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.

Playboi Carti

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

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

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

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

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

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

@EphemeralPerpetuals: Can we not use his verified social media to add the correct date per WP:DOB?

[1] This tweet would line up with what is in the video, and is by the subject himself and qualifies as a birthday related text per the DOB section. @FDW777: wondering your thoughts as well.

Awshort (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Emily Hampshire

Here we have another actress with conflicting sources regarding her birth year. The source that's currently cited was published a couple months ago and says she's 42.[2] I've also come across other articles that claim that to be her age as well. However the source that was cited prior is an article that was published in 2009 and talks about how she just turned 30 and that she's three years older than Jay Baruchel(born 1982).[3] And in this article she says that she doesn't wish to be in her 20s again and in your 30s, you start to know who you are.

What should be done? Do we either

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4]

Reply to costar wishing her a happy birthday on Aug 29

[5]

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

[6]

Same as above on Aug 29, different year.

[7]

post from costar on Aug 29

[8]

birthday cake post on Aug 29

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

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

Here's a article from The Globe And The Mail that was published in September 2012 and has 33 listed as her age[9]. This also implies a 1979 birth year. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Montreal Gazette

Dec 11, 2011

The West Island-born actor, just turned 31,

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

• Hollywood Reporter

Sept 6, 2013

Emily Hampshire (32, Actress)

• The Star

Mar 16, 2015

The Montreal-born Hampshire, 33,

• CBC.ca

Apr 28, 2015

The 33-year-old says many Canadian

• Entertainment Tonight

May 17, 2017

the 35-year-old actress says.

• Page Six

Dec 14, 2018

Geiger, 30, and Hampshire, 37, first revealed

• Us magazine

Feb 11, 2019

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

• Us Magazine

Aug 28, 2021

later, the Canada native, now 39,

• Entertainment Weekly

Sep 1, 2021

Hampshire, 40, revealed.

• Sunday Post

Jan 2, 2023

The 41-year-old Hampshire, from Montreal,

• Wall Street Journal

Apr 4, 2023

Emily Hampshire, 41,

• People

Nov 1, 2023

On Tuesday, the 42-year-old actress,

• BBC

Nov 2, 2023

Hampshire, 42, told her

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

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

Fani Willis

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

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

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

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

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

Politico article: Willis moved to quash the subpoena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm glad you asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there's the rub: the "depth of coverage" is all reliant on the court filings (see WP:BLPPRIMARY above), and mentions that Roman’s filing included no concrete proof that Willis personally benefited from hiring Wade.[10] If there's a "deeper read" of BLP to provide that overtakes that, I don't see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The investigations and allegations are now from multiple places and widely covered. The depth of coverage argument no longer applies, the list is in Talk:Fani Willis . The only place that Fani Willis and this matter is NOT being connected is on Wikipedia. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Júlio Lancellotti

An IP contributor is repeatedly ([11][12] [13]) adding a defamatory source about the subject (one which was deemed as unreliable at ptwiki) and being uncivil on the edit summary. DanGFSouza (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

James Renner

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

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

• This one is a lot older than you think. Note the following:
  • Special:Diff/315954202 where JamesRenner (talk · contribs) tried to get the firing of Renner into the Kevin Coughlin article in 2009.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Kevin Coughlin from 2009
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Kevin Coughlin from 2009
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Request Block of JeffBillman from 2009
  • Single-purpose account Able Cunningham (talk · contribs)
  • Sockpuppeteer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renner3774 also edit warring over the firing of Renner and Maura Murray in 2020, but now in the James Renner article
  • Single-purpose account CaraDino (talk · contribs) edit warring in the opposite direction over James Renner and Disappearance of Maura Murray
  • Talk:Kevin Coughlin#James Renner, Kevin Coughlin, and the Akron Beacon Journal in 2009
• As you can see in particular from the latter, there have been problems with misrepresentation of sources over this one specific thing for 15 years. Cirt's and my protection of Kevin Coughlin for a fortnight and NinjaRobotPirate's protection of James Renner for a week seem incredibly optimistic in retrospect. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• One thing worth noting is that Commons:File:JamesRenner.jpg says that is a "Publicity photograph I [ BjornNitmoe (talk · contribs) ] took for the back cover of Renner's novels." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Sharp eyes, there. I spotted the single-purpose account, but not the PR connection. Other single-purpose accounts over the years have included BjornNitmoe2 (talk · contribs) and AinsleyPHayes1 (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

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

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

• Washington Post[14]: Luis “Lue” Elizondo is the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), an unpublicized U.S. government program created in 2007 committed to the investigation of UAPs. Elizondo joins Jacqueline Alemany, author of the “Power Up” newsletter and congressional correspondent, on Tuesday, June 8 at 3:30pm ET.

• NY Times [15]: Luis Elizondo, the director of a Pentagon program she had never heard of: the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

• More NY Times[16]: For years, the program investigated reports of unidentified flying objects, according to Defense Department officials, interviews with program participants and records obtained by The New York Times. It was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo, on the fifth floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, deep within the building’s maze.

• Politico [17]: According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.

• CNN [18]: Luis Elizondo, the former Director of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program at the Pentagon

• Representative Tim Burchett[19]: Elizondo is the former director of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which was created in 2007 to study UAP.

• Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried[20]: As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo’s involvement and leadership role in this program

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean this Reddit UFO group [21] , can’t find the X thread again right now. Very hard to show good faith after having read that thread and knowing about the big attempt to dox User:LuckyLouie. See also WP:FTN# UFOlogy promoter BLPs. Goodnight. Doug Weller talk 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of these are not interviews and you said it yourself: they were fact checked to some extent. Harry Reid isn't a reliable source on who was the director of a classified program he created? DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved BLPN watcher here. Never heard of this guy and don't really care about this dispute one way or the other. I can believe in the possibility of aliens and life in outer space, yet find it highly unlikely they'd spend the time, effort and energy it takes to travel billions of lightyears just to spin brodies in some cornfield in Nebraska. (With all the cool places in the universe, why come to this dump?) That said, here's my two cents.

We don't just blindly follow what sources say. I can find a lot of sources that say any material can be used as a laser medium under the right conditions. When I check better sources written by laser experts, I can show quite clearly this is not true at all. When it comes to the reliability of sources and the weight (proportion) we give them, a lot depends on the type of source, but it also depends on the specific information it is giving. For example, a newspaper is generally at the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of RSs, whereas a book by a reputable publisher in laser physics would be far more reliable. In this case, we have newspapers that don't offer any proof, and others that source their info to what should be very reliable primary sources, depending on how much you believe politicians or Pentagon officials involved in counterintelligence. Either way, when there is a discrepancy we can't sort out, we have an obligation to phrase the article in a way that --in no way-- implies one is correct over the other. Let the reader decide. Now, if you have a better way to phrase it than using the word "claimed" which accomplishes that goal, then that might be a thing to discuss. Zaereth (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think its a valid point to not reference this as definitive, however the conversation as previously framed prior to the article being locked was one of Elizondo being the only one who portrayed himself in that role, whereas link to the letter by Sen. Harry Reid (who was a part of the creation of AAWSAP), as well as the additional documents FOIA'd by "The Black Vault", at the very least the "claim" should be given equal weighting to the denials, rather than being seen as a "one man against the world".

As the page is locked, I am unable to make the amendment, and given the existing baggage around that passage, it may be useful for a non-involved party to make such an amendment, however I would phrase it as follows:

"Elizondo's has claimed to be a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a program associated with the Pentagon UFO videos, is supported by former senator Harry Reid who was involved in setting up the program - this claim however has been contested by some reporters and Pentagon officials."

This subtle wording changes from "both" to "some" implies that this not as easily disputed as the reader is lead to believe, and the additional context for who Harry Reid is adds legitimately adds weight as to why his claim should be given due merit. Webmaster2981 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Reid's support is already mentioned in the article, so there's nothing to change. Undercutting claims with terms like "some" isn't really something we do on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to intrude where I am neither wanted nor needed, I think the best version of the sentence is with no qualifier: "...this claim, however, has been contested by reporters and Pentagon officials." Have a nice week one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the coatrack-of-quotes criticism section, most of which didn't match sourcing, and emptied the known for parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a somwhat weird situation. WaPo etc would normally be fine, but with the contradictory source(s?), what should be the WP:BALANCE is not glaringly obvious. In general, I would consider WaPo to have greater weight than The Intercept, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit weird. On one hand we have Elizondo's claim being repeated by sources, on the other we have sources questioning that claim. I believe the current article represents an appropriate, reliable-source-based balance between those two poles: Elizondo's claim is included, as his claim. Alternatively, as mentioned above by SFR, Elizondo is not really known for that claim, so a better balance might be achieved by simply removing all information related to his specific role, claimed or otherwise, vis-a-vis AATIP. Perhaps WP:NORUSH also applies here: as additional, reliable sources emerge over time, this issue/content can always be revisited. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Those attempting to present this as something which is disputed have The Intercept? and all based on one article. No, there's more than one article, which for those interested can be read here. There is also this source, the sidebar of which presents a compelling case for questioning/disputing the "Directorship" claims. And there is also this source, which reports the fact that the Pentagon has questioned whether Elizondo had any official role in UFO research. The point here is that Elizondo's claimed role in the AATIP - which is certainly not what he is known for, and as pointed out above by MrOllie is derived from Elizondo himself - has been questioned in independent, reliable sources. Because of those reliable sources, if his claims are to be included at all in the article (and perhaps they should not), they can only be presented as his claims, and not as The Truth in Wikipedia's voice. I note lastly that this topic and these points have been discussed, at length, at the article Talk page, where consensus is not in favor of the OP's desired content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Questioned", sure, but also reported as fact by independent, reliable sources (to which I'm not counting the senator). To me, it's not obviously clear that The Intercept has the final WP-voice-word here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

it's not obviously clear that The Intercept has the final WP-voice-word here. Where precisely, in this discussion or at the article Talk page, does anyone suggest that? Perhaps I missed something, but I just don't understand the basis for this comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The article currently states "Elizondo claims that ending in 2012, he was the director..." While WaPo etc says he was. That gives The Intercept a top-dog position, in my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's replace "claim" by "state". It is not that extraordinary of a claim that someone like Reid would put someone like Elizondo in such a position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Spectator uses the Intercept as its source on this and I shouldn't have to remind you that consensus doesn't allow us to violate Wikipedia's rules on BLP's. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It uses the Intercept article as a source, not the only source. And no one - no one - is arguing, either here or at the article Talk page, that consensus should violate BLP rules. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to clearly explain how questioning a person's credentials is a BLP violation, especially when multiple reliable sources are doing so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Todd Kashdan edits keep getting blocked. Not equal treatment between subjects

Todd Kashdan page edits that exist on other psychologists pages are being removed. Also, the page has factual inaccuracies that lead me to believe that the original posters of the material do not know the subject. Please compare his profile to that of Steve Hayes or other notable psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pem725 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't compare 'profiles'. We base articles on what independent reliable sources have to say on the specific subject of the article. If you have an issue with content, discuss it on the article talk page, citing necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

Main page: Talk:Joaquin Phoenix § Joaquin, NOT PHOENIX

It repeatedly references Phoenix when it was meant to be Joaquin. I find this to be extremely egregious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.128.17 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• That's wikipedia style, to refer to article subjects by their last name. You can read more about it at MOS:SURNAME. Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it just more formal, that's all, and encyclopedias are written in a very formal style. It comes from an older time, for instance, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, when the US was new, it would've been considered very rude for even your best friends to call you by your first name even in light conversation. That was reserved for family alone. That's how most formal writing is still done. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I'd note that this is still a very common practice in a lot of media, not just encyclopaedias. For example, People (magazine)'s [22] website does the same. People magazine's website given it's interest isn't generally considered a super serious website. Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • It's the style of many things other than Wikipedia, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Winston Swift Boyer

Hi all--I need an editorial BLP opinion on this edit. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm leaning toward not including the conviction in this article--it's covered in Jacques Boyer. The COI is another matter. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate guilt by association, in my view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, although not mentioning his brother at all is also not the way forward. GiantSnowman 19:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There are two things Jacques Boyer is known for. That is being a child molester and a bicycle racer. We tend not to cover something about someone having been accused, but per WP:BLP, including it is fine when there has been a conviction. To cherry pick and showcase only the flattering part of their siblings is POV pushing when multiple reliable sources have significant coverage on both aspects. Graywalls (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Graywalls, I also read the BLP, and this may be the first time I disagree with you. Second paragraph: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"--"your brother is a convicted child molester" is a pretty titillating claim, and I agree with User:ScottishFinnishRadish that inserting the fact (as well-referenced as it may be) in this article just isn't anything more than titillating. The guy was in the Tour? That doesn't harm this guy. The guy was convicted? That may harm this guy. Not all facts are equal in regard to the BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Just a heads up about some article turbulence, in particular this edit of mine. I removed a word (widely considered an epithet in the diplomatic world) for reasons stated in edit summary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Following up, I have reverted the obvious BLP violation as much as I am going to revert it. Input here at BLPN would be helpful and welcome, and hopefully the BLP violation will be reverted in a stable manner. More generally, if neutral editors can tolerate it, such editors could be very beneficial to that high-traffic article/cesspool. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What this non-neutral posting is in regards to is a discussion on whether to describe the subject as "isolationist," based on sources. The discussion is ongoing and has been up for a week. Despite the still ongoing discussion The OP here suddenly decided 2 days ago that it was a BLP violation, and edited the article according to their preferred version. This was reverted, user restored, reverted again, restored again. This violates the discretionary sanctions at the article, the "may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" in particular. "Isolationist" can have a negative connotation, but it is not at all a BLP matter for the status quo to remain while discussed. Certainly not to the level of severity where user Anythingyouwant can bypass discretionary sanctions to remove it. Zaathras (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Pray tell what reliable source is cited in this BLP regarding whether he’s an “isolationist.” And why exclude Trump’s denial, and exclude every reputable historian who says he’s not an isolationist? You must realize it’s a flagrant BLP violation, right? The question here is whether BLP policy applies to this very disfavored BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not litigating the discussion on this board. That is for Talk:Donald Trump. The issue here is you edit-warring, violating discretionary sanctions, and wrongly invoking BLP. Zaathras (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s wrong to invoke BLP, is it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't really the place to litigate discretionary sanctions either, nor for that matter edit-warring. That should be dealt with WP:ANEW, WP:ANI or WP:ARE. I have no comment whether this is a BLP issue, but bringing attention to BLP issues is what this board is for so that would be an appropriate use of this board. At the very least since this does involve not only a living person but is something said about that person without within their biography, I'd be very reluctant to criticise an editor for bringing it here. This is separate from any edit-warring, discretionary sanctions violations etc which as I said should be dealt with elsewhere. Edit: Or to put it a different way, whatever wrongs the editor may or may not have made with their previous edits, if they felt there was a BLP issue it was surely wise for them to come here and see whether others agree rather than continue down that path. If they did stuff that needs to be dealt with, that can be dealt with elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware that those issues won't be adjudicated here. They were mentioned to show the OP coming here with unclean hands. Zaathras (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything to avoid addressing the BLP issues. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

John Crist (comedian)

• John Crist (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A high profile "scandal" needs to be properly presented in this BLP that has needed basic cleanup for many years.

Here's a quote from the beginning of a recent article, to give an idea: The aftermath of the scandal that shook John Crist’s career has become part of his comedy, turning his lessons learned into new material and his experience with “cancel culture” into a punch line. (Shellnutt, Kate (2022-06-20). "'Canceled' John Crist Has a New Book, Tour, and Comedy Special". Christianity Today.)

There are two new references on the talk page that may be useful.

I reverted a recent expansion/rewrite to be on the safe side of BLP, while editors give the situation the care it needs.

I don't expect to have much time to get this article up to BLP standards, nor review the general consensus on how to address MeToo-related articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Gary Allen (runner)

• Gary Allen (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Back and forth between accounts adding controversial WP:BLP content and a likely COI account using Mr. Allen's name. Needs more eyes and perhaps some sanctions or page protection. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If an admin is about, I'd also suggest some rev/deletion of defamatory content. And it appears as if there's a more or less orchestrated campaign by several WP:SPAs to add promotional/positive content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I am in the process of redacting BLP content not accompanied by a reliable source. ... discospinster _talk 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, discospinster. If the single purpose accounts continue--from either direction--I may request page protection or go to ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Cameron Stracher

• Cameron Stracher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ct234567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need some additional editor help with this article. I'm involved at the administrative level, which limits what I should be doing to the article content.

A cursory review of the New Yorker article used as sourcing shows that it backs up some of the chief claims made about Stracher and his firm. There is a use of the New York Post as a source which needs removed, although the information sourced to the Post is in the New Yorker article. The article needs additional work for tone.

Ct234567, holding himself out as Stracher (and who I've blocked for making legal threats), has attempted to blank the article on the grounds that it is "defamatory".[23] There one unsourced paragraph about a pending lawsuit that was removed; everything else on the surface is sourced, but it does need some vetting since the Post is used at least once as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Amin Husain

The edits made to this page this week are based on unsubstantiated information, Amin husain has been unjustly suspended and an investigation is still taking place, and the information cited is based on a tabloid rag article (the ny post) with the intention to harm and defame. We ask that these edits are removed until actual verifiable data is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:863F:6942:E8EE:3FB:1513:F302 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Question: Is Husain notable at all? I am seeing only low-quality sources here. The only reliable source I see in the article is a single ARTnews piece concerning the Decolonize This Place project. Other coverage of the project that I see on a cursory search mentions Husain in passing. Perhaps this should be a redirect to the project? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Woodroofe, I followed your suggestion--thank you. Yes that article is full of BLP problems. Oh, IP editor, don't speak in the plural here: it makes admins want to block. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Amin is a public figure cited in books and social movements and is an educator and activist a lawyer, as well as a lot of other things that are not derivative of his partial role in decolonize this place, so basically erasing him and just connecting him to decolonize this place minimizes and honestly feels like a lazy solution to making sure his wiki is updated with verifiable sources and data. Please remove the redirection. Sunkissed2024 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

By email at ticket:2024013010011251 someone requested on-wiki discussion. If this is to be a redirect or deleted then please send to WP:AfD. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, I find it a bit concerning that a clearly problematic BLP is simply restored on the basis of a "public figure" comment, and an email that I can't read. This is the easy way out, but it is not the right way. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Husain. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and you restored his occupation as "Suspended Adjunct Professor"--seriously? Drmies (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: When an article has lots of citations then redirecting it without discussion results in a dispute more often than sending it to AfD. The redirect you made is fine, but someone did dispute that redirect by email. I restored it by request.

If I did something out of process then tell me, because I think what I did is the norm. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the complaint made right here, and the obvious problems with the article (see my recent edits), that's not what I would have expected. "Restore upon request", that's news to me. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the goal here is instead of redirecting the article or deleting it, we actually do some due diligence research as your statement that you can't find notable articles about Amin Husain is confusing and inaccurate. Sunkissed2024 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nancy Dudney

New start-class article Nancy Dudney on someone who very obviously passes WP:PROF (elected to National Academy of Engineering). Sourced mainly to non-independent sources because that's the kind of source that is useful for sourcing factual claims about people like that. There is nothing unreliable about the sources; we cannot use that kind of source for opinions but here they are only used for uncontroversial facts. Even the cv clearly passes WP:BLPSPS (it's by the subject and we're only using it for uncontroversial factual claims). There exist secondary sources but they mostly say useless things like world-renowned expert on batteries instead of useful things like career details. IP editor insists on tagging it with a permanent banner-of-shame telling the world that its sources are non-independent (and, incorrectly, characterizes the sources as primary; some of them are, at least one of them isn't, but it is non-independent) and has been edit-warring to reinstate that banner. Help wanted. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This mischaracterizes things a little bit, but yes help is wanted. I hope we are not violating protocol here by jumping the queue so to speak. But if there are any specialists in finding secondary sources for academics your help would really be appreciated, I know a lot of those don't come up on normal searches, and I think the article is just begging for an interested specialist to help improve the sourcing and expand it from its current start-class, thanks to all. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP's bad-faith assertion that I am not a specialist in sourcing articles on academics, after having created thousands of them, is also noted. Their condescending attitude is not helping me remain civil, which is also part of why I'm bringing this here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no condescension intended. Perhaps we need tone markers or something. I never said you were not a specialist, I only said we could use the help of specialists who might be additional or not, I made no assumptions there. Accusing me of bad-faith is weird. And no one is required to be a specialist to edit in the first place. Having specialists work on an issue just makes things a bit faster and more precise, but amateurs can muddle through things, projectspace is searchable so long as you have some idea what you are looking for (fourth-person you to be clear to avoid condescension interpretation) and the answers are usually somewhere. Even when things go awry all mistakes are reversible in a wiki. I don't understand what the problem here is. But that is ok because now that we are requesting outside attention hopefully someone who does understand everything will come along and clear everything up. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains that cleanup banners should be used only for articles where there is a problem to clean up. This article is not in a problematic state and putting it in a cleanup category is a waste of everyone's time, yours included. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That still does not follow. To clarify, secondary sources are generally preferred and I do not believe that is a controversial claim. Maintenance categories are used by specialists/gnomes to find pages with issues that they like to address and are good at addressing and again that claim is uncontroversial. When thus categorized articles that would benefit from a specific task are more likely to be improved by virtue of being easier to find. Thus when the content of an article is mostly based on primary sources it is logical to add it to the maintenance category so it can receive additional attention from people who want to help, with the goal being to source most of the content from independent secondary sources.

It does not waste anyone's time, because the people that use those categories are willingly choosing to use their time in that way, and it does not waste my time because I want to help them find pages in their area of specialization. Overall it should theoretically save time. Take for example Template:Uncategorized which I add rather routinely when applicable. I could add a category or two in many cases but my imprecision rate will be higher than someone who has dedicated much time to the study of Wikipedia's category tree, and I will also be slower. By asking for help a complete and correct set of categories is more likely to be added in one go by someone who takes essentially no time at all to select them, instead of one needing additions and refinement and thus the total editor-hours used will be lower.

If instead I am misreading you, and your assertion is simply that having the majority of an article's content based on primary sources is never an issue that should be addressed by anyone I do not know what to tell you except that you are free to list Template:Primary at WP:TFD at any time. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:295F:37C6:A50D:14FD (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nancy MacLean

A newly created SPA has shown up on the Nancy MacLean article to push the claim that she's a conspiracy theorist, which has seen disruptive editing pushing that going back for a while, though not recently until now. Their account name, @DemocracyInCranes:, is a parody on the title of one of MacLean's books. They added to the lede the claim alongside a REFBOMB of mostly libertarian responses to said book, which is about the origins of United States libertarianism (in a not positive way).

I reverted the editor a couple times until @William M. Connolley: reverted me back and has stated they don't consider this to be a BLP violation. The only thing I did then was move down the claim to the section about the book in question. DemocracyInCranes has since added the American Conspiracy Theorists category to the article.

I would like the input of other editors on whether these additions are a BLP violation or not, with my username links above serving as pings to the two editors in question. Silverseren^C 22:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a BLP violation. But I do see a disputed edit that has been added back to the article without any discussion on the talk page, by a longstanding editor who you'd think would know better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Characterizing her critics as "some academic critics, many of them libertarians" appears to be incorrect. Maybe more accurate would be "many libertarians, some of whom are academics". We should avoid representing her critics as being more mainstream than they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Iqbal Survé

Iqbal Survé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from User_talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what's happening with this article but there appears to be WP:BLP issues.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Long story. The subject of the article can be seen as a controversial figure. There's a history of COI editing on this page by single-purpose accounts associated with the subject of the article, editing positively about him. This has usually ended with them being blocked as sockpuppets. The most recent spate of edits started from the other "side" - single-purpose accounts editing negatively about the subject - and now a single-purpose account has joined in, editing in favour of the subject. Zaian (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Evgeniya Kanaeva

False data in the article:

According to Kanaeva's biography on olympics.com, she was born in Omsk (Soviet Union), not Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, Korea as mentioned in the article. https://olympics.com/en/athletes/evgeniya-kanaeva

Furthermore, the article includes several Korean place names, such as "Suwon" and "Anyang", which is strange because Kanaeva is a Russian athlete.

I kindly request a careful review and verification of the information provided in the article. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tata2906 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

An IP editor from Korea made a series of changes without explanation back in November which changed many of the placenames in the article from Siberian to Korean ones; I have reverted. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Meg (singer)

An IP user (on two addresses, but the edit summaries make it clear it's the same user) keeps adding unsourced information to Meg (singer). I can't find anything in the article references or in a quick online search to support it. I've reverted them three times (over three days), and their edit summaries are not encouraging as to their stopping this any time soon, so instead of continuing to be involved I'm bringing it here.

I'm hoping someone can tell me what the process is here - it feels kind of like a slow-mo edit war, but also it's continuous addition of unsourced info to a BLP (so a BLP violation), and additionally it's an IP user with multiple addresses. What is the protocol here? EasyAsPai (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the range for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! EasyAsPai (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie, again

• Mark Bourrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the past month, another suspected Spoonkymonkey sock, Oneofff, appeared to challenge claims in this article. There have been a number of past discussions about this same issue, such as:

• Talk:Mark Bourrie#IP attacks and the two sections below it
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive285#Mark Bourrie
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive296#Mark Bourrie

All of these discussions were started by Spoonkymonkey socks, and since they have a penchant for using legal threats as a first resort in dispute resolution, they get themselves blocked before anyone can take their complaint seriously. But the thing is there is an issue here, and we're obligated to get BLPs right when editors bring complaints in good faith, even when they do so in ways that go against our social norms.

Spoonkymonkey objects to our description of Bourrie's testimony in the 2015 fraud trial of Canadian Senator Mike Duffy. The most recent revision of the contested section reads as follows:

In April 2015, during the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy, Bourrie testified that he received an unsolicited cheque for $500 from Duffy, after spending an estimated 80–100 hours combating internet trolls who had posted material about Duffy, including editing Duffy's Wikipedia entry. Bourrie testified that he did not recall asking for payment and that his research services would usually run $100 per hour. Christopher Waddell, a journalism professor and former Parliament Hill correspondent, said it was "inappropriate" for Bourrie, as a journalist, to accept paid work from Duffy.

References

Note that the Canadaland article was published April 9, 2015. On the same day, Bourrie wrote a rebuttal on his "Ottawa Watch" blog (now offline, archived here) which Canadaland also published in slightly modified form on April 15 ([24]), in which Bourrie challenges certain details of David Akin's article. While our article is I think a fair representation of the sources, we do not mention Bourrie's rebuttal at all, and that seems to violate WP:BLPBALANCE.

Oneofff's last attempt to add Bourrie's rebuttal read as follows: (diff to current revision)

In April 2015, during the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy, Bourrie testified that he received an unsolicited cheque for $500 from Duffy, after spending an estimated 80–100 hours combating internet trolls who had posted material about Duffy before Duffy was appointed to the Senate, including editing Duffy's Wikipedia entry. Bourrie testified that he did not recall asking for payment and that his research services would usually run $100 per hour. Bourrie said he did the work while he was teaching at Concordia University, not while he was working in the media. He also stated he never covered the Senate or wrote about Duffy afterwards.

References

I see a few problems:

1. "before Duffy was appointed to the Senate" is dubious. The Globe & Mail is clear that Bourrie worked for Duffy after Duffy was appointed to the Senate; the National Post doesn't give an explicit timeline but quotes Bourrie saying that the posts were made "from the time [Duffy] got appointed". I don't know how we reconcile Bourrie saying one thing in a rebuttal and then being quoted saying the opposite two days later.
2. The removal of the quote from Christopher Waddell is more tricky. Without it, Bourrie's defense that he worked at Concordia at the time has no context. But I'm not sure that Waddell's opinion should be included: while we're presenting it fairly and in their voice, I don't see evidence that Waddell is an expert in journalistic ethics, and Canadaland is the only publication (that I could find) which published it. This also came up in the "archive 296" discussion linked above but wasn't acted on.
3. "he never covered the Senate or wrote about Duffy afterwards" maybe just needs clarity. In Bourrie's own words he reported on the Senate's justice committee while a law student, but had not done so "in at least three years". His rebuttal isn't clear on what date he's referring to, but I assume he means before 2009 when Duffy consulted him on the malicious posts.

Appreciate any thoughts on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 06:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the rebuttal because per WP:ABOUTSELF it is either unduly self-serving or makes exceptional claims (claims that are contradicted). I'd probably think about dropping the statement from Waddell also. TarnishedPath^talk 09:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m Mark Bourrie.

I did not cover Duffy in the Senate

I mentioned Duffy once in one of my books (2014) I did not cover the Senate justice committee as a law student, I covered some meetings for Law Times. I stoped writing for them in 2007, when I started teaching at Concordia. This was before Duffy’s appointment to the Senate.

I knew Duffy for years before he was a senator. We sat next to each other in the parliamentary press gallery.

For what it’s worth, you have the name of one of my books wrong and are missing two others 142.117.142.7 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Waddell was what’s called a “dial a quote”. Call him up and he would give good quote on and “facts” that he was fed. He did nothing to check them. In this case, he was wrong. The quote suggests I am unethical, a serious allegation to make about a lawyer and journalist. Despite Ivanvector’s claim, now written into the entry, I did not retire from journalism in 2017. A simple google search would have found the journalism I’ve done since then, including to long features in the Globe and Mail last year. As well, the year of my birth is wrong.

Look, I know I’ve alienated Wikipedia but I have felt ridden by anonymous editors from the beginning. The page on me was begun some 20 years ago with a false claim that I lost a lawsuit and from them on, it has been nothing but an invasion of my privacy and an embarrassment. Take a look at my bio. I could have brought so much to this project, if anyone had shown any kindness or good faith. Take a look at the edits attributed to me. There were many hundreds of them that fixed errors in articles or added to them. I won’t belabour the point. But at least as far as Canada is concerned, on Wikipedia you are either out or you are in. 142.117.142.7 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As the year of birth given in the article did not match the age given in the cited source I have updated it to match. I can see nothing in the article (or in IvanVector's post above) which states that you/Bourrie retired from journalism in 2017. I have not looked into the rest of these comments yet. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think TarnishedPath means to refer to WP:BLPSELFPUB, although the text is basically the same. I'm not meaning to argue for its inclusion, but I've always interpreted that guideline to mean that we can't use a self-published source to support material in our article that is unduly promotional or about other people or unrelated events, not that we can't use them if any of those things are present in the source. I see how that would be open to interpretation. The other problem is that Bourrie's rebuttal was published by Canadaland, which is neither self-published nor questionable. Thus if we include Waddell's opinion, then we can also include Bourrie's reply. But I agree that we probably should omit them both - unless someone can demonstrate that Waddell is an expert on journalistic ethics or a source of expert opinion on the goings-on of the Press Gallery, it's just a random cherrypicked opinion, and it fails WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. As for "former journalist", I mentioned this source in my edit summary, which reads "Bourrie was a journalist from 1978 until 2017". It seemed to me that the article content supported that timeline, and it also seemed to me that Oneofff was trying to make that distinction. I'm happy to see the error corrected; likewise for the birth date which I did not review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing on Waddell's profile at Carleton University leads me to believe he's a subject matter in journalist ethics.

It's listed that "He received a Ph. D in Canadian history from York University in Toronto in 1981, completing a thesis on price and wage controls and consumer rationing in Canada in World War II". No post-doc studies or fellowships are detailed that would lead me to believe that he's a subject matter expert in journalist ethics. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Presuming that we're generally in agreement that Waddell's quote should be removed (I was hoping for more participation but it is mid-week) I have removed it. But I have a broader question: should Duffy's trial be mentioned in Bourrie's bio at all? It's described here as though Bourrie's testimony was a critical element of the trial, but Bourrie isn't mentioned at all in our coverage of the trial in Duffy's bio nor in our article on the Canadian Senate expenses scandal which it was part of. That's telling, isn't it? The newspaper sources we use were published on April 17, 2015, the same day Bourrie testified, and two weeks into Duffy's criminal trial which was practically the biggest news in the country at the time, and papers were covering every routine detail of it. But April 17 was a Friday, and by Monday the coverage was on to other things. Going forward in time: on May 7, Macleans ([25]) mentions the defence trying to block admission of the evidence Bourrie brought of harassment of Duffy on Wikipedia, and on June 1 the CBC ([26]) reported that it was ruled inadmissible. At least the Toronto Star and National Post also reported that, very much in passing. After June 2, the only source I found from a quick Google search which mentions Bourrie in the context of the trial at all is the judgement itself ([27]), Wikipediocracy ([28]), and various sources (including Bourrie's site, FairPress.ca) covering Bourrie's feud with Canadaland, but we can't use any of those for various reasons. It seems to me that it's an exceptionally minor detail of Bourrie's career, and practically not a detail at all of the trial. Is there any good reason we should include it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That was one thing I was a bit confused about when I started reading this thread. I really don't see a good reason why it's there. TarnishedPath^talk 04:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced there's a compelling reason to include it; as we all seem to be in agreement and nobody else has weighed in on this thread I have removed the paragraph. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for updating his bibliography, TarnishedPath. Mr. Bourrie, if you're still watching this thread: while reviewing sources I happened to notice that the title of Bush Runner is also misspelled on your website's "about" page, in case you wanted to correct it. Regarding TarnishedPath's advice: you won't be able to leave an edit request on the talk page since it's protected from logged-out editing, but if any time in the future you see further abusive editing on the article that we don't catch, you can make a request on this page, or if you would rather deal with it privately you can contact our volunteer response team, who are signatories to a confidentiality agreement. Their intake email, regrettably buried in an FAQ well away from the main page, is info-en-qwikimedia.org.

There are still some issues with sources on the page:

1. I'm trying to find a source for Bourrie teaching at Concordia from 2007-2009; it was previously in the article without a source. Oneofff provided this, which we can use although it's written by Bourrie (but not self-published). It appears to be hosted on a WordPress site but the document itself is reliable. The article would be more stable if we could find an independent source, but I've had no success so far.
2. There are several dead links. I recovered one yesterday, but others should be reviewed and archived, or a better source found if they're offline and can't be verified.
3. Speaking of #2, the source used to support the sentence summarizing his early career, an article from the Ottawa Sun titled "'Prince of Darkness' sues blogger", is not available online. The archive link is to a page where a reader can pay a fee to order a copy of it, and the newspaper's online archives only go back to 2011. Given its title I don't think it would be an ideal source anyway. Can we find a different one?

There are more things we could probably improve, like adding some coverage of his interest and work on Great Lakes shipwrecks if there's independent sourcing available, but that's less urgent and can probably be handled on the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hamas most wanted playing cards: "list of terrorists"

• Hamas most wanted playing cards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disclaimer: I am no fan of Hamas, but surely WP:BLP applies to them? User:Eladkarmel on 31 January 2024 created this article, apparently translated from Hebrew Wikipedia, with the very first sentence saying: The Hamas most wanted cards are a list of terrorists wanted by the State of Israel for crimes they committed against Israel, a sentence that remains as of this post. The article goes on to list 54 Hamas members, some deceased, some alive. It is very possible that some of them are terrorists, but to simply label all of them as terrorists (e.g. Rawhi Mushtaha, Chairman of the economic committee, Samah al-Sarraj, Member of Hamas's political bureau, Youssef Abu al-Rish, Deputy Health Minister) is questionable. Note that similar topic Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards has no mention of "terrorist". The sentence also states terrorists wanted by the State of Israel for crimes they committed against Israel, but there is no elaboration at all on what crime each person committed, which is another serious WP:BLP violation. Are Israeli sources Ynet ([29]) and Israel Hayom ([30]) good enough sources for such blanket statements? I do not think so. starship.paint (RUN) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've changed to "Hamas members" per MOS:TERRORIST. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw the article in Hebrew and thought it could be adapted to English. (I did this with Wikipedia's translation tool)

I may have made a mistake regarding the word "terrorists" (a word I usually don't use in the articles I create). Eladkarmel (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, we definitely need the War criminals deck as counterpoint. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Dani Matos

• Dani Matos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are multiple people with the name Dani Matos involved with association football. Consensus is needed to determine which one the article is about, or if none of them are notable enough to merit a page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Adam Bakri - correction of my nationality in the bio box.

Dear Noticeboard,

I hope this message finds you in good spirits. I am writing to you today regarding the representation of my national identity on my Wikipedia page: Adam Bakri. As it stands, the page incorrectly categorizes me as “Israeli, Palestinian” in the bio box when, in fact, I have consistently identified as Palestinian in both public and private spheres. This misrepresentation is deeply concerning to me.

The sources currently cited on my page to support the claim of my nationality include interviews and public statements where I have clearly identified myself as Palestinian. This evidences a significant misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the cited material, and I respectfully request that this be rectified.

Here is how the current categorizaiton of my nationality as “Israeli” violates the Biographies Of Living Persons Policies on Wikipedia:

1-Contentious Material: The page contains misrepresentations of my nationality, which are both objectionable and incorrect. This qualifies as "contentious material" about a living person under the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. According to this policy, such material, if "unsourced or poorly sourced, must be removed immediately," not only from the article itself but also from its talk page. Participants on the talk page are making false claims that I have identified as Palestinian Israeli, without sourcing. One individual has cited an archived/outdated version of an article from Interview Magazine, which has since been corrected to accurately reflect my identity. I have cited the updated article, along with other articles and snapshots from my verified social media platforms, where I clearly identify as Palestinian.

2-Immediate Action: The policy underscores the necessity of taking swift action to eliminate potentially harmful or inaccurately sourced content about living individuals. This signifies that I have solid grounds to request the removal or correction of the information related to my nationality, particularly if the current sources fail to accurately represent how I identify myself, or if the interpretation of those sources is mistaken.

3-Reporting to the Noticeboard: If my attempts to correct the information through the article's talk page or by editing directly have been unsuccessful, or if I've encountered resistance in making these corrections, the BLP policy recommends reporting the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. That is precisely why I am here, reporting to you, because I have faced such resistance, and failed to make the change numerous times. For me, this means turning to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, where I can outline my concerns for both the wider community and administrators to examine and address the issue.

4-Libelous Material: The mention of "potentially libelous" material in the policy highlights the critical need for accuracy and the potential legal implications of Wikipedia content for me. Although my case centers on misrepresentation rather than defamation, the principle of ensuring accurate and verifiable information about living persons still applies.

Here's another examination of the sources cited, where my national identity is distinctly and straightforwardly stated as Palestinian:

https://www.gqmiddleeast.com/culture/palestinian-actor-adam-bakri-quest

https://www.esquireme.com/culture/how-adam-bakri-came-to-his-senses

https://www.instagram.com/adammbakri/?hl=en

I hope for your cooperation in this matter and expect that action will be taken to rectify the inaccuracies discussed. I appreciate your help in advance and thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Adam Bakri