Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
(Redirected from Wikipedia:BLPNOTICE)
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by LaughingManiac in topic Talk:Hasan Piker
| 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.
Additional notes:
| ||
Repeated attempts to edit the article to overemphasize and sensationalize a recent shooting incident, violating WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. While the incident is appropriately covered in its own section with reliable sources, editors keep trying to characterize Kunce as being "best known" for this single event, which appears to be harassment through repeated undue emphasis of negative content. Request review and possible protection if problematic editing continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophilian (talk • contribs) 15:28, October 27, 2024 (UTC)
BLPCRIME and article that focuses on non-public figure not charged but not convicted of a crime
editThe article Phillips family disappearances seems like a complete WP:BLPCRIME violation to me but I don't know how to address it short of deleting the article itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- The article could probably do with a trim (readers do not need to know about every single alleged robbery or vehicle theft) but the notability of the events is indisputable and most of the sources look reliable (Stuff, RNZ, Newshub, the Herald, etc.) Phillips' not having been convicted of a crime would hold more water had he not absconded while on bail leading to a warrant being issue for his arrest. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with it being notable which is why I haven't proposed AfD, but it does go against what BLPCRIME states: For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd definitely rephrase parts like
New Zealand Police believe
... we're writing an encyclopedia, not a news article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC) - Strictly speaking BLPCRIME only says we must "seriously consider" not including such material; there is leeway for editors to judge that we should include the material even though it suggests a non-public figure committed a crime.
- Given that this is an article about a man taking his children in a custody dispute and disappearing when he's meant to be in court to answer criminal charges, I'm not sure it's possible to write a meaningful version of the article which doesn't at least suggest the possibility that he's committed crimes. Maybe if this were cut down to a three sentence stub... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd definitely rephrase parts like
- I agree with it being notable which is why I haven't proposed AfD, but it does go against what BLPCRIME states: For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is where the line between public figure and private citizen begin to blur. A person can become a public figure simply by committing a crime, without even seeking fame. It all depends on how much public interest exists. For example, Charles Manson and his "family" became infamous back in their day, generating tremendous amounts of news coverage, several documentaries, and even some movies. Far worse crimes have been committed that didn't generate hardly any interest, and if it happened in Somewhere, Nebraska, he likely would've disappeared into the aether of history. But it didn't, it happened in Beverly Hills so it garnered a huge amount of public interest.
- Who knows why some criminals achieve celebrity status, but it's probably the same reason some musicians and actors do while most don't, but it's the risk everyone takes when committing a crime. Seeking fame doesn't automatically make one a public figure, and avoiding fame doesn't guarantee it won't.
- Other examples include Mary Kay Letourneau and Casey Anthony. In Anthony's case, she was found innocent, but at one point the case had received so much coverage she was a household name; not notable enough to have her own article but enough to have her name redirected to the article about the case. The purpose of BLPCRIME is to protect the rights of private citizens, but at some point the case becomes so well known that there is no longer any point in trying to protect their rights to privacy or innocent until proven guilty. In such cases we have an obligation to cover the info as well.
- In this case, it looks like there is enough coverage to warrant this article in spite of having no conviction to show for it. However, I don't think the children have committed any crimes and am uncomfortable naming them or having their pictures in the article. Extra care should be taken with children in any article. Zaereth (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would generally support removing the pictures and name. But I think this case is complicated since it's a high profile disappearance. While there's no suggestion the children committed any crime, the names but especially the photos have become wide spread precisely because they are being actively looked for. Consider other famous cases like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Disappearance of Etan Patz where we have photos and the articles are named after the person who disappeared. Yes Etan Patz is now considered resolved but it's still so named because of the fame surrounding the disappearance and the photo which even appeared on milk carton was I'm fairly sure always there even before. Other cases involving the disappearance of minors seem similar e.g. from 2010 to now Disappearance of Mekayla Bali, Disappearance of William Tyrrell, Disappearance of Sky Metalwala, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen, Disappearance of Kyron Horman, Disappearance of Rebecca Reusch and Disappearance of Owen Harding all have photos. (Note that McCann and Metalwala even have age progression images.) To be fair, Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen and Disappearance of Dulce Maria Alavez do not have photos although still have the article named after the minor. I suspect the lack of photo might have editors uncertain how to handle NFCC as much as anything and/or general unfamiliarity with how they can add images by those involved in the articles. And I'm excluding Disappearance of John Beckenridge and Mike Zhao-Beckenridge, Disappearance of Perry Cohen and Austin Stephanos and Disappearance of Dylan Ehler as in all those cases it seems like the these were quite early on treated as a probable death where the body has simply not been found rather than a person who has possibly been abducted or otherwise might still be out there somewhere. (Although since there is always doubt, I'm fairly sure the photos have been spread a fair amount e.g. I know this is the case for Mike Zhao-Beckenridge which is also a NZ case.) Note that in some of these cases, Etan Patz being an obvious example, the disappeared might be no longer a minor, but I don't think that is the reason we're fine with including the images. While in the headline case we were fairly sure from the outset why the children disappeared, this doesn't change that they're still being actively searched for and since there's no guarantee the father will be with them at all times and in any case it helps with identification the photos of the children are also widely distributed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Allegedly an individual of short stature who accompanied a normal-sized individual during an alleged crime was Tom Phillips and one of his daughters.
- But I realised this fails NFCC#8, images of living people aren't considered fair use on Wikipedia so the image will have to go for another reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean Disappearance of Alessia and Livia Schepp instead of Pitzen in the second instance. Anyway that isn't correct and we have a number of such images e.g. Lucy Letby and Saif al-Adel are examples. The requirement is that free images can plausibly be created. This is generally considered to apply to nearly all living persons, but there are some exceptions. Long term incarcerated are one such exception and also those who in hiding. People who have disappeared would seem to be another obvious one. There's the remaining question of whether it's acceptable to use the images in articles which aren't on the people per se but their disappearance e.g. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74#Non-free use reassessment. I'd suspect the answer on this is yes since including the widely distributed photos of disappeared people "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". This isn't like what a shooter looks like since while those images might be widely distributed, it doesn't particularly matter if anyone knows what they look like. By comparison the hope is that anyone who might plausibly see disappeared people know what they look like. But I've never taken part in NFCC discussions on this so have no idea if this is the general community consensus. But I suspect the fact more than 50% of our articles on disappeared people have such images including 1 extremely high profile example (McCann, I just noticed Patz isn't actually NFCC although it was from 2007) suggests community consensus has been in that direction. It's possible community consensus will only come down in support when those images have been distributed widely enough, but that's likely to be a tricky balance so definitely not something that's a slam dunk either way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- BTW see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 18#File:Lucy Letby mugshot.png for confirmation this isn't just something no one noticed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)f
- NB my assumption is that the children were all too young for criminal responsibility to be a concern. But going by this [1], I guess Jayda was ten during the bank robbery. But even so, I'm unconvinced that saying a child who was taken by her father at the age of eight into fairly unknown circumstances accompanied her father at age 10 during a bank robbery raises significant BLPCRIME concerns, as I think most people would assume that there is no reasonable possibility of criminal responsibility in such circumstances even if the child was technically over the legal threshold in the jurisdiction. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- BTW see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 18#File:Lucy Letby mugshot.png for confirmation this isn't just something no one noticed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)f
- I mean Disappearance of Alessia and Livia Schepp instead of Pitzen in the second instance. Anyway that isn't correct and we have a number of such images e.g. Lucy Letby and Saif al-Adel are examples. The requirement is that free images can plausibly be created. This is generally considered to apply to nearly all living persons, but there are some exceptions. Long term incarcerated are one such exception and also those who in hiding. People who have disappeared would seem to be another obvious one. There's the remaining question of whether it's acceptable to use the images in articles which aren't on the people per se but their disappearance e.g. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74#Non-free use reassessment. I'd suspect the answer on this is yes since including the widely distributed photos of disappeared people "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". This isn't like what a shooter looks like since while those images might be widely distributed, it doesn't particularly matter if anyone knows what they look like. By comparison the hope is that anyone who might plausibly see disappeared people know what they look like. But I've never taken part in NFCC discussions on this so have no idea if this is the general community consensus. But I suspect the fact more than 50% of our articles on disappeared people have such images including 1 extremely high profile example (McCann, I just noticed Patz isn't actually NFCC although it was from 2007) suggests community consensus has been in that direction. It's possible community consensus will only come down in support when those images have been distributed widely enough, but that's likely to be a tricky balance so definitely not something that's a slam dunk either way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would generally support removing the pictures and name. But I think this case is complicated since it's a high profile disappearance. While there's no suggestion the children committed any crime, the names but especially the photos have become wide spread precisely because they are being actively looked for. Consider other famous cases like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Disappearance of Etan Patz where we have photos and the articles are named after the person who disappeared. Yes Etan Patz is now considered resolved but it's still so named because of the fame surrounding the disappearance and the photo which even appeared on milk carton was I'm fairly sure always there even before. Other cases involving the disappearance of minors seem similar e.g. from 2010 to now Disappearance of Mekayla Bali, Disappearance of William Tyrrell, Disappearance of Sky Metalwala, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen, Disappearance of Kyron Horman, Disappearance of Rebecca Reusch and Disappearance of Owen Harding all have photos. (Note that McCann and Metalwala even have age progression images.) To be fair, Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen and Disappearance of Dulce Maria Alavez do not have photos although still have the article named after the minor. I suspect the lack of photo might have editors uncertain how to handle NFCC as much as anything and/or general unfamiliarity with how they can add images by those involved in the articles. And I'm excluding Disappearance of John Beckenridge and Mike Zhao-Beckenridge, Disappearance of Perry Cohen and Austin Stephanos and Disappearance of Dylan Ehler as in all those cases it seems like the these were quite early on treated as a probable death where the body has simply not been found rather than a person who has possibly been abducted or otherwise might still be out there somewhere. (Although since there is always doubt, I'm fairly sure the photos have been spread a fair amount e.g. I know this is the case for Mike Zhao-Beckenridge which is also a NZ case.) Note that in some of these cases, Etan Patz being an obvious example, the disappeared might be no longer a minor, but I don't think that is the reason we're fine with including the images. While in the headline case we were fairly sure from the outset why the children disappeared, this doesn't change that they're still being actively searched for and since there's no guarantee the father will be with them at all times and in any case it helps with identification the photos of the children are also widely distributed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The person suspected of a crime (Wasting police time? Really?) absconding is irrelevant for the application of WP:BLPCRIME. If this was nominated for deletion I might support it per WP:TNT if there isn't a suitable redirect target. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- One of the issues is that for a variety of reasons details of things like custody don't tend to be discussed much in NZ. But if you read sources like [2], it seems clear even if you put aside the bank robbery etc, it's quite likely more significant charges will be due than simply wasting police time if father is ever arrested. Beyond the secrecy over such things in NZ, I suspect one of the reasons there hasn't been much talk is there is no reason. Whatever is alleged is ongoing. The bank robbery and stuff are one of events each of which are their own alleged crime. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath -- I fully agree with your view point. Slacker13 (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, it looks like there is enough coverage to warrant this article in spite of having no conviction to show for it. However, I don't think the children have committed any crimes and am uncomfortable naming them or having their pictures in the article. Extra care should be taken with children in any article. Zaereth (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, BLPCRIME says one must "seriously consider", not that it is a hard and fast rule every time. There really isn't any way to write this article that does not have this problem. I don't really think this is a violation, given that he does seem to have ''become'' a public figure or something close to this by doing this (see Casey Anthony example given above), and it's not like his name was only given in low quality sources, the RS do name him. A bigger BLP concern would be the children as stated. The RS do name them so it's not a straightforward violation (and doesn't need to be reveled or anything) but that should probably be cut down on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
Massive BLP violations by IP editors in the talk page. Would like more eyes on it... possibly could be blanked by an admin if judged appropriately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Section for reference: Talk:Imane_Khelif#New_Evidence_Published_In_French. Supposed leaked medical documents were published by Le Correspondant an "independent" French newspaper that isn't listed in WP:RSP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- lots of coverage of highly salacious stories regarding algerians, morrocans, liberians, etc.
- Cannot find much else about it on google. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would call Le Correspondant a newspaper... More like a group blog, the American comparison that comes to mind is InfoWars but its not entirely as bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The author of the article is also the outlet's President and Director of Publication (via Google translate), which raises concerns about SPS—and should automatically disqualify it from being used for a BLP claim. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this site fails the sniff test for WP:BLP sourcing. It's got no responsible editorial oversight, and as Horse Eye's Back said, it's rather unsavory. It's sensational and it's offensive. But if you want true WP bureaucratic condemnation, seek opinions also at WP:RSN. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quite frankly any story that is parroting other sites based on a "leaked medical report" should be presumed unreliable given that such "leaked medical report"s are generally not verified. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's unverified, unverifiable, and if true perpetuates an invasion of privacy (think criminal/civil issues, but not for anyone here, just a nightmare for the subject/victim/plaintiff). True or false, its inclusion would make Wikipedia look pretty bad in a BLP way. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- ...Unless the subject suing the shit out of publishers/parrots becomes itself noteworthy. And also WP:NOTNEWS a bit, as even that is developing. We shall see. For now, I stand by the above. JFHJr (㊟) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The linked BLP doesn't just not mention these questionably-sourced claims, it implies any such claims are false. As someone not familiar with the subject matter, that seems to be maybe too certain, and a consequence of politically-charged controversy. It might be a good idea to re-run those RFCs now that a little time has passed. 76.24.20.188 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is no implication that any claims are false. The lead clearly states that "no medical evidence ... has been published" which is factually correct and supported by sources. TarnishedPathtalk 02:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The linked BLP doesn't just not mention these questionably-sourced claims, it implies any such claims are false. As someone not familiar with the subject matter, that seems to be maybe too certain, and a consequence of politically-charged controversy. It might be a good idea to re-run those RFCs now that a little time has passed. 76.24.20.188 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quite frankly any story that is parroting other sites based on a "leaked medical report" should be presumed unreliable given that such "leaked medical report"s are generally not verified. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this site fails the sniff test for WP:BLP sourcing. It's got no responsible editorial oversight, and as Horse Eye's Back said, it's rather unsavory. It's sensational and it's offensive. But if you want true WP bureaucratic condemnation, seek opinions also at WP:RSN. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- The author of the article is also the outlet's President and Director of Publication (via Google translate), which raises concerns about SPS—and should automatically disqualify it from being used for a BLP claim. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir, do you think the "neither-nor" comment requires WP:OVERSIGHT? Thanks for your input. JFHJr (㊟) 07:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of the conversation on article talk is not compliant with WP:BLP or WP:MEDRS and, considering the intersection I would kindly ask an administrator to review whether revdel is required at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies, @ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry to yank you into this discussion. But could one of you please revdel the worst of this? Or give a word here why not? Thanks as always. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know. If these comments prove anything it's the tedious repetition of callousness and ignorance on the part of the now-blocked editor. As far as I'm concerned they should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did block indefinitely as a standard admin action on top of the AE block that EvergreenFir placed. After looking through their contribs it's pretty obvious they were here to fight against the woke mob, violate BLP, and chew bubble gum. I'll let you guess what they were all out of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I made a revdel. Email me any specific diffs you'd like me to look at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Drmies thank you very much for what each of you has done. This diff is outstanding. Ctrl+F for "neither" to find the part of the multi-post I'm referring to. And if you're reluctant to revdel that, I will drop the stick and continue to appreciate your attention and the actions you've taken. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you yet again. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Drmies thank you very much for what each of you has done. This diff is outstanding. Ctrl+F for "neither" to find the part of the multi-post I'm referring to. And if you're reluctant to revdel that, I will drop the stick and continue to appreciate your attention and the actions you've taken. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know. If these comments prove anything it's the tedious repetition of callousness and ignorance on the part of the now-blocked editor. As far as I'm concerned they should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies, @ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry to yank you into this discussion. But could one of you please revdel the worst of this? Or give a word here why not? Thanks as always. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 14 November 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.
The article lacks all the Wikipedia standards (Wikipedia:https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestworkers (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The article has been WP:PRODed. If the PROD is removed, this BLP notability discussion should move to WP:AFD. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- PS, thank you @Duffbeerforme. JFHJr (㊟) 05:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
David Mearns
editThere is an ongoing situation at David Mearns https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/David_Mearns where an IP editor is repeatedly reverting the removal of an inaccurate and contentious claim made about the article subject in violation of WP:BLP.
The editor Subarqaz is clearly a biased individual who over the past 9 days has targeting three subjects with the same contentious information. See the contributions page for Subarqaz that are all identical in nature. The claims are contentious with a clear intent to defame the subjects. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Subarqaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddyhurst (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've pointed Subarqaz to our BLP policy and removed some other additions of theirs. If the issue continues, see if they'll discuss the changes on the article's Talk page. I'm afraid that little to nothing will be done until you communicate with the editor. Woodroar (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- As a result of this post, I have significantly expanded the previously mediocre Lucona, about a cargo ship insurance fraud scheme that killed six people, sent two men to prison, and was a scandal in Austria for 15 years. And Austria is a landlocked country. Mearns and his team found the shipwreck in the deep waters of the Indian Ocean. Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
RFC Notice: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?
editSee here: RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion has evidently moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature. JFHJr (㊟) 19:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
See edit history and talk page discussion. I'm at 3 reverts with a new user. Unknown Temptation (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Jasser Auda's Bio
editThis is Jasser Auda writing. Reporting misinformation posted on the wiki bio page carrying my name. There is a few people collaborating to spread misinformation, which I will pursue legally if they insist on their behaviour. I was born in Egypt but I am a Canadian citizen, and I do not have, carry or use any Egyptian documents whatsoever, I have no Egyptian ID or passport or any other document other than my birth certificate. It seems that those who insist on writing that I am an "Egyptian Scholar" think that this gives me less rights to defend myself as a Canadian citizen. Also, the professional information on where I teach and currently affiliated to as a professor is outdated, and when I updated them someone obscure quickly revents them! Not sure who insists on replacing current information on my academic positions (where sources are public and verifiable) with outdated information. Wikipedia must be alert to corrupt-governments' hired spreaders of misinformation - this is the only way I can understand the behaviour of those anonymous editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasserauda (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings and sorry for the consternation. It looks like you've made the edits you're essentially requesting above. However, you should not be editing the article about you. See also our conflict of interest policies, and WP:ABOUTYOU if you need further help right now. You should also retract your legal threat above and absolutely refrain from making more in the future. Please do talkpage the issue or bring it up here, while declaring your conflict of interest as you did. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. There sure are a lot of primary sources in this one. It appears to approach WP:RESUME. Opinions, anyone else? JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would likely support AfD if there aren't any additional secondary sources to establish this individuals notability. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Potentially defamatory allegations against living family members
editThe 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.
An editor has made unsourced and potentially libellous allegations against living persons in an article they created [redacted], and at a few related articles and talk pages [redacted]. I've reverted them so far, and left a uw-biog1 at the editor's user talk. However, the allegations have also been repeated in an AFD discussion [redacted], which I'm not sure that I can redact. Advice please? And can the revisions of the reverted allegations please be hidden by an admin? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is an alarming abrogation of WP:BLP especially as it involves several people who are fully private citizens. I think substantial revision deletion is probably needed at that AfD and I'd suggest speaking with an admin. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm about to write to WP:OVERSIGHT. In the meantime I've redacted the above links. EEng 21:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this. Text revdelled (mostly by Black Kite) and editor blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm about to write to WP:OVERSIGHT. In the meantime I've redacted the above links. EEng 21:37, 13 November 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.
There is someone or a group repeatedly adding misinformation to the Wikipedia article, especially on the "Controversies & legal issues" and adding sources that are related to the sub-headline, but NOT targeted to the living person. One user I noticed who kept doing so is User:BerwickKent. Hoping this issue gets resolved. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilrealm (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Matt Gaetz
editAfter discussing the following two NPOV issues on the Talk page:
- Excessive detail regarding unsubstantiated criminal allegations in the lede
- Unbalanced viewpoint on far-right claims in the lede
and receiving feedback from other editors supporting changes to this prose, my changes were reverted citing WP:ONUS. I'm restoring my edits based on WP:BLPRESTORE and seeking further feedback from the community. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Kcmastrpc: There is absolutely no way that I see a consensus for your changes. WP:BLPRESTORE also appears to be specific to article deletions, the policy you're looking for is WP:ONUS, which I believe calls for you not to restore your preferred version after TarnishedPath reverted it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- this appears to be the version from before the content dispute, and should probably remain at this version per WP:STATUSQUO. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, BLPRESTORE is not specific to article deletions, I don't see how that could be interpreted from said policy. I've raised serious NPOV concerns with the disputed content. This being said, if editors feel it should be restored, by all means do so, as I'm not going to cross the 3RR line. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like you were rebuked by multiple editors including TP and Drmies. It also doesn't look like your
"other changes"
(as you mentioned here) were discussed beforehand. You change a lot more than just the "far-right" wording in the lead. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- Both talk page discussions are linked above. Which ones are you referring to as being undiscussed? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like you were rebuked by multiple editors including TP and Drmies. It also doesn't look like your
- BLP is not a blunt instrument that you get to use as a cudgel in content disputes... I think you might be abusing the spirit if not the letter of the policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Knock it off with the aspersions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- So now you're attacking me for offering the uninvolved opinion you brought this to a noticeboard for? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd encourage you to focus on the merits of disputed content rather than whatever your thoughts are on the invocation of policy. Sure, you're welcome to comment on anything you like, but I'm not going to just take blatant aspersions on the chin. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted to talk about article content but not policy this is the wrong venue "This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content." and here I think that while you are right in applying the letter of the BLP policy you are not within its spirit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually on second reading I think you might have issues with the letter of the policy as well... Unless I'm missing something you didn't have consenus for those edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, both discussions he links to have opposition from multiple established editors before he made the changes. I've gone and mostly reverted them ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I'd argue that this goes against the spirit of BLPRESTORE as this material is highly controversial and UNDUE considering the allegations were neither corroborated or prosecuted. Editors seeking to include it in the lead should need to gain consensus per BLPRESTORE and ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where it gets tricky is that you didn't just remove stuff... You also made changes and significant additions. Gaetz is also a public figure, so it doesn't matter if its corroborated or prosecuted or not... That would only matter for a non-public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- BLPRESTORE addresses more than just removal. The objection isn't to the inclusion of the content in the article, it's specifically about the excessive and sensational coverage in the lead -- as that's an UNDUE issue. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The inclusion of the content you introduced appears to have been objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The restoration of the changed content appears to have been objected to. So, what's next? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- As frustrating as this is going to be to hear I think that whats next is you go back to the talk page and you try to get a consenus one way or another, in hindsight it would appear that escalation to the noticeboard was premature (especially if this is as you say primarily about due weight). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The restoration of the changed content appears to have been objected to. So, what's next? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The inclusion of the content you introduced appears to have been objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- BLPRESTORE addresses more than just removal. The objection isn't to the inclusion of the content in the article, it's specifically about the excessive and sensational coverage in the lead -- as that's an UNDUE issue. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where it gets tricky is that you didn't just remove stuff... You also made changes and significant additions. Gaetz is also a public figure, so it doesn't matter if its corroborated or prosecuted or not... That would only matter for a non-public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- GoDG, I think in this case ONUS and BLP favor removal, not restoring. I don't see a consensus to have this content and it's clearly disputed with a number of editors on both sides of the issue. Perhaps a RfC for inclusion is the correct answer. Springee (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- But, as Horse Eye's Back points out, he didn't just simply remove stuff. So in this case, WP:STATUSQUO should apply, which favours this version. Agree that an RfC may be the correct path here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- If new content was added that should also be discussed and potentially left out. Looking at the talk page history it's clear that this content has been disputed in the past and I don't see any discussion that reached a keep in the lead consensus. Springee (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- especially the "far-right" dig in the opening paragraph. Totally uncalled for. 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Refer to WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:WEIGHT. We don't go with what random pundits think is "uncalled for", we go where reliable sources take us. TarnishedPathtalk 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- especially the "far-right" dig in the opening paragraph. Totally uncalled for. 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- If new content was added that should also be discussed and potentially left out. Looking at the talk page history it's clear that this content has been disputed in the past and I don't see any discussion that reached a keep in the lead consensus. Springee (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- But, as Horse Eye's Back points out, he didn't just simply remove stuff. So in this case, WP:STATUSQUO should apply, which favours this version. Agree that an RfC may be the correct path here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I'd argue that this goes against the spirit of BLPRESTORE as this material is highly controversial and UNDUE considering the allegations were neither corroborated or prosecuted. Editors seeking to include it in the lead should need to gain consensus per BLPRESTORE and ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, both discussions he links to have opposition from multiple established editors before he made the changes. I've gone and mostly reverted them ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually on second reading I think you might have issues with the letter of the policy as well... Unless I'm missing something you didn't have consenus for those edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted to talk about article content but not policy this is the wrong venue "This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content." and here I think that while you are right in applying the letter of the BLP policy you are not within its spirit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd encourage you to focus on the merits of disputed content rather than whatever your thoughts are on the invocation of policy. Sure, you're welcome to comment on anything you like, but I'm not going to just take blatant aspersions on the chin. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- So now you're attacking me for offering the uninvolved opinion you brought this to a noticeboard for? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Knock it off with the aspersions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
"are like peas and carrots"
"are like bread and butter"
"are like blackjack and hookers"
Attack page on a BLP subject, title is WP:NPOVTITLE
CSD G10 may apply.
Formerly titled Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism, moved on November 6
Egregious attack page, AT BEST merged into Public_image_of_Donald_Trump#Political_image and redirected.
Relevant policies:
Compare and contrast:
Skullers (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can agree with possibly moving it to the public image page, as there are a lot of different criticisms beyond just comparisons to fascism. I think Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt could be a good model, as it has a section titled "Criticism of Roosevelt as a "fascist"" GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- FDR died in 1945, even WP:BDP doesn't apply there (142 years since birth). Skullers (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is well and truly covered by WP:BLPPUBLIC. TarnishedPathtalk 04:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath is correct. And if @Skullers thinks the article should be deleted, WP:AFD is the correct forum, not here. JFHJr (㊟) 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- AFD's already been tried. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism. Don't know the protocol for trying again a month on, but would expect trouble. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- While you're at it, there's Age and health concerns about Donald Trump, set up to parallel age and health concerns about Joe Biden, Which was AFD'd and kept. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there you have it, @Skullers. WP:Consensus indicates it's not a G10 problem after all. JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS says we should be far more summary style in how we are presenting current events. We don't need to document every single instance or opinion put out there, but should be aiming for how this will be viewed by academics in the future. There's arguments for significant trimming on all these pages such that they can be grouped into a single page like with the above Criticism of FDR. Masem (t) 17:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- NOTNEWS does not say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Masem (t) 17:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- And how do you get from there to "WP:NOTNEWS says we should be far more summary style in how we are presenting current events"? NOTNEWS is not telling us to treat recent developments differently from other information... Its telling us to treat it the same, not in a more summary style. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I won't put words in anyone's mouth, but perhaps the point above is that the WP:WEIGHT of each topic of (apparent) criticism (YMMV) is undue when spilt into independent articles. It's a defensible opinion, though I do not agree. JFHJr (㊟) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, that would be a fair opinion but better suited to AFD than here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed @Horse Eye's Back! And a closure of this discussion comports with the consensus actually reached at AfD. I'd support anyone who wants to close this now. JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- They're all definitely connected, and the essay Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:Criticism covers these issues. The content (particularly the Trump/fascism article) is fully appropriate and necessary, as these are points oft-repeated in sources and essential that we have that content. But we have to be aware that as WP editors, we should be careful about jumping on every single point raised by sources that would support those ideas, particularly in the short term. If we were writing this all 10 years after the events, for the first time, we would definitely not be as detailed as some of these articles have now, and some may be more footnotes in history (like Trump and golf), while others could be major factors. But we should let time figure that out, and use caution in the short term particularly in piling on criticism reported by reliable sources. Masem (t) 18:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are WP:NODEADLINES here. We can actually wait 10 years and see. JFHJr (㊟) 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would note that we are actually nearly ten years out from the stuff that happened before the 2016 election (when we seem to have the first really serious coverage of the topic). It doesn't feel like a long time but even 2020 isn't in the scope of "recent developments" "current events" or "breaking news" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, that would be a fair opinion but better suited to AFD than here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I won't put words in anyone's mouth, but perhaps the point above is that the WP:WEIGHT of each topic of (apparent) criticism (YMMV) is undue when spilt into independent articles. It's a defensible opinion, though I do not agree. JFHJr (㊟) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- And how do you get from there to "WP:NOTNEWS says we should be far more summary style in how we are presenting current events"? NOTNEWS is not telling us to treat recent developments differently from other information... Its telling us to treat it the same, not in a more summary style. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Masem (t) 17:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- NOTNEWS does not say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS says we should be far more summary style in how we are presenting current events. We don't need to document every single instance or opinion put out there, but should be aiming for how this will be viewed by academics in the future. There's arguments for significant trimming on all these pages such that they can be grouped into a single page like with the above Criticism of FDR. Masem (t) 17:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there you have it, @Skullers. WP:Consensus indicates it's not a G10 problem after all. JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well its not an attack page... G10 doesn't apply... Which leaves us with NPOVTITLE and to me the current title doesn't run afoul of anything there, we seem to have a non-judgmental descriptive title. Can you explain your position? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Could I get some uninvolved input here? Starting from this section, we have some pretty wild claims circulating freely about the person in the article. In particular, I'm wondering if certain accusations concerning rape are worthy of WP:REVDEL, or if I should just delete them myself but leave them in history, or if I should just not touch them.
Apparently there's a feud/harassment campaign (depending on who you ask) going on, related to the so-called "adpocalypse" on Twitch, which may explain some of these newer edit attempts. Ultimately however, that's all just Internet noise - what I'm concerned about is following BLP, which as I understand is pretty important on Wikipedia. LaughingManiac (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- the controversy around israel palestine generally should not be touched by anyone who isnt EC yet anyways. most parties in that thread dont seem to have 500 edits yet Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't thought of the fact that this would be PIA. Although thinking about it, doesn't that mean the Hasan Piker article should be ECPd?
- My question regarding what should be done with the allegations made on the talk page isn't really answered by this, but thanks in any case. LaughingManiac (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- no. only if the article is mostly about israel palestine is it ECPed for that. there is mostly an honor system for articles that intersect with it only marginally…
- if an admin warns a user tho and the user continues to do edits despite not having ec, sanctions are sure to follow. see also WP:ARBECR, only edit requests are allowed Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- im not an admin so cant revdel. if the discussion isnt going anywhere any uninvolved participant can close the discussion Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- All right, thank you for your help. I guess I'll see where this thread goes with regards to my other concern, while keeping an eye on the talk page over there to check if anyone contributes in the coming days. LaughingManiac (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the talkpage discussion. The discussion itself isn't libelous and doesn't need to be removed, let alone revdeled. It's about allegations the subject minimizes topic of rape. It isn't about rape itself, and the allegations themselves appear noteworthy when it comes to other notable persons. Their mentions' WP:DUEWEIGHT in this subject's article is fine to discuss on the talkpage. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there is something wrong. Since it's about Israel/Palestine, it requires ECP to edit, and therefore the only person in that discussion that should be discussing it is FMSky.
- FWIW I also agree this should be REVDELed for BLP reasons unless strong secondary evidence for the claims can be found. Loki (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, these accusations seemed to me to clearly run afoul of the bar of
"reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation"
from LIBEL, since no one cited any RS to support them. With that said, I am inexperienced, so I will keep feedback from here in mind, regardless of my own agreement with it. LaughingManiac (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)