in custody anymore according to this source: [8] So the article should be changed. --Geduldiger Leser (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Matten

Jessica Matten Reasons for violation: Harassment, Racism and false information. Inaccurate identity claims constantly being changed on this person's page due to alot of lateral violence within Native communities of mixed Native and asian heritage. The persons' correct racial heritage is listed on her official website: www.jessicamatten.com but harassers keep changing it with incorrect information about both her Indigenous and mixed asian descent. Requesting for this to be stopped with the inaccurate information and to maintain the quality of accurate information held on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7forward (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah. The page is in something of a sorry state at the moment. And I just watched Dark Winds, which I quite liked. Will see what I can do, but more eyes would be welcome. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)