Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Murray Hill (performer)

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

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

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

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

Die Antwoord

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

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

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

Based on a quick internet search, I found many reliable news sources that have covered these allegations. I have restored the content to Tutor Jones's page and Visser's page and added additional citations. I also moved the content from the "controversy" sections into their personal life sections. The allegations may also be relevant to the band's page given that many articles appear to discuss these numerous allegations when discussing the band, and the band even released a documentary dealing with the allegations called "Zef: The Story of DIE ANTWOORD" [1], but someone else can restore that content if they feel it would be appropriate there. – notwally (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

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

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

BTW, IMO if we keep the name, it might be worth re-instating the warning box [2]. I can see merit in discussing including the name based on various policies and guidelines, but I'm unconvinced of any merit of all the threads demanding we remove the name due to Indian law. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne yes, if we keep the name we need that. Not sure how to know the family's current feelings. Do these help;?[3][4] Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point- family does not decide on whether a victim shall be protected by law (before or after) death or not. The law takes over the matter if there is one. The provision "Section 71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" forbids publishing of names of victims of sexual assault whether Alleged or Proven. The law is crystal clear. I am yet to bring myself to accept how inclusion of name of victim of sexual assault will be of value for Wikipedia and its consumption. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Asmongold Discussion

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

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

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

Which is why I have since deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources are required to confirm the educational background. I request RD'ing some revisions. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions welcome at Kevin Kruse

Hello all, leaving this here mostly as a check on myself--DemocracyInCranes and I have been going back and forth a little bit on Kevin Kruse's plagiarism brouhaha. To be clear, the incident certainly demands coverage in the article, but we differ on whether we need to include lesser-noted follow-ups and analysis. For me it strays into undue, but as ever, I am happy to go with consensus. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even without the plagiarism today and national review sources, there seems to be enough sourcing its fine to include, right? agree with you the coverage is fine, and generally also agree that versions with or without the disputed follow-ups are close enough i wouldn't care either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions here say "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input." I don't see any attempt by the two of you to discuss this on the Talk page for Kruse's article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid, what has changed since the Sep. 2022 RfC in which there was consensus to include that content? I know you didn't agree with the consensus then, but if you still disagree and think that the RfC should be overturned, shouldn't you start a new RfC to reexamine the question? Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a close but distinct question. I absolutely agree that the plagiarism stuff in and of itself needs to be included (which, if I recall correctly, was the subject of that RFC). I am more dubious of the knock-on elements, like the original accuser making more allegations, which seem to have garnered much less notice. As I said above, perfectly happy to be wrong on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FactOrOpinion above that this should be discussed at Talk:Kevin M. Kruse first. Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb (BLP)

A user by the name of Xardwen has repeatedly installed unsourced edits that were removed by multiple seasoned editors. In fact, over the last 4-5 weeks, he seemingly did this nearly every day.

In what appears to be a campaign to undermine the subject of the article "with savage delight" as stated in his edits, he has violated multiple Wiki standards for accuracy and reliability.

He has not only admitted to "crossing the line" knowingly, "at the expense" of the subject, but has done so after multiple warnings. He has made libelous and defamatory remarks against other editors and the subject as detailed in the edit summaries, talk pages, and the AfD page that he started, violating the AGF and No Personal Attacks policies.

Conflict of Interest (COI): "Xardwen" has acknowledged working in the same field as the subject, creating a clear conflict of interest that is fueling their obsessive actions. While they claim to have no personal connection, this is highly unlikely, given their location in the San Francisco area, as was indicated by their own profile information. Editing with the intent to harm a colleague breaches this policy. "Xardwen" is consistently exploiting Wikipedia to harm the subject's reputation.

Following page protection and corrections made by senior editors, after obsessively only editing this page, "Xardwen" proceeded to make over 400 edits, seemingly aiming to reach the 500-edit threshold to bypass future protections. He reverted the said corrections and continued baseless accusations on the COI noticeboard to forum shop, which were investigated and archived. Despite this, he has continued to make tenditious edits and defamatory statements at length to push his POV.

This user has been informed multiple times not to insert unsourced or poorly sourced information as per Wiki standards, or an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or removal of secondary sources. Simultaneously, he initiated a page deletion request where he repeated allegations and his tenditious edits based on personal opinions.

Coincidentally after admitting to violating Wikipedia guidelines and adding libelous statements at the expense of the subject of the article, a new account "Hemelina" was created to agree with himself and delete sources and information contained in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxescience (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations on Caitlin Foord

A vandalism-only account recently edited this page. This edit contains potential BLP violations and should be revdelled. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just responding, this revision delete happened pretty much immediately after this request was posted. In fact, all of this account's edits had to be revision deleted and they have been blocked, TPA removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump International Golf Club shooting

A believed attempted shooting of a political candidate occurred yesterday. The person involved in the incident fled. It is believed that the same person has been taken into custody. Said person has not been charged yet with a crime.

The name of this person has been included in the article in a section detailing his life and as a separate article about the person. A discussion has occurred on the talk page using the name of the suspect which is leaning towards keeping the name in the article under PUBLICFIGURE and with examples to other articles. I want to confirm as with a recent situation that there isn't a BLPCRIME or BLPNAME issue with the article naming the arrested person, with the article discussing other details about the person, or with the standalone article about the arrested person. As a separate question if there is a problem, if this individual is charged, then should they be named? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standalone article is Ryan Wesley Routh. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved The person involved has been charged and combined with a lack of comments here, it seems safe to conclude that there is no issue in this situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jodhi May

Issue: The article contains incorrect and libellous information about Jodhi May’s name, violating Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons policy.

Specific Problems:

The page falsely states her birth name includes “Hakim-Edwards” or “Edwards McLaren,” which is factually incorrect. It includes unsubstantiated claims that her mother changed her name, which are not supported by reliable sources and are directly contradicted by legal documentation.

Action Requested:

Remove Libellous Content: Correct her name to “Jodhi May” as verified by legal documents. Review and Correct Citations: Ensure all claims about her name are based on reliable and verifiable sources. Protect the Page: Implement semi-protection to prevent repeated reintroduction of libellous content.

These corrections are essential to comply with BLP policy and to prevent further dissemination of harmful and false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMWIKI2024 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @KMWIKI2024. While I can't find a full copy, a Google Books peek inside the cited source seems to back neither the current text nor your statement: Rather, it says her birth surname was Edwards. Do you have sources for her surname at birth being May? Also, the article isn't saying that May's mother changed May's name, although the current prose is horribly written and I see why you've read it that way. Once we get to the bottom of the sourcing issue, I or someone else can clean up the prose. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin @KMWIKI2024: This is precisely why I started discussion at Talk:Jodhi May#Last name sourcing. On the one hand, there is a lack of sourcing of what her birth name is/was and what her current legal name is. On the other hand, WP:BLPPRIMARY cautions against using birth certificates and other legal documents as sources. But I agree the sourcing issue is a mess: based on what's sourced, the article's intro could almost be recast as "Jodhi Edwards, known professionally as Jodhi May..." That's why we (desperately!) need reliable secondary sourcing of her name(s). —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you started that discussion. I'll disagree with one statement you made there, that if there's no source for a name change we need to refer to her by her birth name and then say "known professionally as": Wikipedia follows common usage, not legal names (especially in the UK, where there's barely a concept of "legal names"; even in the U.S. it's much less clear-cut than you'd think). If no one's using her birth name outside of a bit of biographical trivia, the article shouldn't say that's her current name, regardless of whether it legally is (again, to the extent anything legally is someone's name in the UK).

But as to the sourcing, the current source provided is a passing mention in a book about her mother's ex-husband, which I wouldn't consider the highest-quality source, since off-topic claims are usually fact-checked the least. If primary-source documents do contradict that, I think the easiest solution is just not to comment on what her birth surname was or wasn't. A rarely/never-used birth name is not a critically important piece of biographical information; it's nice to list it, if well-sourced and not a privacy issue, but not the end of the world if we can't. That said this assumes that the primary-source documents actually contradict Gorman. So far, we only have one new user's say-so. So I'd like to get more information before registering an opinion on what to do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Tamzin and @C.Fred, for your attention to this — it’s much appreciated.

Just to clarify, Jodhi May has always used “Jodhi May” professionally and personally. Her birth certificate and legal documents confirm this. While WP

advises caution with primary documents, these directly contradict the Gorman reference, which seems to be an off-topic mention in a book not focused on Jodhi’s biography.

This can also be verified through multiple film credits and interviews directly with Jodhi, including those with Nick Duerden at The Independent and Aleks Sierz at The Times, rather than relying on a passing mention in a book about her mother’s ex-husband.

Since there’s no evidence that “Edwards” was ever used by her professionally or personally, it would be most accurate and respectful of privacy to state her name as simply “Jodhi May.” This reflects what is accurate, verified, and commonly used without adding any unnecessary complications.

Thanks again for your time, and happy to provide further context if needed. KMWIKI2024 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the talk page, but I agree the last name of "Edwards" should be left out. WP:BLPPRIVACY says - Wikipedia includes full names that have been widely published by reliable sources - and that isn't the case here, because the last name "Edwards" has not been widely published by reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Tait

In the article about Catherine Tait, president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada (Canada’s public broadcaster), a paragraph was added on August 28 at the top of the “Career” section. This paragraph repeats a false but tenacious claim that is spread on social media according to which Tait lives in Brooklyn, in the U.S., instead of Ottawa, Canada. A similar inaccuracy was added to her page on February 5, 2023 (see my explanation at the time on the talk page of the article).

No source is provided to back up his claim. It also seems to me like any mention of her travelling to Brooklyn should be moved further down in the section called “President and CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada” rather than at the top of the Career section. Adding poorly sourced information in a place where it doesn’t belong seems like yet another attempt to damage Tait’s reputation. As you will be able to gather from the history of the page, there is frequent vandalism on Tait’s page. For instance, I reported a similar incident on the BLP Noticeboard in mid-June.

As displayed on my user page and next to my latest edits, I work for the organization that Tait leads. For this reason, I would like to call on uninvolved editors to review the article and determine the most appropriate course of action. Julien.faille (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's something missing here. I mean, to an insider such as yourself perhaps this means something significant, since you describe it as a "tenacious claim", but to the rest of the world it's like, "So? Who cares where a person lives?"

Both our article and the National Post source vaguely imply there is some significance to this info, yet neither explains why this should mean anything to the general reader. It comes off like some kind of "inside joke", where only those on the inside know what the value of this info is. To us outsiders, though, I find myself asking "Why are you telling me this?" There is no indication of importance, let alone tenaciousness.

I will say that the whole thing seems to rely on a report made by Canadaland, which is a podcast and not an actual news agency. The National Post article credits them multiple times, making it clear they're only repeating what Canadaland said, thus absolving themselves of all credit or blame. The only RS review of Canadaland I found on Wikipedia is this one from the WP:RSN archives, in which most people did not seem too impressed with its reliability. Similarly, reviews on google describe it with terms such as "snarky", "sardonic", and "offbeat", which seems to suggest more of an op/ed-type source than an actual news outlet, whose goal is to critique the media. I wasn't able to read the Canadaland source so I could review it myself because it's behind a paywall, but since they're really the sole source of this info I think it would probably be best to simply delete it rather than move it somewhere else in the article.

But my primary reason for suggesting we delete it is because of my opening comment more than anything else. There is no indication of what the significance of this info is, both to her life and career. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I can't point to any sources for the claim I am about to make, but there seems to be a sort of lingering Canadian sense of betrayal when a public figure is revealed to reside or benefit from residing in the USA. I can recall the commentary used against Michael Ignatieff when he entered politics.

I suspect it arises out of a mixture of nationalism, misplaced fear that Canada cannot withstand USA cultural dominance (see also Heritage Minute, an attempt to reinforce Canadian culture on television), and a sense that the USA "poached" Canadians.

Thus, claiming the president of Canada's public broadcasting company resides in the USA is an attempt to, essentially, dogwhistle that the USA is subverting Canadian content, or that they "don't really care about Canada". So, probably should be strongly sourced.

134.41.164.51 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Paid actor for a single movie(just as a salary)

Thalapthy Vijay has become the highest paid actor by getting $32.7 million for his last movie with no additional benefits. 2409:40F4:3058:1471:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add that to List of highest-paid film actors, you need a good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Nidecker (Harnois)

Appears as though Marlène Harnois got married and changed her name as evidenced by her social media profiles

https://www.linkedin.com/in/marleneharnois/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIqGUZjOAGflUUCFhG_v38A

https://x.com/MarleneNidecker

Whats the's process for changing it on her article? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are self-published, so per WP:SPNC, you need to evaluate how likely reliable sources are to adopt the new name when reporting on her before considering making changes here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern with keeping "ranks" and "names" in the article

2023 Qatar espionage case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In this article the ranks and names of living person is kept. I removed the reference, it got reverted by now banned editor. I objected to it on article talk page, however, further people opposed my edit, hence I backtracked on it thinking I might be wrong in this matter. But since then things have changed, all individuals have been declared innocent and I have made a new comment on it- New comment.
Reason I am posting on noticeboard- To invite community to assess whether keeping names and ranks of individuals involved in case is in line with wiki's WP:BLP policy. Looking forward to comments in article's talk page, Thanks!! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we should put their names down but not their government or military ranks? This sounds confusing... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not say "we should put their names down" IMO their ranks were irrelevant to article from get go. But now even their names is irrelevant since source has removed reference to both things. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does saying- "8 former navy personnel were arrested" reduces the quality and knowledge provided by article? Does it need to be "8 former navy personnel were arrested............ {ranks of each} {names of each}" on the article, hugely violating privacy on individuals? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the same outlook as before - we go by what the majority of sources state, and I still do not see the privacy concerns that you point to by releasing their former military ranks if they are included in the majority of sources. A quick glance at sources shows the names as well as their ranks Jurist,The Statesman,Times of India,Tribune India,India Today.

I welcome other editor involvement as well.

Awshort (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not consolidated collection of what is reported on RS, but an encyclopedic storage of information, stored in a manner which provides information relevant to the user while complying with its existing policies and community discussions. The Hindu article linked in the article to point out names and ranks have removed all such reference on its article. Same would go to other RS had they been less sensational and more rational in reporting of this matter. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we put their ranks but make it clear its a former rank. So "former colonel" instead of just "colonel".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: On 30 August 2022, the former Indian Navy officers, is the current text before the names and rank section which I think was originally added to avoid adding retired before each rank, but I do agree that at a quick glance it appears they are current military instead of former and would read better with your suggestion.

Awshort (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the entire history of this dispute, but if these people have not been convicted, then I think we should not name them per BLPCRIME. The only exception is if their story has been so widely published that they have achieved celebrity status. We can still tell the entire story without the names. If there's no article on them to link to, the name itself doesn't mean anything to the general reader and certainly doesn't add to their understanding of the event. If they're convicted, and their conviction is reported in reliable sources, then we can add the names. No need to hurry.

When it comes to ranks, there is no rule about keeping those out, so here's where a little common sense and editorial judgment is required. We could write, "A captain, a captain, a captain, a commander, and a sailor were arrested..." but that is incredibly awkward to read, and sounds like the opening of a joke. (Three captains, three commanders, and a sailor walk into a bar...) The questions I would ask myself are, "Is this really the best way to phrase this? Do the ranks provide any context that is --absolutely necessary-- for the reader to be able to understand the story?" If the answer to both is no, then I can see no better reason to leave them out. Brevity is your friend when writing articles. Say more with less. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: Regarding BLPCRIME, they had been convicted by a foreign government prior to naming if memory serves correct, and sentenced to death. There was confusion on the charges, but the sentence was there. With the sentencing in place and it being ~~overturned~~commuted to jail sentences

, I think the more appropriate policy subsection regarding name inclusion to look at would be BLPNAME (Are the names widely published? Were the names concealed by the courts?).

Wanted to get that out before heading out the door for the day :-) Cheers!

Awshort (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: I was incorrect on case being overturned, inserted ref and struck prior text 00:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If a conviction has been vacated or overturned, then it is the same as there never having been a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME should apply and "editors must seriously consider not including material" for non-public figures. I agree with Zaereth's analysis. – notwally (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that if a sentence has been commuted but the conviction is still on the record (this appears to be the case based on Awshort's edits to their comment above), then my prior comment would not apply. – notwally (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the figures here are WP:PUBLICFIGURE as they have held "a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority" and further this case, and their names, have been very widely documented in RS. So it is ok to name them with the usual caveats that we don't treat them as guilty.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vice regent, I don't see any evidence that they would be considered public figures. They appear to be ordinary Navy officers. The description of "low-profile" right under the paragraph you quoted discusses self-promotion and the "public projection of self-worth", which are generally important elements of whether someone is a public figure. – notwally (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- India has armed forces in millions, I wish I had all their insta followed because all are publicfigure, hehe, jokes aside, (I joke sometimes only :/) I would argue the 8 individuals do not qualify as public figure at all. Please have a glance at WP:BLP1E. They are not in media rn and they were not in media prior to their arrest and subsequent acquittal `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just noting that notability and whether someone is a public figure are not always the same. – notwally (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I wanted to point out more relevant portion of BLP instead of WP:LPI to address point raised by vice regent `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Public figure" is a legal term with a very specific definition, "a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero". Just because a person seeks fame doesn't make them a public figure, they actually have to achieve it. Likewise, just because someone avoids fame doesn't mean they won't achieve it. This definition was written because the laws affiliated with it applies to media outlets, Wikipedia included. Public figures don't have the same rights or expectation of privacy that a private citizen does. The bar for becoming a public figure is pretty darn high. For example, the vast majority of actors are not public figures, they have to reach that celebrity status to be considered one. All government officials are automatically considered public figures, but this doesn't apply to everyone who is in a position of authority. Being a military officer doesn't automatically make one a public figure.
    
    However, if these people have been convicted of a crime, the discussion of whether or not they're public figures is really moot. A conviction means BLPCRIME is satisfied and we can go ahead and name them. BLPCRIME is intended to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Zaereth (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire case is mired with media sensationalism and truth is lost in between. The charges were never framed properly nor do they were put into prison to suffer for their "spying" in Qatar. [5] "The details surrounding their arrest, sentencing, and commuting remain unclear." As I see it, the article and community in its totality has failed to protect privacy of individuals involved in this matter. This was (coming to BLPN) I think is last place I could come to for help regarding this matter :/ I have already been called a "vandal" so I won't try to over-rule what community decides even if I consider it wrong and unjustifiable decision :/
    last pitch- article does not require names of individuals to be there for article's credibility, 8 individuals are not "public figures" and 8 individuals are innocent not just on papers (not revealed) but on the ground too (8 individuals are in their home country living their "normal life") `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have is y'all are coming here with conflicting information. The article itself is very vague on the matter as well, and I don't have time to go through the sources myself. I'm merely explaining where policy stands on this. It's quite simple. Either they were convicted of a crime or they weren't. The article says the "death sentence" was commuted, which implies a conviction, but a commuted death sentence is not the same as a conviction overturned. Usually that means jail time instead of execution. We have to go by what reliable sources say. If they were convicted, then policy allows for them to be named. If they weren't convicted, we don't add the names. If it is uncertain, then we don't add the names. A conviction has to be clear and unambiguous, and reported in reliable secondary-sources, or else we don't add the names. Simple as that. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the whole point, conviction was not clear at all, secondary sources just went by the statements, secondary sources may not have policies same as wiki, if wiki has BLPCRIME established for it then it should follow it. Secondary sources are news organizations and not encyclopedia. Also those 3 dots were not to tease but to highlight my para, idk much in formatting so I used what I knew, you seem to be mocking me for that :/ `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See below the extent of uncertainty beginning from charges- The jurist The information available on this matter is really vague and unconfirmed or incomplete. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 23:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now you're not making any sense. Mocking you? I don't even know you. What three dots? I have no clue what you're talking about here. As someone who watches this page, my goal was to help explain policy. News outlets have different rules than we do, but our policy is quite simple and I think I explained it very clearly. Either they were convicted or they were not. There is no in between. If you all can't even agree that there was a conviction, then that says a lot. That tells me there is uncertainty, and if it's uncertain... well, see my previous comment. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the 3 dots comment is regarding the "Last pitch" paragraph and the three dots before it from the other editor. Your reply had several dots before it (to show which comment you were replying to, if I'm not mistaken) which I believe was misinterpreted as mocking the other editor?
    
    Regarding the uncertainty on the conviction, I can only speak for myself that there is no uncertainty on what the RS's state.
    
    Awshort (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean those bullet points? I didn't notice them. Someone once said if the people above me are using asterixis to indent, then I should too (can't remember why). Or if they're using colons to indent I should use those. Seems crazy to me. I don't know why we would want bullet points or even need more than one way to indent. Most of the time I forget completely, but sometimes (like this) I remember. I don't know how that could be construed as mocking, though, but that was not my intention. Never crossed my mind. I don't know if there was a conviction or not. It seems to me that you guys should already know that and have the sources to back it up. Either way, I stated what the policy is so there no need to keep repeating myself. It's a sunny day for a change and too much to do out in the real world. Zaereth (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    if it was misinterpreted by me then sorry. You know on internet not everyone who mocks you is person you know. I can't understand so many bullets but ig fine. this is not fight page. regarding convictions and stuff, I came here to seek help from more editors who can substantiate facts and see why this matter calls for removal of name (this is my opinion). Anyway thanks for comments `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 01:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why either. If you use asteriskis to indent your comment, the software automatically leaves bullet points. It decides how many it wants to leave, not me. I don't understand computers and far preferred it back when everyone just used colons; the use of asteriskis is a rather new thing. Whatever the case, this whole discussion is rather hard to follow. I'll leave this piece of advice: when you come to a noticeboard like this bring all your information with you. Cite your sources so people like me can verify what you say. explain exactly what the problem is as you see it, what your reasoning is, and your proposed solution. Talk to us rather than arguing back and forth amongst yourselves, because that makes the entire section a nightmare to read. And pretend we have no prior knowledge of this subject (because usually we don't) and need things spelled out to us very clearly. If you make us do all the legwork and have to go dig for the answers with a shovel, you're far less likely to get a response other than a generic "This is what policy says..." Most of us have other things we need to be doing so the easier you can make it on us, the better your chances will be. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am stupid, sorry. I thought this is noticeboard for BLP issues (and not a discussion page) where editors interested in this policy help out with related matters. So I wanted to post here to bring editors on talk page of 2023 Qatar espionage case. It has more context, this was not meant to accuse or argue with others but get help and opinion. I am sorry. Since I made so many mistakes I will leave this matter too. I hope others will take right call based on what WP:BLP wants. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I fixed the indent issues. Each comment just has to copy and paste the preceding comment's asterisks/colons, and then you can use either one for your own comment. The problem is that when the asterisks/colons are not the same as the prior comment, it causes new lists to be created, which can make it almost impossible for people who use screen readers to understand what is happening. A good explanation is here: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Feel free to revert if the changes make the prior discussion too difficult to follow. – notwally (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Thank you! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the released went on to do interviews about their ordeal (a quick scan found 3 interviews out of the 7 originally released people) "Commander Nagpal" on YouTube, The Hindu, Feb 20, 2024

"Commander Gupta" on YouTube, India Today, Feb 14, 2024

Sailor Ragesh, Indian Express, Feb 14, 2024

I don't think anyone is implying guilt on the part of the former Navy officers. They were sentenced, had their charges reduced, and finished out their sentences before being released. I don't see that as being "innocent" as you say just because they were released after diplomatic discussions between two separate governments.

BBC on the charges

In a press briefing on Thursday, Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said [ ... ] "What we can tell you, confirm to you is, that the death penalty has now been converted into varying prison sentences for the eight Indian nationals," he said

Associated Press on the charges

They were imprisoned in 2022 and handed death sentences in October that were reduced to prison sentences after India said it was exploring legal options and filed an appeal.

Awshort (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is individual's interview a proof of anything? ordeal- more like being punished when not guilty? or being trialed in sham case and then released? we just dk how they got released- can you support your statement- "They were sentenced, had their charges reduced, and finished out their sentences before being released." by an RS? Being charged for alleged spying >> sentences reduced >> released. is that not innocent enough for wiki? no RS has claimed to have confirmed what the charges were in the first place. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews were to illustrate that they are not exactly shying away from discussing what happened to them.

“On December 28, the Court of Appeal in Qatar gave a verdict in which the death sentence was commuted and replaced with varying quantum of jail terms. Our legal team has received the copy of the court’s order, which is a confidential document. But I can confirm that the death sentence has been removed,” said Mr. Jaiswal.-per The Hindu

The charges were not shared by Qatar or the Indian ministry citing “the confidential and sensitive nature of proceedings of this case.”per CNN

The chances of the charges or the jail terms being made public is almost non-existent in my opinion, and the wiki article makes the point that the charges were not made public clear. (I removed text suggesting they were sentenced to death for spying charges in the charges section, since the following sentence made it clear the charges were not public). I think the point you are missing is that they were charged, were found guilty, and were sentenced to death. Their sentence was commuted to jail terms, and they were later released. Whether the charges are public or confidential does not change the sentencing that happened as a result of the charges, or that the individuals were later released after serving jail sentences. The suggestion that Wikipedia should somehow ignore that fact and imply innocence on the behalf of the individuals while ignoring what reliable sources state is frankly confusing.

Awshort (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the individuals were later released after serving jail sentences. this is your POV, no RS has directly mentioned it like that, they have shied away from two things: 1) reason for conviction and 2) reason for release. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 00:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore listed as 45th vice president

In the first paragraph of Al Gore's biography it is listed that he was the 45th vice president despite the fact that he was the 41st alongside Bill Clinton. This is inaccurate information and does not align with the chronological order of previous vice presidencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glarr (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is better suited for Talk:Al Gore. The reason that is would be (I believe) that he is the 41st president's VP, as certain presidents had more than one either within or when changing terms, displacing his position chronologically. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please see List of vice presidents of the United States. There have been a few presidents who had multiple vice presidents, so the numbers don't line up. (Also Clinton was the 42nd president.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton was the 41st president. His presidency was the 42nd, because Grover Cleveland had two presidencies, but was still only one president. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idiosyncratic way of counting. The William J. Clinton Presidential Library thinks he was the 42nd president, as does Wikipedia... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Sr. was 41, Clinton 42, Bush Jr. 43, Obama 44, Trump 45, Biden 46, and the next, be it Trump or Harris, will be 47. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gore was the 45th VP. There have been more VP's than presidents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glarr, can you tell us which previous vice presidents have a chronological order inconsistent with Gore? I had a look at all our articles on more recent VP and all of them have a chronological order consistent with Gore and our list article, at least in the lead. Likewise I went back all the way to Ford, and all of them had a chronological order consistent with Gore and our list article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political nominees in boxes at end of articles

I was not sure of the best place to add this, and so please see the new topic I added at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Political nominees in boxes at end of articles. – notwally (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Malcolm

Aussie Malcolm died recently and now that he cannot defend himself the media have reported he was investigated (never charged, police investigate all complaints) some editors believe this is super important information and belongs in the lead and article even though BDP would apply here 115.189.89.30 (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on a quick internet search, there appear to be multiple articles published by The New Zealand Herald [6] [7] [8]. Radio New Zealand has also reported on it [9], and there appear to be numerous articles published by Stuff (company) (most of the sources in the current article version are cited to them) as well as in its affiliated newspaper The Press [10]. These appear to be some of the largest and most well-respected news outlets in New Zealand. There are also articles in smaller newspapers. Given the coverage so far, I think this would satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – notwally (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page, this is not tabloid gossip; it has been widely discussed in the mainstream media in New Zealand. The New Zealand Prime Minister has commented on it in the media, advising other victims to speak to police.

The fact they were under investigation by the police for these crimes at the time of death has been well covered in a number of major media outlets in New Zealand. From my reading, WP:BDP does not mean that the fact that an individual was the subject of a police investigation cannot be mentioned just because they recently died, and the investigation was revealed after their death. If he was still alive, this content would still be relevant and valid to include on his page per WP:PUBLICFIGURE (assuming it had been discussed in the media). David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the BBC music figure Jimmy Savile, who was beloved when alive, but the fact that he was a sexual abuser of children came out only after his death. If properly referenced to multiple reliable sources and neutrally summarized, this type of content belongs in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Karpelès

It would be helpful to have additional eyes on the article for Mark Karpelès. Multiple sockpuppets in the past have added promotional material to the article and edited the sections on his criminal history to minimize his actions, and there is an open SPI against the most recent editor making these types of edits. Many of the edits also focus on promoting the article subject's new cryptocurrency businesses. – notwally (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check that out Sirocco745 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notwally I've checked the page's history and you are very right to be annoyed at those sockpuppets. Got the article watchlisted now, I'll keep an eye on it. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo -- can UFO activists be used as a reliable source on UFO-related BLPs?

New user Very Polite Person insists that they can use a UFO activist, who allegedly saw an UFO in 1979 and then spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs, as a reliable source on a UFO-related BLP. The BLP is Luis Elizondo. They also seem to believe that, because some people agree with Luis Elizondo, his statements have been "confirmed" (and that the UFO activist is a reliable source for that claim). Polygnotus (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another user MrOllie changed "confirmed" to "supported"[11], got reverted by Very Polite Person[12] and then MrOllie changed it back to "supported".[13] The statements made by Luis Elizondo have not been confirmed. Polygnotus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some extracts from his book are useful to determine if Luis is telling the truth:

“

It turned out that almost all the people in Will’s studies—military and intelligence officials with remote-viewing abilities and/or UAP encounters and biological effects—had Native American DNA. Specifically, Cherokee blood.

”

— Luis Elizondo in Imminent

“

My specific interests involved alleged alien implants found in humans. From what I read, often living tissue grew around implants, but such growths never contained anything but the patient’s DNA in them. The growths sometimes sprouted multiple brightly colored hairs or filaments, similar to Morgellons fibers. When researchers scrape away the human tissue, they find objects that resemble a technical device in size and shape but without any circuitry whatsoever. I once handled one of these implants myself, provided to me by a hospital in the Department of Veterans Affairs, where it had been removed from a US military servicemember who had encountered a UAP.

”

— Luis Elizondo in Imminent

And a quote from the article to see how neutral and evenhanded our UFO activist is:

“

From his post as a senior intelligence officer for the Secretary of Defense, Luis Elizondo knew by 2017 he had two choices: 1) make peace with silence and continue sitting on the Cold War’s deepest secret, or 2) resign from a career he loved in order to fulfill his duty to serve the United States.

”

— Billy Cox

Polygnotus (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidance is probably WP:FRIND. Ufologists are not generally reliable for analysing the WP:FRINGE aspects of UFOs (e.g. the little green men stuff), but may be okay for mundane facts. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, exactly. So he is not a reliable source for if the claims have been confirmed or supported. If his story is true that is certainly no mundane fact. Polygnotus (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content requires reliable sources. I'm not quite sure what the source is or who the "UFO activist" is, but a person being quoted in a newspaper would not make what they said reliable, for example. The newspaper, as the reliable source, would need to state the same information as fact for it to be reliable information. If this is just a question of reliability, WP:RSN may be a better forum to discuss the issue. As for the article content, the "and supported by others" language was too vague. I edited the sentence to make it more direct and less open to ambiguous interpretation. [14] – notwally (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the UFO activist is a guy who writes for an otherwise normal newspaper. But he has a certain bias when it comes to UFOs because he spent most of his life as an activist. Thanks for your edit, that is a big improvement. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Luis Elizondo was not based on the text from the sources and was reverted. The other user has now begun a WP:BLP violating edit war. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus is not the one reverting 3 other people, and neither version of the article is a BLP violation. It's simply a garden variety content dispute. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and people who editwar in garden variety content disputes tend to get blocked, which does not help them achieve their goals. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP articles are required to explicitly be WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant. The lede that simply quotes one source, while ignoring the other 5-6, is a substantial problem, when the one is the outlier. Based on the plain text reading of WP:BLP, no number of users can supersede it. WP:3RRBLP applies to my revert. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS. I've tried multiple times to get User:Polygnotus to even acknowledge or comment on all that information with no luck. This reporter is a normal veteran senior reporter, who posted to a blog on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for 2~ years out of a decades-long career at the newspaper. I don't know where User:Polygnotus got ..."spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs", but that is literally not true based on the available evidence. As far as how we use this source, I have it broken down in that link literally sentence by sentence and invocation by invocation so everything was transparent for everyone. While the subject Luis Elizondo has WP:FRINGE connections, the article is not about their UFO beliefs. It's an article about the WP:BLP subject, and the entirety of the apparent conflict is related to their early life, education, professional military and Pentagon career from 1975 to 2008~ or so. Their UFO related WP:FRINGE aspects don't even begin until 2017. The source in question is used to provide basic biographical and professional data, and is one of six sources that are used to highlight a persistent conflict that is noted across many WP:RS about one single aspect of his resume. That bit of the resume isn't even WP:FRINGE itself! It's basic rote WP:BLP stuff with no WP:FRINGE considerations. User:Polygnotus seems to be saying this reporter is not a valid source to fill in/support non-WP:FRINGE biographical data on a WP:BLP, essentially, because that reporter said they saw a UFO apparently 40 or 50 years, wrote some articles on the topic, a blog for their newspaper for a few years, and that this is apparently a disqualifying consideration and a "conflict of interest". Again, for emphasis, this needs to be read to have context:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

This is a standard run of the mill reporter at a low bias, high credibility newspaper being used by us for standard vanilla WP:RS and WP:BLP coverage, and nothing to even do with WP:FRINGE stuff. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a standard run of the mill reporter who happens to have allegedly seen a UFO 45 years ago and then spent decades of his life convincing others that that event actually happened and was not rare. Polygnotus (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent ongoing talk page BLP violations on Luis Elizondo

Note: This section has now been removed repeatedly against my request: it is NOT the same issue whatsoever as the preceding one. It is about the BLP violations by the user who made the preceding section after I told them I would be bringing this BLP violation by them to this noticeboard. It is not part of the above user's issues with a source on that BLP. My post here is expressly and only about editor behavior, and not a content Article dispute related to BLPs.

---

This is about the ongoing seemingly systemic WP:BLP issues on this article's talk page. The user in my view, explained here, committed a WP:BLP violation explicitly calling the BLP subject a liar on their own talk page; further, this talk page/article has a years-long history of small to large WP:BLP problems, that are seemingly unenforced against and overlooked, which is why I posted this. The involved user has tried to frame this as a content dispute, or that they were the originator of this 'against' me. They seemed, based on their almost instant talk page replies to any reactions to this, to be upset at the claim I made of a BLP violation and my desire for BLP to be enforced on the Talk page, like WP:BLP repeatedly says it is supposed to be.

So--again--this is a 100% seperate issue, topic, and concern from the above Elizondo section. That one is a content dispute; this one is about user behavior and no policing at all of WP:BLP on this ultra-contentious article.

The Luis Elizondo article is extremely contentious and has seen recurrant article WP:BLP violations over time, that has been reported more than once now to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and is in the archives here. The most recent event, where a litany of users were inserting negative unsourced commentary into Luis Elizondo and even edit warring to keep it in, which is how I became aware of the article and involved, is here from August 26th, not even a month ago:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked

On the article itself, it seems like a few of us have managed to source finally 100% of content and there is nothing negative unsourced at all now on this WP:BLP, and it's from casual review of the version history the most WP:BLP and WP:NPOV compliant that Lue Elizondo has ever been. For an idea of how bad it was for WP:BLP in the past, the circa 2021-era versions are a bit of a train wreck.

However, while the article is at the moment WP:BLP-compliant, the Talk page is a problem. Per our top-level rule at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

From going through the talk page histories, a number of users, being blunt, "shit talk" the subject openly and without regard for WP:BLP, and no one ever cleans up or challenges it. I noticed one today (and more, but I figured I had to start somewhere), and decided to say something per WP:BLP. On this edit, User:Polygnotus calls the subject a liar twice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246487079

I replied to notify the user of my concerns on Talk:Luis Elizondo here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246531439

And on their talk page here, which was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1246532609

User:Polygnotus then came to my talk page here:

User talk:Very Polite Person#Falsely accusing people

There, Polygnotus refused/disassembled my attempts to sort this out repeatedly, despite my saying I would proceed here to WP:BLPN and dispute resolution if they did not address the WP:BLP concerns, which are equally binding on Talk pages as Articles themselves, per WP:BLP. The user seems at best disinterested in the BLP-related concerns.

The specific BLP violation remains live here at the moment, and given the problematic history of this article, I wanted to get more eyes and awareness on this:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#Cox, aboutself, ref(/area) 51

In response to all this, the user launched a complaint about BLP-related sourcing on the article here on this noticeboard, further ignoring their WP:BLP violation:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luis Elizondo -- can UFO activists be used as a reliable source on UFO-related BLPs?

What can we do to get Talk:Luis Elizondo policed and enforced for WP:BLP concerns, and deal with this specific scenario? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:POVFORK of the section above.

See WP:STICK. Stop falsely accusing people. You do not WP:OWN this article. And your WP:POV is clearly not neutral because you think his statements have been confirmed and use a UFO activist as a source for that... Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1246543430&oldid=1246543088

Do not remove my section again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your section. Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere. Do not falsely accuse me again. And as you are aware I am very interested in your BLP violation; you cannot go to BLPN to ask for support when you added a non-neutral non-reliable source on a BLP and got reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT the same issue. My post is about YOUR violations of BLP and by others and a request for help on that page. You do not get to define my complaint about you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for some reason you refuse to focus on the topic at hand. Weird. Meta-conversations are rather boring, don't you think? Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded repeately at length for the non-WP:FRINGE concerns you raised, and you have now at least a dozen (I am not keeping count further) tried to change the subject away from your WP:BLP violation, to the point of trying to remove and obscure my report on you from this page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only BLP concern I see expressed in this wall of text is that Polygnotus called the article subject a liar on the talk page. While it may not be the best way to make an argument, I don't think that is a BLP violation. While BLP certainly applies to talk page comments, there is obviously more leeway since editors are allowed to express their own opinions to an extent, which is entirely prohibited from mainspace article content. The article subject appears to be a public figure who has made many controversial claims that have been disputed by others including reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere.. I did it once, and you reverted me, and then other people also merged the sections because they are about the same article. I didn't invent the rules here, people just merge sections about the same topic on this and similar pages. If you do not agree with that you can perhaps try to change that? Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a pedantic person, and I did not call them a liar. I just pointed out that "It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar" which is the kind of obvious truism moms everywhere and anywhere say to their kids. It is just a fact. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar. immediately after writing And luiselizondo-official.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 so I would get rid of that too. I would consider everything he says "controversial" because I would dispute it all.. In no way can that not be reasonably interpreted as a WP:BLP violation. Doing that on the Article would get any of us a firm warning at best. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restrictions are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article. There are also numerous reliable sources that dispute factual statements made by the article subject. Given that is the case, I don't see how the talk page comment could be construed as beyond reasonable. – notwally (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restriction are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article.

That is incorrect. Per our top-level rule at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Is our WP:BLP policy incorrect on it's plain wording? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to claim that there is the same strict application of BLP policies when applied to talk pages, then yes, you are wrong. There is obviously more leeway in talk page discussions than on mainspace article content. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
The template BLP removal can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.

Does WP:BLP mention "talk pages" in error? I do not follow your reasoning that the plain language of WP:BLP is wrong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK. Discussions related to making content choices are given much more leeway and allows for unsourced commentary even if negative. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving my words a new meaning. It is very helpful. Can you not tell that people do not agree with you? Fun fact: I also called a terrorist an "idiot" one time on a talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend both users stop responding to every comment made by the other and instead allow other editors to comment, which becomes less and less likely the longer this thread becomes an endless tit-for-tat between two editors. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite others to read through this and help address rampant WP:BLP concerns on both Luis Elizondo and Talk:Luis Elizondo that seem to be running with some level of tolerance by involved editors for years. I am not going to further reply to Polygnotus here myself, as they seem determined to attempt to (apparently) reframe any complaint about their behavior or WP:BLP concerns into attacks on them--I am not going to indulge their desire for a high-speed volley of responses. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and follow our WP:RULES, not insult WP:BLP subjects on their own talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs)

Please also see WP:BLUDGEON. – notwally (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming the first 15 references, I'm seeing very questionable sources for a BLP article. Remove all the references that should not be used per WP:RSP/WP:RSN, make sure the WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:ABOUTSELF refs are used properly or removed, and any other poor sources are used properly or removed.

My initial reaction to the Cox ref is that it is written as an in-world opinion piece, and should be treated as such. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Zeilinger

The Anton Zeilinger page has over 50 citations of that person's self-published CV. I guess the information is probably ok, but is this counter to policy? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content, such as the lists of awards, is not appropriate to include if only sourced to primary sources or the article subject. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. I removed some of the content, although more work may to be done. – notwally (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Removal of Content from Trisha Krishnan

You can read my orginal request here. As you can see, including this gives disproportionate attention to a personal event with no lasting significance.W170924 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion you were told to contact the Volunteer Responce Team (see WP:Contact us; you want the info-en email address). This is not the VRT. I would suggest you use the VRT instead of constantly drawing attention to the one thing you want excised from the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: The VRT team redirected me to this noticeboard, explaining that I had been referred incorrectly and that they do not have the authority to control or edit Wikipedia content.W170924 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@W170924: If that is the case, then a discussion here or on the talk page is warranted. But, again, you're risking a Streisand effect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the name of the fiance as it does not seem necessary to keep in the article. The fact that the article subject was engaged for almost half a year seems like it is probably noteworthy. – notwally (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was nine years ago, and if she became engaged on January 23, 2015 and she confirmed it had ended by May 7, 2015, that is only three months and fourteen days. That is not notable or DUE for inclusion any longer. I removed it per the edit request on talk page which is a reasonable request. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for privacy from non-notable but arguably public figure

I came across this edit: [15]. For context the BLP in question created a single issue political party that never accomplished anything. He did an interview in a local newspaper but that is about it in terms of publicity. I'm not sure whether creating a political party and running for an electorate would make one a public figure per our policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt it. I'd kinda equate it to the guy in Canada who camped out on an Island in the middle of a national park and tried to declare it an independent country. What I really have to look at is the amount of media coverage he got, which looks like almost none, judging by the article alone. In fact, I have serious doubts that the party itself even meets GNG standards because the level of coverage is so low. Looks like a good candidate for AFD to me. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to take it to AfD if the PROD was removed (which it has been), but in the meantime I wondered whether he should be mentioned in the article based on the IP edit from 2015. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a redirect for now. Maybe a sentence or two at Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments is relevant, but a separate article seems excessive. – notwally (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that, and am planning a database search for more refs later today. I suggest taking it to AfD if you want it deleted. IdiotSavant (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is now here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party. – notwally (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under US law (which is what Wikipedia operates under), a government official or even a politician running for office is automatically considered a public figure. This is because the public has a right to know about the people they're voting for. However, for that to hold water one would expect a fair amount of public interest in the candidate, which should be reflected by the media coverage of them. If this meager amount of coverage is all he got, then I find it hard to say that he reached that public-figure status. The question then becomes: is his name really necessary to understand the subject? Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That party is barely notable, but that edit is also from nine years ago so I don't think it's a major issue. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content remained removed until today. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Nuzzi

Olivia Nuzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with a little time to spare take a look at this article? Neither the characterization of her suspension from New York in the lede nor the one in the body entirely matches what the cited sources say, and there's a nuanced set of overlapping disclosures, denials, and asserted-only-with-attributions that need to be captured here. (New York says she acknowledges an affair; CNN says it was with RFK Jr. per an anonymous source; RFK denies it; Nuzzi doesn't seem to have commented on whether it was him.) The lede also needs to be lengthened to avoid giving undue weight to the recent controversy. I may find time to get to this later but if anyone else would like to take a swing, please do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robinson being labeled Far Right in wiki-voice

The article on the Lt Governor and GOP candidate for Governor of North Carolina is labeling him in the lead as far right in wiki-voice. A handful of sources have labeled him as such. However the vast majority of sources that I have looked at are not using that language. This has been discussed on the article talk page with no result and a handful of editors have chosen to insert the language despite the concerns. I believe the number of sources using that language is far short of what would be needed for us to make that kind of statement in wiki-voice. Clearly the man is highly controversial (likely an understatement) and has been called quite a few things by reliable sources. IMO it's perfectly appropriate to note all of that with proper citations. But the community has traditionally set a very high bar for using negative descriptive terms in wiki-voice. There are literally scores of reliable sources naming the late Fidel Castro as a dictator, yet the community refused, rightly IMO, to employ that term in wiki-voice because to do so we would need something approaching unanimity among reliable sources. What is going on here, is that we are essentially putting our finger on the scale in favor of a handful of sources which are saying what I'm guessing most of us privately believe to be true. IMHO that is a no-no and this is a BLP violation. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we should have to wait for years before even using such labels in wikivoice, to establish that this is how sources well over time consistently use the label to apply to BLPs. (using the label with attribution can be done but that becomes an DUE issue). With this entire current political and cultural conflict , we have to do a far better job of NOT (eta) letting our personal desires to apply labels overtake our need to remain neutral and disinterested in our writing. Masem (t) 17:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The standard for WP:LABELs on BLPs should be overwhelming consensus among high quality sources, and that's assuming there should ever be any situation where they're applied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really important that Wikipedians consider looking at the closing lead paragraph of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and then compare/contrast that to Mark Robinson (American politician) and perhaps reflect on how we got here. While I understand that one can't compare apples to oranges, it's fairly evident we've extinguished any possible chance to bring balance to these articles because the sources Wikipedia considers "reliable" will absolutely eviscerate any politician who they deem are "on the other team". While I'm almost certain that there are articles where we could be critical of AOC's public image and remarks, but as you all know, those of course, are UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we label him as a neo-Nazi then, and Nazism is a far-right ideology, because Robinson has self-identified as and has engaged in actions consistent with being one? Robinson has engaged in Holocaust denial, supported Adolf Hitler, praised Mein Kampf, and identified as a "Black Nazi." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. That's introducing original research atop the neutrality issue. Masem (t) 18:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We can repeat what other's have said about him with attribution. But not use those terms in the community's name. I also note that the immediate issue has been corrected by Ser!, and the article is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the header is to a disambiguation page. The article in question is Mark Robinson (American politician). Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I corrected the link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's technically Godwin's law, but it's hard to justify doing this on a BLP if our articles for Hitler and Mussolini aren't beginning with "... was a fascist[1][2][3][4] politician..." and kind of ventures into WP:RGW territory. The initial mention should establish the reason for their notability as simply as possible (ie., is a politician serving as...). If sources are overwhelmingly describing them as such, that can go later in the lead section, but shoehorning terms into the initial mention, to me, feels overly tabloid-ish and bad writing. Connormah (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of ex-wife's name in article on controversial figure

Kyle Chapman (New Zealand activist) currently lists the name of his ex-wife. I found this to be unnecessary and removed it per WP:BLPNAME but have been reverted twice. Would like a second opinion on if the name should be removed or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a short-lived relationship adds anything to the article (and labelling her religion certainly does not!) and suggest you first take your concerns to the article talk page. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Sanctions

A proposed addition to the Authority Control navbox used in many BLPs raises potential WP:BLPCRIME issues. See Template talk:Authority control#Open Sanctions and please participate there with your opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards