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.

Lucas Kunce

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)

"Donald Trump and fascism"

"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:

• WP:G10
• WP:NPOVTITLE
• WP:ATTACK

Compare and contrast:

• Donald Trump and handshakes
  
• Donald Trump and golf
  
• Donald Trump and American football
  

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)

@Skullers, honestly this is verifiable I don't think it violates BLP. I think the content doesn't warrant its own page though, which is why I point to the way we have handled the criticisms and accusations of fascism in another U.S. president. All of the various criticisms can be grouped together into one page. If everything about FDR can fit into one, certainly Trump is not more significant. I think @Masem was following what I meant, and I agree with their comment on the matter. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is well and truly covered by WP:BLPPUBLIC. TarnishedPath^talk 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)

┌───────────────────────────┘
Simon below makes most of my point. If there are academic sources, we should focus on using those and try to keep close to what they are saying that to us our imperfect "expertise" to try to deduce how significant we may halthibk a topic is, particularly if we are using news media for that basis. And to add that with a divisive figure like Trump, it is really easy to let slip in personal and media biases to make one think a topic us more important than it really is or will be in the future. Again, to stress, content on Trump and fascism is clearly DUE, but to what level of coverage we should give it (and thus whether it needs a sepearate aeticle) should be reviewed. But definitely not AFD. — Masem (t) 14:59, 18 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)

• I just wanted to note, as I mentioned at article talk for that page not long ago, that there is substantial nuanced academic discussion regarding the relationship between Donald Trump and fascism. I've provided an example of the first few articles I pulled up on Google Scholar and, yeah, there's definitely a page's worth of academic work there. I would caution editors to stick to high-quality sources rather than newsmedia opinion pieces and to expect the article, if properly neutral, should not conclude either that Trump is or fascist or that he is not. The terms of the academic debate on the topic would not support either conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• This is not an attack page in the sense of being G10 deleted. The title might have NPOV concerns; I can see why some people would view a title such as "Donald Trump and accusations of fascism" as more neutral. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

100% support the view that the title is a WP:NPOVTITLE violation, particularly in-regards to a BLP. Not sure that makes it an “attack” article, but it would clear-up a lot of question of neutrality if it were simply re-named to “…and accusations of fascism.” I’m not going to get into my personal feelings on the matter, but it has been discussed enough by mainstream sources that it is likely a justifiable article. That said, I’d also question the idea that this needs to be a separate article, but I’ll wait to see how the discussion evolves before opining further. MWFwiki (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Deif

There's a Schrödinger's cat situation with Deif. His article previously presumed him to be alive, but a recent report by a newspaper, citing Hamas sources, alleges that the group now acknowledges his death. However, Hamas has since issued a statement denying this. Per WP:BDP, we should assume he is alive until a RS confirms otherwise. Given that the report relies on claims which have been rejected by the named source, it seems insufficient to meet the required threshold of verifiability. There is an ongoing discussion involving me and The Mountain of Eden with more details here. Eden argues that the newspaper report is enough to consider him dead and the subsequent statement and denial by Hamas doesn't change this, and I disagree. It seems unlikely that we will agree so I would appreciate additional feedback to know if my interpretation of the policy regarding this situation is wrong. Thanks! - Ïvana (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just enough imagination to see that both might be true. Not alive or dead, of course. But one Hamas source says one thing that is contradicted by another. Think of their operational condition at the time of publication of each claim for death or "we didn't say that". The death probably doesn't yet belong in the lede or infobox or categories, but may appear discussed with WP:WEIGHT in the prose. Long way of saying it's okay to state in wikivoice we aren't sure to an encyclopedic extent what his current status is, per reasonably reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The current version of Samantha Lewthwaite might be an example of how to approach doing this. Short and sweet, not WP:UNDUE. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not a good comparison. For Samantha Lewthwaite, all we have is a relative saying they think she might be dead. That's obviously not sufficient to satisfy WP:BDP for listing her as dead.

In the case of Mohammed Deif, we have a reference saying that a body was found and examined, and is believed to be that of Mohammed Deif.

We have another reference quoting an official statement by the group that Deif belongs to contradicting the reference saying that he is dead, even though the reference quotes unnamed members within the organization.

IMHO, the credibility of a reputable journalistic source (at least as far as I know, the reputation has not been questioned) is higher than that of an official statement of an organization that has a stake in the the information it disseminates. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that, for the purposes of WP:BLP concerns, we must assume he is still alive. However, for the content of the article, a phrase such as "presumed dead" could be suitable. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Joe Flood (policy analyst)

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.

---

Another editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Eppstein has gutted all the significant content in this article, which is about 30 months old, leaving only a stub. He does not engage in any discussion of specifics, instead threatening to seek deletion of the article if I reverse his extensive changes. These have included complete removal of long sections and publication lists, and my recent edits.

His very sparse comments appear to suggest that a) he doesn't think the content of these sections is "encyclopaediac" [he does not mention notability]. b) he seems to think there is a CoI because of my username (I am lost on this one)

To clarify, there is no CoI; I am a biographer and publisher, while the subject of the article is a mathematician and policy analyst.

I have restored the two longest sections he has removed, to permit discussion here and throughout the dispute process; they are "Australian career" and "International career".

I want to know how to get this editor to desist (and also, if his extensive deletions have any basis) Evadeluge (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Evadeluge. I agree with David Eppstein that your additions are promotional in tone, violating the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. So, please do not restore your content until you gain clearcut consensus at Talk: Joe Flood (policy analyst). Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, OK we have done that once already, several years ago when it was first written (see Talk on the article). The modified text you see was accepted by all involved.

I do think that if the subject of an article makes a substantial real-world contribution, and demonstrably so, this should be included in the text. It is done all the time for pop stars, arts figures, politicians and others, so why not for researchers, managers and others? They suffer from a fairly profound disadvantage at wikipedia and often find it hard even to be notable. Several times, I have had to turn down women who are really quite eminent and real trailblazers, who ought to be in Wikipedia, but can't demonstrate notability, sad. Fortunately, Dr Flood has had fairly good media coverage throughout his career.

If you have suggestions as to how to improve the tone, I am happy to oblige. Otherwise, I'll have another go at it. But that does not imply wiping out whole sections and leaving only pointless trivia, as this editor has done. He should instead have used or a Puffery tag if he felt that way, I would have been notified and there would have been no need for conflict resolution, dont you think? Evadeluge (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on the following statement: Several times, I have had to turn down women who are really quite eminent and real trailblazers, who ought to be in Wikipedia, but can't demonstrate notability, sad.

It looks for all the world as though you are an undeclared paid editor talking about potential commissions. Axad12 (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Further info on plausible COI in relation to user Evadeluge can be found in the discussion currently underway at COIN, here [1]. Axad12 (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll note Deluge means Flood, and is also in the name of a company associated with the subject. This isn't even clever. CU came back affirmative, so it's just a matter of waiting for the block. It can be a long wait, but it's not quite forever. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but Evade Luge means simply to get out of the way of a snow vehicle, surely the wise thing to do. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Wisdom! Let us be attentive! JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

yes I am aware that Dr Flood owns a very small publishing company called Deluge Publishing, you can easily look that up. I believe it has published only two books in more than ten years. So what? Evadeluge (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

that's simple. As I already stated, there is a gross shortage of articles about senior women, who are effectively discriminated against through the notability requirements. Women in Red has called for more articles on senior women. I know at least four senior women who are certainly eligible, but I can't find enough newspaper references to put forward articles on them. That is sad. Evadeluge (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 22 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.

Michael Williams (bishop)

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.

---

Bishop Michael Williams is a living person working in the Anglican Church of North American and did not authorize this article. Therefore requests it be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.48.109.37 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Michael Williams (bishop) Knitsey (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, IP anon! I'm not sure why you premise authorization in regards to encyclopedia entries. But I assure you, authorization is neither requested nor required. It's not clear who is requesting removal due to your anonymity, but please see WP:ABOUTYOU if you're interested in contacting Wikipedia in the capacity of an article subject or their representative. For any living subject's biography, we have inclusion criteria according to reliable sources. Otherwise, please see WP:BEFORE and WP:AFD to pursue your deletion options. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:59, 19 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.

Talk:Stephen Jolly

There's discussion happening at Talk:Stephen Jolly#Jolly's removal from Victorian Socialists expansion, and Election Party Altercation inclusion about whether contentious material covering unspecified "serious allegations" should be covered in Stephen Jolly. Input from other editors would be appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 13:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

John Prunskis

Attempt to add sources as images has not been allowed. Also the close connection seems to be incorrect as i have viewed this page recently and saw many more lines of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calidrs (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Images of certificates hosted on Wikimedia Commons (like File:25yrs.jpg) are not reliable sources: we have no way of verifying that they are what they say they are. If the Castle Connolly Top Doc award in Interventional Pain Management is an important part of Prunskis' career which Wikipedia should be including in its article, we should be able to find a better source than that.
  As for the connected contributor: it seems reasonable to question whether someone who has edited almost solely about Prunskis, and has uploaded eight images of him and awards he has won to Commons, might have a connection to Prunskis. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can an "honorary consul" for a small country serving in Aspen, Colorado and in South Florida be accurately described as a diplomat? I do not think so. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Citation #5 for the statement claiming Ms. Williamson ran in the 2024 democratic primary against Joe Biden does not include any information supporting that statement. The Associated Press article only discusses Joe Biden running for president in 2024.

Please remove this citation or correct it in whichever way the site moderators usually do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:6962:8700:39B9:4B4:EEAF:6583 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that! I've replaced the citation with a different one that supports the statement directly. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Pam Bondi

Who the hell posted this about the AG? What is wrong with Wikipedia?? 108.39.64.27 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure which specific problematic edit you're referring to, but controversial figures frequently attract vandalism. No need to worry, the article is being monitored by regular anti-vandalism patrollers and has been protected for now. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

James Howells

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.

---

I'm planning to create an article on James Howells missing Bitcoin. At first I thought it should be a BLP at James Howells, now I'm thinking it should be an event-based article instead due to BIO1E/BLP1E? Something titled as James Howells missing Bitcoin or James Howells Bitcoin fortune? Any suggestions appreciated. Just a bit stuck for titling and where to start draft... CNC (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just the BLP name, James Howells. He is the guy who lost his bitcoin at the dump and sued England right? Sometimes it is hard to justify notability for a person that is only notable for a single thing. But I think your other suggestions for James Howells' missing bitcoin is probably ok too for a title.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

James Howells would likely end up at AfD over BLP1E - for good reason I think - hence best avoided. He is only notable because he supposedly lost some coins a while ago. As for coverage, fixed the talk page draft (forgot to create the draft), so with 10 years of coverage over this evolving event, it seems due an article similar to other missing treasure based articles. I get the impression that such articles shouldn't necessary include a BLP name either, but instead something like "Newport landfill missing Bitcoin"? Howells would redirect to that article, it seems this would be a more accurate common name than including his? CNC (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Newport landfill missing Bitcoin" makes it sound like the landfill doesn't have Bitcoin (and even that it's sad about that fact). Perhaps Bitcoin lost in landfill"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This why I came here asking for help over title, as I'm not good with these things :) I agree Bitcoin lost in landfill works, maybe "Bitcoin lost in Newport landfill" or "Bitcoin lost in Docksway landfill", is better, more precise? Otherwise the article suggests it's based on all Bitcoin that has ended up in landfill, and thus the scope would be too broad? CNC (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My beliefs are:

1. There are no other articles here on bitcoin losses in landfills that we need to differentiate from
2. If a second case was to arise, it would almost certainly be compared to the Newport case in question, in which case it would probably make the best sense to integrate it into the same article (perhaps moving it to ...landfills) as coverage of a phenomenon rather than making articles for each separate incident.

But that' just my view, and I would certainly understand feeling otherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour and just move my draft to a better title for me? CNC (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I moved a draft to Draft:Bitcoin missing in Newport landfill so think I'm good now. If anyone can think of a better name, can always be moved afterwards I figured. Probably overthought the BLP issue here. CNC (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor My issue with that is that it reads in a very newsy way, so not encyclopedic. That is the title of a news heading, not an encyclopedia article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I came here :) Any better suggestions? I'm all ears, given this is now effectively a WP:BEFORERM. CNC (talk) 21:32, 22 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.

Vito Tanzi

Tanzi effect Author of the Tanzi Effect the link to Prof Tanzi’s (that used to work and was very detailed highlighting his achievements/career) has been deleted I was wondering if the previous version can be restored? 108.51.65.27 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Vito Tanzi was deleted in 2009, over 15 years ago, for blatant copyright violations. Are you posting here and now about the article from 2009? I'd say the answer is no, and you can start from scratch without violating copyrights. I found no significant removals in the last 5 years from the theory article that you linked. Please clarify your request. JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

BLP revdel required

[2] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done, Traumnovelle. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:People acquitted of corruption has been nominated for deletion

Category:People acquitted of corruption has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Valery Solodchuk

User inserting sources alleging this Russian general has died. But, the sources are only English language tabloids or Ukrainian sources. And said sources cite unnamed sources, rather than any government official (including the Ukrainian government). They appear to just be playing a game of telephone with each other. As such, until it can be proven conclusively, BLP rules still apply and these sources would not be enough to justify any claim let alone a claim of death. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

To quote @Walsh90210 from a recent discussion: I think that, for the purposes of WP:BLP concerns, we must assume he is still alive. However, for the content of the article, a phrase such as "presumed dead" could be suitable. That appears in the current version. The link in "See also" of the current version might be too much for now, though I'll refrain from removing it myself. WP:NOTNEWS encourages patience for developing situations over back-and-forth reversions and discussions. The relevant talkpage discussion is still nascent. Please carry on. JFHJr (㊟) 19:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There's not much left to discuss: the source is a post on Telegram, which media outlets with lower threshold for evidence like English language tabloids and Ukrainian sites have repeated. Since nothing is confirmed, and media outlets with higher threshold of evidence are not reporting it, then we should treat him as alive, and thus BLP rules apply. Tabloids and Ukrainian sources are not appropriate sources for war, given that tabloids have lower threshold of evidence, and Ukrainian sources are from the country that Russia is directly at war with. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Kathleen Hicks

Last week a first-time IP editor added a POV interpretation of an interview with U.S. deputy SecDef Kathleen Hicks in 2023. The diff is visible here. I believe this commentary is inappropriate, and should be reverted. However, I have a financial COI with the subject and think it better that I not be the one to do so. If another editor here agrees the edit does not meet Wikipedia's standards, I'd invite them to make the change. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, clearly inappropriate and completely unsupported by the source. I have reverted Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor_Lorenz

Significant discussion about Taylor Lorenz's age and what it should be. Apparently Lorenz has publicly stated she does not want her exact birthday disclosed due to constant doxing.

There are multiple sections here where users are looking through Flickr albums and ancestry.com records to figure out her exact birthday... not sure if that is worth oversighting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks pretty trolly and, in context, inappropriate. I think the encyclopedic value of a precise birthdate should not override a living person's safety concerns. Suggest, however, emailing oversight instead of putting this on a noticeboard in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Using reliable media sources to work out a birth date is fine - but relying on ancestry.com records is WP:BLPPRIMARY. GiantSnowman 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, did not realize there was a difference between revdel and oversight, and have been using them interchangeably. Will do. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The talk page sleuthing should be removed. I also removed the long, tortured note about her birthday in the article. Per WP:DOB, we need "widely reported" DOB without relying on original research, and special consideration for the ~"widely reportedness" if the subject objects to its publication. We don't have any of that -- just Wikipedians cobbling together scraps of conflicting information in order to triangulate the birthday of someone who doesn't want people to know their birthday for privacy reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Also per the same policy - If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. (Pinged you on the Talk page of the article but wanted to add a note to the above here). I have no idea if such exists for her since I honestly have no idea who she is.

Awshort (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are compatible. If a DOB is widely reported then the subject's objection may result in just listing a year. Certainly the idea of "erring on the side of caution and simply list[ing] a year" doesn't mean "throw the other requirements out the window". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Jerry Baldwin American businessman

This is my second request.

Please remove this: "Jerry Baldwin's net worth was estimated to be $2.4 billion in 2018.[9]"

Your own guidelines state that only reliable sources can be quoted. The footnote [9] is error 404. Please note there is NO reliable source for this assertion because it is complete bullshit. It apparently originated in an early AI story about Howard Schultz of Starbucks.

From many, many public sources you can read that our company sold assets including the Starbucks name and going concern for $4.1 million. I personally received nothing from this transaction because all the money was maintained in the company for expansion of Peet's Coffee in Berkeley, CA.

I stepped down from active management before the IPO in 2001. Although this article has a few errors, reading it shows how small the company was--https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/peets-coffee-tea-inc

The Wikipedia articel on Peet's coffee of today lists sales for the entire company plus subsidiaries at $983m. I own no stock in the company and it would be impossible to extract billions from a company this small.

How I could have made more than a few million in my career????? I have appeared in exactly ZERO lists of billionaires or the wealthy--for the simple fact that I am neither. I have one house, no airplane, no yacht, and I drive a small Volvo. I know of no person in specialty coffee who started in the 1970s,m who got rich. It was the next generation: Howard Schultz, Bob Stiller for example.

Your citation of this ridiculous net worth only causes people who reply on your info, to misjudge my ability to contribute to their causes--causing a lot of wasted time and effort by non-profits who have neither to spare.

I repeat this is my second (and more complete) effort to have this spurious info expunged. PLEASE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilmangiatore (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that. The source said 2.4 million, and is not WP:RS, especially for claims about a living person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. Looks like an IP editor changed it to $2.4 billion three years ago. Thanks for bringing it to our attention again, sorry this happened to you. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Jay Bhattacharya's profession is incorrectly represented

I've tried to edit Jay Bhattacharya's profession from virologist to economist multiple times to accurately reflect what he does (he's not a practicing physician either). Somebody keeps changing it back to virologist despite Jay holding no such degrees.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GarconCanadien (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Are you referring to the short description markup? I modified that and didn't see any other mention of the subject as being a virologist. Let me know if I missed something. JFHJr (㊟) 05:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Douglas Murray (author) => Douglas Murray?

There are 4 people called Douglas Murray with articles on Wikipedia. Douglas Murray is a disambiguation page with the 4 of them listed. I'm wondering if Douglas Murray (author) has done enough to claim the title as the main Douglas Murray in order that Douglas Murray is his article? In terms of 2024 YTD page views for the 4 Douglas Murray articles:

Author - 1,109,448

Ice Hockey - 16,071

Politician - 830

Sound Editor - 152

MaskedSinger (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Those page views are certainly a strong WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, but it's not the only factor that is used when eciding these matters. Read through that page, then make your case in an WP:RM discussion and see what happens. Iffy★Chat -- 20:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald trump

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.

---

The main user in control of the article claims on his user page that he/she is not very active on wikipedia anymore. But is clearly controlling the article. My suggestion on talk paged were not acknowledged. I am a beginner at this but if I can't get it changed can we at least demand this whole sentence to be cited instead of just part of the sentence? In 2024, he was found guilty of falsifying business records, making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony. Am I correct or is it following policy as is? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneenGingerich (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried hashing out there beforehand? I'd do that first and foremost, especially concerning this, before bringing it here (for the millionth time). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• There is no main user in control of the article, and that article is heavily watched by hundreds. If your suggestion is rejected, and nobody comes to back you up, either its been discussed already or there may not be anyone on your corner.
• Donald Trump is a WP:CTOP area. I suggest trying other article edits first before jumping into the shark tank.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:40, 28 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.

Maha Abdelrahman

Maha Abdelrahman is currently a redirect to Murder of Giulio Regeni. Maha Abdelrahaman is a living person mentioned in one sentence in that article: "This had been anticipated by coverage in the Italian weekly L'Espresso on 7 June 2016, which reported that Regeni's tutor Maha Abdelrahman had followed advice from University lawyers not to collaborate with the inquest.". It's unlikely Abdelrahman meets our WP:N requirements for a BLP. I find it problematic that we're redirecting a living person's name to an article about an unsolved kidnap/torture/homicide.

I've been accused by an editor of having a COI on this topic so, out of a preponderance of caution, am not doing anything to address this myself, but note it here in case anyone feels the use of the redirect in this manner violates the spirit (though obviously not the letter) of WP:BLPEL. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_28#Maha_Abdelrahman. Polygnotus (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Date of Births

I am an associate of Lola Astanova. I requested changes to her Wikipedia article but the response was confusing. If someone can help me I would appreciate it. Her date of birth is wrong. A New York Times article says 1986 while a Rolling Stone article says 1982. The 1982 is not correct but the discussion on the talk of the anrticle about the new York Times reference not be acceptable. There is also a reference in the Palm Beach Daily News (https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/story/entertainment/arts/2017/04/26/pianist-lola-astanova-to-bring/9675197007/) from 2017 which states she is 26 which would make her 33 years old. This is also not correct. Another reference in Haute Living says she was born in 1985 (https://hauteliving.com/2013/11/center-stage-lola-astanova%E2%80%99s-inspiring-rise-ussr-carnegie-hall/421331/). These references show four different possibilities. To avoid confusion can we remove the year of birth altogether? Is there a policy that governs which source is used or if a birth date needs used at all? Martha2025 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the DOB until a consensus can be formed for what to include. There is a policy that addressed birth dates for living people: WP:DOB. Other policies, such as WP:RS are also relevant. There have also been several community discussions about how to handle DOBs, especially when there are conflicting sources. – notwally (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Calin Georgescu

Repeatedly inserted the reference "Far-Right Extremist" which does not have support by definitions of "Britanica" and was used references of references from biased media rather than the Living Person declarations about himself = see here: [[3]] , in which article the politician is enunciating his affinities clearly.

Within the Article offending inserts, although removed by me then reinserted, it was made references with context which infrige generally the content and cascades this Article's content to the Local ro.wiki version, where is multiplied by the local interested and biased entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechinul (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Far-right" is WP:V in WP:RS, "extremist" isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

More OTQ: BBC is like the gold standard for WP:BLP. You are not allowed to delete "far-right" just because you do not like it. That would be paramount bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear @tgeorgescu, There is no "Golden Reference" in the "BLP" Policy. Kindly please, revise your attitude. I am Romanian and English native Speaking person, and your statement is making reference to a Living Person and moreover is referring to a Media Chanel that has confirmed as not took the "Right of Reply" from the person that they made reference (please, see the footer of their reference). Therefore, the BBC was making a unilateral assumption, not confirmed by the Living Person himself. On the contrary, he Declares Clearly (in my adds references links to Video Content from Accredited Romanian Media) that he is NOT a "Far Right Extremist" and he is neither a "Prominent Conspiracy Theorist" as you sustain , as your oppinion without solid proof and inline with WP.BLP. This is a offending content that you insist to keep, without Grounds. Please, remove. You should not use offending content that generates, by cascading to local content, very ample debates, just unilaterally and without proof. Just because you are an older Editor than me does not give you the right to become biased at certain point, please revise to a neutral content. Rechinul (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You do not make our WP:RULES. You have to obey our WP:RULES, just like anyone else, or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear @tgeorgescu, It means for my understanding that you are the Law, and you are allowed to be above the Law, it means that you can infringe the Law with no consequences, nor explanation to anybody. You are the ultimate Judge in Wikimedia. When you say about a Living Person that he is an "Extremist" or you post that in Wikimedia about a Living Person that he is "Extremist" , it means to say that you are unilaterally right, and who am I to ask you differently, because you are much older Editor than me. I respect that. I will give up trying now, because I can see that I find the Ultimate Judge of Wikimedia. But you lose me as systematic Money Donor to WikiMedia every year, for sure. Rechinul (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors do not bear any responsibility in respect to obtaining donations. I'm not saying that I would be the ultimate judge. I'm just saying that you want to put the axe at the root of the system based upon citing WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean there is a source which calls him an extremist but we could, instead, just move to the lede his calling the facilitator of the holocaust in Romania a "hero" in place of that and it would be better sourced. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: spotmedia.ro called him "extremist". I don't know if that's a great source, you will have to ask someone who knows more about the Romanian press. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear @tgeorgescu, As you say that you are not the best at interpreting or quantification of the meaning, in Romanian language, you must then contain your opinions or ask the Living person himself about that. It was a subject of a Romanian Justice Dept. investigation which ended up with Closed and Classified Dossier. Who are you to contest the Judiciary System of Romania which has Stated a Final Verdict to this issue? He was "NOT GUILTY". That is why I suggested to you to analyze very profound your unilateral and un proven statements, and I am decided to go as far as it takes to prove you wrong (by solid proof or by Mr. Calin Georgescu own statements. Rechinul (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Our coverage of subjects is not limited to what they say about themselves. We instead rely on reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please, define "Reliable Sources". Give us some examples if you will, as we have given since all day long different sources to proof. Rechinul (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

All of you just want to justify the use of a Term such as "extremist" and you are a Club of Experienced user that faith to prove that this word is okay for you to use. Please, allow me to disagree. You all are no better than anyone other "Extremist" in this respect. Rechinul (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPBBC. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To get an understanding of what editors of the English language Wikipedia mean when we refer to "reliable sources", please read our guidelines in regards to reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Through this message, I am giving to you a AN3 and an ANI Notice for proceeding to complain about your behavior and request the mediation from Board of Administrators from WikiMedia to take into their attention this subject. Thank you. Rechinul (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please make the notifications correeclty, Rechinul. They are not made by leaving a message here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I am try my best, Sir. And I admitted upfront that I am not very good at these issues. But I am determined to continue trying. Is not easy, but I will succeed to make my point even if I get very much bullied in the process (by more older and experienced users that thinks they can do whatever they want and bully everybody, just because they are older in this business, and they can Master any infringement without consequences. I am already blocked for life in Wiki-Ro (due to this Article in English), and in here I am trying my best to prevent a new Revolution on the streets of Romania, by bringing back the discourse to a neutral point, rather than to the incisive discourse that is promoted by everyone these days, including in this realm. The situation is by far much more profound than simple "extreme words". Thank you. Rechinul (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the business of fomenting or preventing revolutions. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think there will be a revolution in Romania if this user ceases to be a Wikimedia Donor? --Pafsanias (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Me? Not. He is stating he wants to prevent a revolution. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Then have a look above here and justify your dictatorial behavior and speech, without even try to make an explanation and I quote "You do not make our WP:RULES. You have to obey our WP:RULES, just like anyone else, or you're out", when you have run out of explanation of WHY you have used the "Extremist" word without proof. And then look elsewhere to you bully approach because "I am a rookie". Rechinul (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Again: my objection is about "far-right", since that is sourced to BBC. I do not have an opinion about "extremist". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

TBH I think the sourcing is weak on "extremist" but would concur that "far right" is appropriately sourced. We can get into semantic arguments all week about whether far-right implies an extreme politic or whether someone who calls a holocaust collaborator a hero might be a de-facto extremist but, at the end of the day, we need to go with what RSes say. My recommendation is just call him a far-right politician. It's strongly sourced and avoids the weight on "extremist". Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The damage was already done, look everywhere on a Romanian TV Channel. I am try now just to contain the spread, if you have a chance, just look how many unique visitors had this page and the Romanian connected link just today. Rechinul (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully remind you that the very subject of all my efforts were your two sentences which you said that you are forbid me to delete, as I was doing this 3 times today: "Far Right Extremist" and "conspiracy theorist" right in the first sentence of presentation (without solid proof). I I will simply explain you what is the background: WHY NOW? is my question to you. It is because he took the solid Lead in the Presidential Race for Romania? Was anybody influence you to use your old editor powers to do this? because this English Version lead me to be banned for life in Wiki-Ro, as the Romanian version was using reference this English version and now all Romania is feed by your "innocent and naive" stance!!! Students took the streets, chanting "Down with the Extremist Dictator". Do not pretend that pure innocent and Objective Puritan behavior if the people around this realm does not know what is the deal behind you very smart words. Rechinul (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" and "far-right" are well-cited. I think the citation on "extremist" is weak. I couldn't care less about the status of the Romanian presidential election. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @ActivelyDisinterested for improving the citation on "Extremist" - I withdraw my prior objection. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw this, and was of the mind to remove it, but I think the sourcing is maybe there for inclusion. A case to remove extremist could still be made, as all far right politics is extremist so it could be seen as redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what is the Romanian word for 'far right"? --Pafsanias (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, if your looking for advice on Romanian I would suggest one of the helpdesks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Far right" is "extremă dreaptă" in Romanian, so that the pleonasm with "extremism" is obvious. Rechinul, who is a native speaker, knows it very well. But he denies both "far right" and 'extremist" as appropriate in this case. --Pafsanias (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you? I will give up this thread! I am too small for such a big encounter. I wish you wisdom and correctness. let us visit this thread 10 days from now, maybe you will re-think to what situation you get innocently and naively, involved with. Mihai Botezatu, aka Rechinul, out. Rechinul (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Rechinul if you were blocked on rowiki isn't an issue here, as the different language projects operate separately. However articles on enwiki reflect what is published by reliable secondary sourcing. You'll find many editor willing to engage in civil discussion, but you need sources to back up your arguments and a willingness to listen to others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Wikipedia did not cause those protests. Anyway, I agree that "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" are abundantly sourced, "extremist" isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not dictatorial for telling Rechinul he has to obey the WP:RULES. He does not win a dispute at Wikipedia by merely claiming he is being bullied, and that I'm a dictator. Stating he is a victim does not automatically grant sympathy. Evidence is required. We do not pander to playing the victim. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)