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.

Murray Hill (performer)

This article has an inconsistent use of pronouns to describe either the performer or the character being portrayed, depending on the section being read.

The current version of this article has female pronouns in the introductory text and male pronouns in the biography section. It is unclear from initial reading which gendered pronoun should be used, or whether multiple pronouns should apply to this person and used interchangeably.

If this is an example of kayfabe, the article may need to be rewritten to provide greater clarity as the title currently states "performer" but the biography section may be referencing a persona, which can cause confusion.

Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.

This is not a request for deletion, but someone with greater knowledge of this person may need to provide accurate, up-to-date information to prevent repeated edits by overzealous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.83.25 (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 17, 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance Couch Hoax reintroduced without consensus

There is a very long and drawn out contentious discussion on this matter, and has been a very slow moving edit war. In the meantime, until there is an RfC I don't see why such material should be restored per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. I'm pretty much willing to take this to WP:ANEW, but wanted to see if we can't get an admin to intervene in the meantime.

• Removal diff -- https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242551121
• Restoration ignoring WP:ONUS -- https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242558302

I am unable to find any RfC on this matter where consensus was affirmed, and WP:BLPRESTORE is pretty clear on this matter, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM I find perennial news sources covering what amounts to WP:GOSSIP doesn't quite meet the "high-quality" bar required for BLPs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, its gossip that isn't particularly substantive and does not belong in an encyclopedic biography...

the hoax may be worth its own wikipedia entry maybe, but might not be worth linking into a person's biography Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll go and make an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

BLPRESTORE also says Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Having read the talk page discussion regarding this issue, I think the above applies. It would appear (please correct me if I'm wrong at any point) that the discussion started when the hoax was given its own section in the article. As the discussion went on, there appears there wa a loose consensus to keep the information, culminating in one editor removing the separate section and adding a version of the information to another section instead. A later editor moved this information to a different section, and there is possibly still some debate to be had about which is the right place for it.

If no attempt had been made to address concerns, you're absolutely right and BLPRESTORE would apply. But editors have worked hard to make sure that the material is added in a manner that is WP:DUE, and BLPRESTORE would appear to recognise that. If the material is simply deleted whatever happens, that doesn't give editors a fair crack at adding in in an appropriate manner. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC I just started: Talk:JD_Vance#RFC:_Inclusion_of_couch_hoax Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not wish to be unkind, but the RFC appears to poorly formed. You have split it into survey and discussion sections, but you haven't given clear options for the survey, and your own survey vote is effectively a discussion comment. Discussion started here not even an 30 minutes prior to your creation on the RFC - almost nobody has had a chance to contribute. I wish you'd let it play out a little longer here first, then we might have been able to craft a more robust RFC proposal. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ah... its my first one.

Should I just delete it and let someone else do it? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ah wait... others have started replying to it... well whoops, I dont think i'm allowed to redo or edit now, right? apologies. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at WP:RFC, which says The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the rfc tag. [Note, bold RFC is because I Wikipedia thought I was trying to actually place the tag here and I didn't know how to escape it.] There is probably still an opportunity to do that, especially if you make an edit to the talk page or the edit summary to make clear that the action is being taken so a better structured RFC can replace it. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, removed the tag, and striked out the text. I'll let someone else do it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the content again. We err on the side of excluding contentious material, especially about a BLP, and especially if the material is shown to be a hoax. This isn't "JD Vance in popular culture" or somesuch, where there might be a good argument to include (there might even be justification for a stand-alone article at this point), but rather the main biographical article about the person, with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. Did you read the paragraph you removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you know your statement I quoted is false, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at, but anyone interested can just take a look at the version before I reverted and confirm that it was under a "public reactions" section, a subsection of the VP campaign. It isn't part of "in popular culture" or the like but part of the main biography as though the hoax has anything to do with a public reaction to Vance-as-VP-candidate. It's either a hoax or a reaction to a hoax, not to Vance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources do seem to present it as largely a reaction to Vance's image (sexually repressed, weird, oversharer), they seem to suggest that the reason it went so viral is that it was really believable even if unveracious... That is it seemed like it could be true, even though its not. The longer I see this go on the more I think that perhaps it really is best handled on a stand-alone page with only a short blurb+link here about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's false, why include it? Springee (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What would be the basis for exluding hoaxes? Notability is entirely independent of the truth, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories gets coverage at John F. Kennedy whether there is any underlying truth to the theories or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because unlike the weird couch thing people are still talking about assassination conspiracy theories 50 years later. If people are still talking about Vance humping a couch in 50 years then I guess we'll have an article about it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have more than enough coverage, you can't make a competent good faith argument to exclude based on a lack of coverage... Which is why an argument is being made to exclude it on the grounds that it is false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion of facts/information is not "notability" but WP:DUE which is a lower bar indeed. "Notability" is a concept which applies to inclusion of an entire article or topic, and answers the question of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion here. DUE governs the stuff y'all include in articles; if a hoax (or any other fact) isn't adequately documented/covered by RS then it's excluded, but that's distinct from the notability of a subject. Any facts are eligible for inclusion, even if they fail to meet a "notability" bar, as long as they don't exceed WP:UNDUE. Got it, Horsey?

With all that being said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT apply here, and it's a freakin' tempest in a teapot, so pls delete. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:A630:BA40:F8C:EF24 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability in the colloquial sense... Which is DUEWEIGHT (and note that on an academic level notability the term of art is just the application of due weight to the topics themselves). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt I fail to see your point though, DUEWEIGHT is no more dependent on the underlying veracity of the topic than N is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is true that LL Cool J has made love with a sofa, so there's truth; merely misattributed I suppose. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:7135:9DE6:EA27:BF8D (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Perhaps instead of fighting over whether this information belongs in a BLP, someone should create that and include it there? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is actually not a bad idea, 2024 United States presidential election could just have it's own "Misinformation" section for now and if needed, split off from there. I'm still opposed to having the hoax linked to Vance's BLP, similarly to the horse semen hoax for Walz, or whatever weird stuff comes up in this election season. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

How is that similar? They appear to have gotten vastly different levels of coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have enough disk space for all the misinfo? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The couch hoax is already covered in Hillbilly Elegy, and WP:Summary Style says only the “most important” parts of Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in the main Vance BLP, so it seems pretty clear that this contentious hoax should not be in the main Vance BLP. (This rumor about Vance is similar to the lurid rumor about Trump and prostitutes in Moscow). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what is contentious about the hoax? Everyone seems to agree that this is a hoax/joke, there is no contention otherwise unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

When there are jokes at someone’s expense, it undermines them, and causes arguments about whether it’s an appropriate way to conduct a presidential election. We’re having an argument about that right now, for example. VP Harris tweeted, “JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women”, to keep this disgusting lie front and center, and to diminish his stature. If Vance starts telling jokes about Harris having sex with inanimate objects, I likewise would oppose inclusion in her BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think we should exclude the whole thing is because you personally think it is "disgusting", you are doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t suggest to put the word “disgusting” into any Wikipedia article. Anyway, Jake Tapper of CNN says the hoax/lie was “gross” which is synonymous with disgusting.[1] I support continued inclusion of this gross smear in Hillbilly Elegy. But not in the main Vance BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Its going to be covered by BLP in both places. Do you think you can tone down the rhetoric a bit? The level of anger you're bringing to this discussion is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not angry at you. Are you angry at me for being angry at you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You appear angry at the hoax, the hyperbole with which you are speaking doesn't make sense otherwise. Calling it a "disgusting lie" "gross smear" is uncivil, hoax is already strong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree that Jake Tapper was being uncivil, and I also don’t agree that he was angry. He was just stating facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Jake Tapper is not a wikipedia editor to the best of my knowledge... If he was and he said the same sort of stuff he says on TV he would most certainly cross the civility line repeatly in only an hour. Just call it a hoax, no need to go the extra mile into obvious non-objectivity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling a hoax created to defame someone a 'disgusting lie' is uncivil? Uncivil to whom? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, what is contentious about the hoax? Being at someones expense doesn't make it contentious, being used to diminish someone's stature doesn't make it contentious... Only there being an actual contention does that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve answered as best I could. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your answer appears to be that it isn't contentious as wikipedia means the term (multiple sides to the issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested it’s not contentious. I explained the exact opposite above. Some people think it was a gross smear, others think it was interesting and humorous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, just leave it be--no further responses to this needling are necessary. User:Rhododendrites, thank you for the cleanup. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Gladly. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: though it looks like the edit war has picked up again... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that, Rhododendrites--User:Kingsmasher678 reverted it without any explanation in the edit summary, and that is why I reverted them. I see now that they left a note on the talk page in that interminable section, but an edit like that needs an edit summary. I really have no dog in this fight; the content is relatively short and it's verified, but editors need to learn to tread lightly. I don't know what that RfC, if that's still what it is, will lead to--I can't see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, forgot an edit summary, tried to do my best to give a reason on the talk page. Still, I think I'm gonna WP:DROPTHESTICK, at least when it comes to actually editing the article, the whole thing has kinda spiraled, as you can see if you look through the talk page. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Kingsmasher678, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Well shucks, it makes the WP:GNOME side of me happy to hear that. I make a point of not screaming at people online, and to admit when I mess up!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant You haven't answered this at all. You appear to find the hoax offensive on some level, which doesn't make it contentious. It would be contentious if RS reported on this in a detrimental way, which isn't the case. There's virtually no disagreement among RS that someone created the hoax, it was debunked, and there was fallout for Vance (mainly in the form of public mockery). Cortador (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There is now an RFC on the talk page about this. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is at Talk:JD Vance#RFC: Include "couch" hoax paragraph. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

wolfgang hohlbein

Hi - This biography has not been updated to reflect the adaption of Wolfgang and Heike Hohlbein's book to create the 2023 television series "Der Greif". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:20:8800:630A:0:0:0:B3A (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Wolfgang Hohlbein is not protected so you can edit it yourself. We also have Bibliography of Wolfgang Hohlbein. Have you checked there? Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Barbara J. Wilson

The last paragraph of the career section of this article includes discussion of a controversy regarding the Athletic Director of the University of Iowa during Barbara Wilson's tenure as President of the University. This discussion within the article fail to meet the biographies of living persons policy regarding tone and balance. The paragraph describes a lawsuit settlement in non-neutral language. The tone and lack of further information from the cited sources attempts to imply that Barbara was negligent in her actions regarding the topic of the lawsuit. Having such an implication regarding a lawsuit in the biography of a living person is clearly in violation of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.85.9.21 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed, and thanks! In the future, if you're not prevented from doing so by page protection or some conflict of interest on your part, you should remove such content yourself. If you are so prevented, use the associated talk page to make the case for removal. This is a good place to come to if talk page discussion doesn't prove fruitful due to lack of response or failure to reach consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of revision

Could someone please delrev revision 1232398614 from John Michael Montgomery? It contains polemic misinformation about the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Dustborn

Could someone here please respond to this allegation and determine whether or not to include it?--Trade (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What exactly makes this a BLP issue? Pinguinn 🐧 03:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

the accusation i presume. dont know where else to post this Trade (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue, but an NPOV dispute. So the right noticeboard for this thread is WP:NPOVN. NicolausPrime (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Insofar as there is dispute about the reliability of the sources involved, WP:RSN might also be useful Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Francisco Vallejo Pons

Hello

I am a friend of chess grandmaster Francisco Vallejo Pons. He's concerned about changes in his english page of Wikipedia. He's happy with spanish content, true and real, and he wants to have the same content but in english.

He don't understand why some people remove the content because it's only a biography, true and real.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monscaro (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Monscaro Short version: An en-WP article about a person is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS that are independent of the subject, and these sources need to be correctly cited in the article. en-WP is not (generally) interested in what the subject or his friends wants to say about him. If you know about good WP:RS that would be useful for Francisco Vallejo Pons, you can suggest them at Talk:Francisco Vallejo Pons.

Longer version: WP:BLP and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hope this makes an amount of sense, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw, this English sentence from his website-bio [2] doesn't quite make sense to me: "Nissio, a family friend, discovered his capacities when he hadn’t almost learn all chess rules,"

If you agree you can pass that on. I added a little WP:ABOUTSELF-stuff to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I put an Expand Spanish tag on the article. The article is also within the scope of WikiProject Chess, so it's possible they may know where to find sources related to this chess grandmaster. When I get time, I'll do some research as well, and place any sources I find on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Ba 'Alawi sada

The #Disputes and rebuttals section of the article contains violations of WP:POV and is basically just original research and almost all (if not all) the sources in that section are unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abo Yemen (talk • contribs) 15:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

are any of these folks still living? The sect seems old, and its a claim of a religious order, which means WP:BLP may not apply.. consider postign on WP:NPOVN instead? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes this family is still very alive in their original homeland (Hadhramaut). The only image there is of a diaspora in Indonesia , which is what I am going to guess is the reason why you taught that they are dead Abo Yemen✉ 09:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Abo Yemen, which specific named living people are you concerned with? That's all we deal with on this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

BLP issues on NLE Choppa

The page NLE Choppa was recently edited by an anonymous IP. This edit contains potentially libelous material. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

GeorgeMemulous, I have revision deleted the unreferenced contentious material. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Die Antwoord

Die Antwoord is a South African rap group. On the band article, and also on the articles of its two main members, Watkin Tudor Jones and Yolandi Visser, are some claims about criminal allegations various people have made against them. As far as I can see, these allegations have never been tested in court. What is our stance on this sort of thing? John (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Allegations usually require significant reliable coverage to be considered WP:DUE for a BLP, such as major investigations, criminal charges, or consequences. Coverage about these allegations are definitely WP:UNDUE for the groups page unless the impact of the allegations caused problems for the group such as a breakup, cancelled tours, etc. and would require their own independent reliable secondary sources to link such outcomes. After looking at some of these sources and claims, I believe they are unlikely to meet the WP:EXTRAORDINARY threshold for inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've posted at the three article talk pages. I agree with you. Unless a consensus is shown that these items are WP:DUE there I will remove them per WP:BLP. John (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Willis

The author's reference to my decision in the case of Woolworths v Whitehead is not correct. The judgment is reported in the law reports. It speaks for itself. I did NOT say that an employer could discriminate against pregnant women because it would be unprofitable to employ them. What I did find was that, in the specific circumstances of an employer having a serious crisis in its IT department, and was in the process of seeking an applicant from outside immediately to fill the vacancy and sort out the problem it was not unfair discrimination if the employer took into account the fact that an applicant was pregnant and would very soon thereafter, have to go on maternity leave. This, I believe is NOT some pro-capitalist rave but basic good sense.

Nigel Willis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.186.37.18 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is a WP:BLP issue here.

The article states: Willis argued that the right of pregnant women to equal treatment could be overridden in cases where pregnancy discrimination was profitable.

However, the sources don't quite say that. From the Mail & Guardian:

Judge Willis said that Woolworths had done nothing remotely to suggest that “we do not want women who are or who may fall pregnant to work for us”. The company’s evidence was that it needed someone who could provide continuity over the ensuing 18 months in heading up a very troubled department. This, the company argued, made the case a special and wholly exceptional one.

Judge Willis accepted this argument. The employer had been influenced, not by the pregnancy as such, but by a range of factors including Whitehead’s availability. Profitability, he emphasised, cannot “dictate whether or not discrimination is unfair – nevertheless, profitability is a relevant consideration”.

So Willis only said it was a "consideration" in that specific instance. That's a far cry from him "arguing" that the right of pregnant women to equal treatment can be overridden (generally) by profitability considerations. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

I'm trying to find out if there is a BLP issue in including the name of the murdered victim in the article. There are many sources for this. At Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident VSankeerthSai1609 wrote "Hello, I will be removing the victim's name in the Wikipedia page of the article. This is due to allegations and complains raised for alleged non-compliance of Indian laws specifically under my name and also my own consicence. I am a proud Indian national who will not and cannot act against my law. The Supreme court today (9 september) officially asked all private and public social media handles to delete the pictures and names of the victim. While they had been used by many prestigious news and media outlets who have thus deleted it. I have repeatedly said and maintained that the edit pertaining to the name has been edited multiple times after me and each time I have edited the article, I have not touched the name section. As an Indian National and a youth, I don't intend to take such legal and moral risks. If anyone disagrees, please do not revert my edit, but instead opt to other means. I hope the Wiki community will understand. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 7:48 am, Today (UTC+1)" and removed the name. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a new issue, it's come up a lot. When I first became aware of it, I was surprised we were naming the victim, but when I looked at the discussion it was claimed the family had asked for her to be named so I decided to let it be. (It was also claimed it was in a lot of sources, and was widely featured in rallies etc.) However looking at one of the discussions on this, Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident/Archive 1#Discussion on Removing Victim's Name, the family's stance seems to have been disputed. IMO it would help a great deal if this we can get a clear answer on whether the family appears to want her name out there or they don't seem to care either way, or they'd prefer that it's private. This seems much more important IMO that what Indian law requires considering the name seems to be in a lot of extant sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, IMO if we keep the name, it might be worth re-instating the warning box [3]. I can see merit in discussing including the name based on various policies and guidelines, but I'm unconvinced of any merit of all the threads demanding we remove the name due to Indian law. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne yes, if we keep the name we need that. Not sure how to know the family's current feelings. Do these help;?[4][5] Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that the removing poster was doing so legally cover his posterior, given his being named in (Redacted); hopefully, his removal will cover him there, and should be separate from consideration of whether we include the name under policy (on which I have no stance at this time.) BTW, the document also states that Wikipedia is a CIA front organization, although I suspect said document may not be an RS for documenting that fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler Link goes to a downloaded email, can't see it. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the link on the article talk page and also here. IMO the email is clearly outing. Doug, look at number 3. Number 2 also raises BLP concerns IMO, I originally thought that the person writing the email was supporting the claim made. Frankly reading it again, I'm really unsure whether they are or not, but ultimately it doesn't matter. We shouldn't be linking to crazy conspiracy theories which name living individuals except when we need to consider including content on these conspiracy theories. (To be clear, I'm mostly concerned about the other likely low profile people, not the high profile person named there.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually it seems all the details there were just taken from the editor's user page so there's probably no outing. However given the BLP concerns with number 2, I still see no merit to keeping the link to that email. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a RfC. Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim The page is semi-protected to hopefully this means that the levels of disruption won't be gigantic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Houston Alexander

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unreferenced defamatory statements made by Thedivineuniverse (talk · contribs). https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Houston_Alexander&oldid=1244886511 Revision deletion requested. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert Schleip

I can't make up my mind as to whether this new BLP is really a scientifically notable person, or just promoting an alternative medicine (or maybe both)? Several new articles have been added around him including the Fascial Net Plastination Project, and per the red-links on his BLP, more are to come. Would appreciate more input on it. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Druh Farrell

I have been doing some work on the page Druh Farrell. There is an edit I wish to make about which I was uncertain, so I posted to the Talk Page on September 2, 2024. I have received no feedback so would ask for other eyes to please take a look at this. I suggest that discussion take place on the Talk Page. 165.140.231.19 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Elisa Hategan

Elisa Hategan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is full of sketchy sources and irrelevant information about the individual, and the edits have gotten very contentious.

Details about the individual's educational background and private life are irrelevant. She is notable for her time in the Heritage Front, her testifying against figures in the Heritage Front, her failed lawsuit against Elizabeth Moore and Bernie Farber, and perhaps her becoming an educator and speaker. Anything else is aggrandizing and irrelevant detail about a marginal figure.

Beyond irrelevant information, there are many issues with tone and perspective. For example, the following passage is not an objective statement of facts - it is a justification for the individual joining a Nazi group:

"Speaking later to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about her recruitment, she said: "By the time I was 16, I was really angry... I had dropped out of high school and I didn't have any friends and I didn't feel like I belonged. I wasn't quite Canadian, I wasn't Romanian anymore and so I had a lot of the same [risk] factors that drive other people to radicalization — and the Heritage Front happened to be there"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've full protected the article for a week because of the edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, make that ecp since those in the dispute aren't ec. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

TrashPandaMan has removed large chunks of this page, which is verified by highly-credible sources that he is now claiming are "poorly-sourced" and "irrelevant" - GlobalNews is among Canada's leading news networks. The StirileProTV is similarly one of Romania's largest news outlets. Transcripts from the House of Commons similarly attest to the information presented in this page. Removal of verified, sourced content goes against Wikipedia rules which clearly prioritize verifiability. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Belladonna2024 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:VNOT and reconsider your last sentence. You must have consensus through discussion before reinstating any disputed information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Asmongold Discussion

It was suggested to me that I start a discussion here to seek guidance on this talkpage post Special:Diff/1243183772. In particular, I'm unsure if information about where he went to highschool, etc. is widely published, and I don't know if this is something that Wikipedia should be concerned about or not? I asked an admin Special:Diff/1245109546 for guidance and she suggested I bring it to discussion here. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a wholly inappropriate use of someone's private information to win a talk page debate; I should hope that's removed and RevDel'd by an admin. It's not a sincere discussion of a potential source so I think WP:HNE ought to apply, especially considering the context is a discussion surrounding the article subject's explicit request for certain personal details to remain private. GhostOfNoMeme 02:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate and the editor should know better. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Robert Cardillo

This article has a controversies section that is not actually about the WP:BLP subject Robert Cardillo. They are about issues that staff in his office were involved in. Talk page discussions for both passages:

1. Talk:Robert_Cardillo#Ardrey_passage_in_article,_how_is_this_BLP_compliant?
2. Talk:Robert_Cardillo#Poole_passage_in_article,_how_is_this_BLP_compliant?

The Ardrey section is about someone who is not the article subject, and the one source overtly says on page 5 the BLP subject was neither responsible nor reasonably aware of the technical specifics of what a subordinate did out of policy.

The Poole section isn't about them even on the vaguest sense, and the Poole citation doesn't even say the BLP subjects name whatsoever. Can I please request some eyes there, so I am not misinterpreti BLP here? The controversies section that isn't even about Robert Cardillo is by word count roughly 1/10th of the article talking about other people who aren't our article subject. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely these things are mentioned because he was ultimately responsible for what was going on in his department and therefore it was a reflection on his management, Lard Almighty (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources don't connect these things to Cardillo (one doesn't mention him at all; the other explicitly says that he was not responsible) I agree that they aren't relevant to Cardillo and have removed them. The one about Justin Poole is already mentioned in that article; the other concerns an apparently non-notable person and is based on a primary source and I can see no justification for including it in Wikipedia at all. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The buck stops with the person in charge. It is not a BLP violation to state that these things happened under his watch. Whether it's sourced well enough or not is a different matter. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely a BLP violation to suggest that a living person is responsible for some misconduct based on a source which says explicitly that they were not responsible for that misconduct. It's also a BLP violation to include negative information about a non-notable living person in an article based solely on a primary source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "whether it's sourced well enough or not is a different matter". But there is a difference between being directly responsible for something and having responsibility for the conduct of others. Cardillo did have overall responsibility for the conduct of those he managed. He was responsible for ensuring that the staff in his office behaved appropriately and disciplining them accordingly if they did not. It appears he failed to do that. But again, to include it in Wikipedia it needs to referred to in RS. And if it is, there is no BLP violation in saying that there was staff misconduct by people he was responsible for managing. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "whether it's sourced well enough or not is a different matter". It's not a different matter! The fact that contentious material about living persons must be well-sourced is the core principle around which WP:BLP is written! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was if it was well-sourced, it wouldn't matter that he was not directly responsible for what had happened. The proof of that is it this article itself. There is still a controversy section that refers to the actions of someone else who he invited to speak and who allegedly behaved inappropriately. There is no suggestion that he was directly responsible for what allegedly happened, but he was indirectly responsible because the person was there at his request. All of that is well sourced.

So it is not a BLP violation to include things that someone is indirectly responsible for as long as it is well-sourced. As I say, initial comment did not take into account whether or not the material was well-sourced, just whether why it might be included. You took a closer look at the sourcing and determined it was a BLP violation so you deleted it. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lard-Almighty -- I get the sense you might be interested in a discussion of your WP:COMPETENCE at WP:AN... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity Read the above. I am perfectly aware of the need for BLPs to be properly sourced. My initial response was about why someone might have included the section, not about its sourcing. I was making no comment on whether it should be included in this case. But as I say, there is no reason why something that someone is indirectly responsible for can't be included in a BLP as long as the sourcing is adequate. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. After a few edits by myself and others participating here, the Controvery section as seen here in the live version seems to be strictly WP:BLP compliant.

In 2015, Cardillo invited American men's college basketball coach Bobby Knight, a friend of his from their time at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, to deliver an address to the NGA workforce on leadership.[14] Knight visited the agency, and was then accused by four female NGA employees of inappropriate behavior and physical contact.[14] The result was a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and (CID) United States Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation into the matter.[14] The FBI and CID did not bring charges and Federal authorities closed the cases.[14] The incident was a concern that affected agency employee engagement and morale.[14]

Please take another look. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow up question -- is there anything else that would merit removal from the Controversy section in strict WP:BLP compliance? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Interstate 75 Kentucky shooting

Interstate 75 Kentucky shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A shooting occurred last Saturday on a US highway. There is currently a search ongoing for a person of interest who has been named a suspect by local authorities. The name of this person has been included in the article in a variety of ways since hours after the shooting. I just wanted to confirm that there isn't currently a WP:BLPCRIME or WP:BLPNAME issue with the article naming the person of interest or with the article discussing other details about the person of interest. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that BLPCRIME is specifically for protecting non-notable people who aren't even accused of a crime from having their name linked to a crime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then we should be good as only the person of interest in named in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what BLPCRIME is intended to prevent. Being a person of interest is being linked to a crime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood your initial meaning. I thought you were referring to others outside to the event but related to the person of interest. (Bleh.) Thank you for correcting me. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish. Based on your comments, I have made some changes to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sam Rushworth

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sam_Rushworth

I would like to add the following addition to the page of Sam Rushworth. The source is his own facebook post. Could someone confirm whether this would be permitted and reliable?

Whilst working at Durham University, he crossed a University and Colleges Union picket line during strike action by the local branch in July 2023 as part of a national strike over pensions and pay and conditions. He was attending the inauguration of the Chancellor of the University, Fiona Hill and defended his actions on facebook admitting that though he was a member of the pension scheme UCU members were on strike for, he had not joined the strike. In response to a question asking whether he had crossed the picket line, he replied: "while I'm sympathetic to your demands and am in the USS pension scheme myself, I'm not participating in strike action. My role is to support academic staff, hopefully relieve some pressure, and bring income into the university, so striking would be counterproductive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnonP (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sam Rushworth is a Member of Parliament in the UK and his biography does not mention Durham University. Are you talking about another person with the same name? Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Prior to becoming an MP he was the Programme Manager for the Strategic Research Fund at Durham University...

Also agree with Schazjmd below, needs independent sourcing. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the reference to him being the programme manager comes from his own linked-in page so I don't see how this is any different. SnonP (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@SnonP, there is a difference between using self-published information to cite a basic biographical detail and you selecting items from his social media posts to highlight. I hope you can see that difference. (Btw, I can't read that Facebook post so it does not appear to have been publicly shared.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

His bio does if you scroll to the bottom of the Early Career section. Sorry should have been clearer. Still getting used to editing. Apologies SnonP (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If no independent sources have taken notice of this incident, I wouldn't add it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok. That's a shame. He was there by his own admission. I don't think there would be a way of sourcing it independently. There is a letter he sent to members of his party regarding the incident. SnonP (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is another record of him stating publicly that he attended the event. He provides a photograph from inside the event, in case that makes any difference. https://mobile.x.com/SamJRushworth/status/1674406814471864321 SnonP (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure he's attended many events. What makes them significant enough to mention is when independent sources pay attention. Otherwise, it's just you going through his social media and picking out things you want to mention. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that simple. Independent media sources would rarely cover things like this but that says more about the capacity and interests of local news media than whether its significant or not. He claimed during his election campaign that he "stood shoulder to shoulder with my union friends campaigning for security and fair pay for workers" on his website, see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240117010540/https://www.samrushworth.co.uk/ Crossing a picket line at his own workplace is rather contradictory of that. SnonP (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

But that's what separates us from them. Independent media sources publish things that will interest the general public, because that's how they make their money. If we start pulling info like this from his own personal website, then we're doing the job of news reporters rather than encyclopedic researchers. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, meaning what we do is "library research". We judge the significance of any piece of info by the amount of coverage it gets in reliable WP:Secondary sources, such as newspapers or books. We then use that to determine things such as WP:Balance and WP:Due weight. If independent sources have not seen fit to cover it, then that is an indication that there is little public interest in the info and it's best just to leave it out until they do. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)