Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here. Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III. Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. Place the {{BLP noticeboard}} template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. All editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators should review enforcement instructions.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Romesh Wadhwani

Hi: The page about Romesh Wadhwani is extremely outdated. Can someone please update it? I work at one of Romesh's companies so cannot do it directly but I am sharing a few notes:

Romesh is the chairman and founder of three companies not listed: SAIGroup https://saigroup.ai/ SymphonyAI https://www.symphonyai.com/ ConcertAI https://www.concertai.com/

He founded STG but does not have an active role at the company today (2022). He left in 2017 to found SymphonyAI.

Romesh was awarded a Padma Shri honor by the government of India in 2020. This is not listed https://www.cgisf.gov.in/event_detail/?eventid=180#:~:text=Romesh%20Wadhwani%20was%20awarded%20Padma,through%20large%20scale%20job%20creation.

Here is his listing in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/profile/romesh-t-wadhwani/?sh=6a07162c6ada

Some recent external coverage of Romesh, so you don't have to rely on press releases etc.

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/01/11/tech-billionaire-romesh-wadhwani-replaces-himself-as-ceo-as-he-considers-taking-symphonyai-public/?sh=2fc52e886d9d

Forbes: https://www.forbesindia.com/article/2022-billionaires/romesh-wadhwani-building-up-and-giving-away/75819/1

Emma Byrne

Article claims Emma Byrne is romantically involved with Vicky Losada, but the source for this is dubious. The source article presumes the nature of their relationship based on a single Twitter post by Vicky Losada about Emma Byrne, a post that fails to imply beyond all reasonable doubt that the two are in a relationship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathieu_Fleury

This entry looks like a personal CV/resume. It needs to be moderated as it has a cut and paste feel from a self-endorsing site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA2:A400:8D5B:5A0D:1DAC:A466 (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Went full wiki-squirrel and did some wiki-butchering and reduced it to the best cuts, with no processed meat. It wasn't actually a copyright violation (which was surprising given the tone of it). The picture may also vanish, as it (unlike the article) does seem to be a copyright violation. Can be closed off and archived now as the issue raised has been resolved. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Herschel Walker

The biographical entry for Herschel Walker is being edited to include quotations on political positions which detract from the editorial neutrality of the entry. Based on Wikipedia's guidance for [and neutrality|Quotations and Neutrality], these quotations inject the entry with clear political bias. The quotations are identified by the editor or editors as "gaffes" in the introduction to the Political Positions section, and the secondary source references support this categorization. It is not neutral to include gaffe quotes under this section, particularly since most of the quotes do not actually present a clear policy position for Herschel Walker, but are merely confusing statements that are being paraphrased by the editor. The purpose appears to be embarrassment and to present Walker in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenstorm85 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a BLP issue as Mr. Walker said these things. This should be discussed on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I added much of that content, which consists of verified direct quotations instead of paraphrasing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Quotations, even if verifiable, if misused can violate WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPOV (WP:PROPORTION, WP:IMPARTIAL), e.g. by over-emphasizing negative or controversial material. "But it's true" by itself is often insufficient for inclusion, per WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. Wikipedia articles on politicians tend to be dumpster fires. Less kindling, less gasoline, and less quotes are probably better choices for any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The numerous, numerous reliable sources that have covered Mr. Walker's more bizarre and outlandish claims put to rest any boilerplate reactions of NPOV, Impartialness, etc... Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. Context always needs to be considered in terms of NPOV and the recent political NOTNEWS churnalism about his candidacy should not overwhelm his biography when he is still mostly known for his football career with extensive print coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think "overwhelm his biography" is a stretch, but I do support a trim of his positions, and more summary than explicit quotation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The content about his illustrious football career is appropriately far greater than the content about politics. I fail to see how direct quotations from the subject can create bias, and it would be exceptionally difficult to convey the spirit and tone of his recent remarks to the reader by paraphrasing these quotes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Politicians say a lot of shit, and I don't believe there should be that much space devoted to the "political position" of current candidates with no voting records especially if they were inordinately famous before they were candidates. I see this issue at the Mehmet Oz article also. Just because today's journalism covers everything now due to the almost limitless resources of the Internet compared to yesteryears does not mean we should too in terms of balance. *edit conflict* Cullen, I am also concerned about selective quoting in addition to weight. I see too much of this in BLPs when this should be the role of a secondary source rather than a succinct summary befitting of a tertiary medium like wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, you are edit warring and removing sourced content on a WP:RGW crusade and citing this discussion as a reason. I don't see a consensus here that his gaffes are undue. Andre🚐 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You should revert yourself under WP:BLPN because "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." There is no clear consensus for these quotes based on this discussion and the article talk page. Just because content is sourced does not mean it's fit for inclusion per WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

These don't appear to be substantive BLP objections. Herschel Walker is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and we report what the sources say. The sources have reported extensively on his statements. The material well-sourced and there's a consensus to include the material. The removals are improper. The page is now protected. Andre🚐 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus when multiple editors have objected over NPOV vs multiple editors arguing it's V! Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Who are the multiple editors (specifically, good faith editors)? I see you and someone who is an SPA who was blocked for edit warring in said article, and neither of you are making a compelling or coherent argument on the talk page, just repeating yourselves ad nauseam PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Animalparty!, Firefangledfeather (who favoured reduction and summary), @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: on the article talk page. Along with the original complainant whose opinion is no less legitimate, we all have concerns about NPOV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those editors endorsed this massive removal of sourced content[1] or even to remove the gaffes. 2 or 3 editors suggested moving the section and reducing the weight, and referring to the section as gaffes rather than positions. By contrast at least 6 editors have supported retaining the section and it is the status quo ante before your major removals, which go beyond even the subject being discussed. Andre🚐 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the NPOV problem of total removal is worse than the NPOV problem of the status quo ante version, and I'd favor restoration while we work on condensing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Andre, I'm still confused on whether those position quotes are meant to be examples of gaffes since they follow the initial gaffe statement. To be clear, I don't mind the gaffe summary. Just not sure if the summary should even be in that section or is more appropriate in the campaign section. My position is to remove any picking and choosing of quotes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd like all quotes removed from the policy section, or specific ones? The quotes included are what reflect his political beliefs on the subjects and paraphrasing them may lead to users contesting the paraphrased paragraphs. As others have mentioned you're welcome to elaborate and expand further on those beliefs with reliable sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Morbidthoughts, while I am sympathetic to some degree, some of these quotes really did garner reliable source coverage as quotes. Given that, I would probably lose the abortion-related quotes in favor of a brief summary, but it strikes me that we kind of need the "bad air" and "young men looking at women" quotes. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what josh and Dumzid said and everyone else. Morbidthoughts, you've been around for a while and you have a bunch of edits, so I assume you know that these are topics to be discussed on the article talk page, not the BLP noticeboard. If you want to address some good faith workshopping of the section I suggest you close this thread and we can talk about the exact phrasing of the quotes or what section they should be in. Instead you've removed about 4kb of material all of which has sources and some of which is directly from the candidate's mouth, despite probably a clear consensus to keep it, and at least an active discussion that wasn't tending toward removing it, and you requested page protection WP:WRONGVERSIONed User:Deepfriedokra [2]. You seem to be SOAPBOXing this and I suggest for a start, you close this thread. Andre🚐 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not engage in any picking and choosing. When I wrote the content, I did a thorough search in reliable secondary sources for coverage of his stances on political issues, and neutrally summarized what I found. As I have said several times, if someone can find reliable independent sources talking about his views on issues that is free of perceived gaffes, then certainly that should be summarized and included. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, you didn't make this edit, but it shows the problem of picking and choosing quotes that may not be notable.[3] It synthesises two quotes and comes out weird without proper context. In the NY Times article, the second quote follows and is in support of why "he called for more money to promote adoption and to support single fathers and single mothers" but that context is missing from the section. I would even argue that the omitted context is more important than the picked quote. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: If the version I protected is status quo ante, could you please note this at the RfPP thread? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I thought it was, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is, I think the RFPP thread already archived. But yes, it absolutely was. Andre🚐 21:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, the issue that I read the section is if you preface the section describing he frequently makes gaffes, then you provide quotes that only serves to reiterate whatever issues that have been already summarized in the previous sentence; are they supposed to be gaffes? Why are those specific quotes important enough to focus on? Based on Dumuzid's examples, I understand Walker's comments about the futility of the act due to the shared global air space while the suggestion of a department of investigating "young men looking at women that's looking at social media" is completely bizarre. But as Andre suggested, individual edits may be hammered out in article talk page discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to read all the cited sources and search for coverage of the matter in other reliable, independent sources to see whether you can find coverage that provides a different or more nuanced view of things. I did my best to neutrally summarize the sources that I could find. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on whether the gaffe intro sentences should be moved to the campaign section? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading through what is being argued about, thre is almost no reason to include the quotes when in nearly all instances the Wikitext summarizes it. Eg in the second on abortion, the summary text is doing the job that the quotes and awkward and unnecessary. He's not being obtuse or overly descriptive in the given quotes that make our summary a problem. The only one that might be required is the one about the IRA bill, because there I don't know how you'd summarize that logic about trees. Masem (t) 23:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't summarise that, but Cullen omitted[4] some context from the source[5], "It’s possible Walker might have been referring to a provision in the law that allocates $1.5 billion to the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program." Without that context, of course the quote would seem nuts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already participated in the talk discussions at the article. I think (1) The of direct quotes in the article are gaffes, and described as such in all RS. Hence, presenting them as policies is a NPOV and BLP violation. Furthermore, the quotes do not reveal policy stances of Walker and his campaign, and we should just paraphrase his views as RS has done. (2) Walker's gaffes definitely need to be mentioned in the article in some capacity since they are widely covered in RS. A well written paragraph should discuss his gaffes and be introduced into the campaign section. (3) I don't really like the policy section. It's looks bad. I think his policies just need to be summed up in a paragraph or two rather than a million subsections.(4) I'm not trying to make any accusations of bad faith, but it's a little concerning that the only BLP I know of that presents gaffes as policies to make the candidate look dumb is the BLP of a black man. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There are six subsections and six is not a million. Hyperbole can be effective in rare contexts but not when debating the content of an encyclopedia article, where accuracy is important. The biography of his opponent Raphael Warnock has eight subsections on political positions. Are you saying that is too many for Warnock? I added the introductory gaffe language in response to concerns from another editor that the quotations taken in isolation lacked context, and that the context is that Walker is prone to gaffes. I deeply disagree that my purpose is "to make the candidate look dumb" and that is because he is "a black man". That is false. Simply bring forth coverage in independent, reliable sources that portray Walker as articulate, insightful and thoughtful on policy matters, and we can incorporate that into the article immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Warnocks political positions section isn't great for the same reason, but at least it's more developed. Walker is not an articulate speaker, and I'm not saying he is. I'm merely saying the comments are gaffes and thats it. I don't think the introductory paragraph you added is justification for presenting the quotes inappropriately. I didn't say the purpose is to make them look dumb, but that's obviously the effect. We don't treat other politicians who are gaffe prone in this way, and I don't understand why Walker appears to be an exception. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be no limit or recommended number of subsections. It just so happens that most of Herschel Walker's coverage is about some of his statements, which explain his views in a pretty kludgy way. It's pretty shocking to see that you think it's concerning that Herschel Walker's article quotes him in a way that makes him look bad, and that to you is a racial concern. Nevermind that Warnock and Walker are both from the same background. How about Joe Biden's article? In late April 2009, Biden's off-message response to a question during the beginning of the swine flu outbreak, that he would advise family members against traveling on airplanes or subways, led to a swift retraction by the White House. The remark revived Biden's reputation for gaffes. Confronted with rising unemployment through July 2009, Biden acknowledged that the administration had "misread how bad the economy was" but maintained confidence the stimulus package would create many more jobs once the pace of expenditures picked up. On March 23, 2010, a microphone picked up Biden telling the president that his signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was "a big fucking deal" during live national news telecasts. Seems like we feel fine quoting him and making him look a little dumb sometimes when he mis-speaks. And I know you've edited this article too, but you didn't seem to have an issue. Maybe it's not the race. Andre🚐 01:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, please name two or three other notable politicians who are as gaffe-prone when discussing policy as Walker, and let's compare the coverage of their gaffes. Failing to accurately and thoroughly cover his policy comments would be the real NPOV violation. The article has much more detail about each individual one of his seasons of college football before his NFL career than it does about his political positions as a candidate for one of 100 seats in the US Senate. I have heard of recentism, but this looks like anti-recentism, which is totally new to me. I do not think that it is proper to deny our readers accurate, well-referenced, neutrally written information about what Walker has actually said about the issues. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Most politicians have made gaffes of some sort. Just to name a few Trump, Biden, Pelosi, and Bush Jr. These are all treated differently than Walker Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, coverage of Trump's policy pronouncements combined the gaffe element with commentary about the substance of his policy positions. But what he said about his various policy innovations received intense coverage from countless reliable sources and discussion of all of that is included in many Trump related articles. Yes, Biden, has a history of stuttering, occasionally stumbles and sounds strange for a few seconds. But if you listen to Biden discussing Policy A ten times, he may stumble once but be coherent and consistent the other nine times. Pretty much the same is true of George W. Bush. He spoke awkward many times, but if you listened to him speak over and over again on any specific issue, it was pretty clear where he stood. As for Pelosi, her gaffes are trivial in the context of a nearly 40 year career in Congress. You could read thousands of articles over the decades discussing how Pelosi talks about policy, and only a miniscule percentage of those sources would refer to gaffes or misstatements. She is highly competent and well Walker is . . . come to your own conclusions based on his record and what he says. Our readers deserve that information. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Bushism is an entire article about gaffes by GWB. Andre🚐 03:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, so with Biden's article we mention his gaffes in an appropriate manner. We contextualize it, and call a gaffe a gaffe. You quoted it, The remark revived Biden's reputation for gaffes. We don't mention every fumble he's made in political positions section of his article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Herschel Walker article does the same thing. And those Biden "gaffes" from 2009 and 2010 are minor as hell. It's hard to do Walker justice because he's really one of the most word salad politicians, probably from his struggles with disability and mental illness. Andre🚐 02:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you should strike the comment speculating that a BLP has a brain disorder without evidence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Andre🚐 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

[11] He wrote a whole book about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Speculating that his mental health is "probably" linked to his "word salad" is a BLP violation and OR. His mental health is also just irrelevant to this discussion and shouldn't have been brought up. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The source that ScottishFinnishRadish just posted makes the same connection that I just made. It refers to, ormer football players suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a brain illness caused by repeated hits, which the NFL acknowledges afflicts up to a third of its former players. Regardless, it could only be OR and BLPvio if I put it in the article, which I didn't. I simply pointed it out. The article as written just quotes him and lets the reader just try to figure out what he meant or what he was talking about. Andre🚐 02:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do any RS tie Walker to CTE because dissociative personality disorder wouldn't normally explain the word salad issue or gaffes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Read just one sentence into the source that I'm quoting from. To be clear, I am not saying that Walker has CTE. There’s no way, at present, to determine that. But it’s difficult to watch Walker in his few public appearances and escape the conclusion that he is suffering from some form of cognitive decline. Consider this brief and indecipherable statement, posted on Twitter: "Build back better. You probably want something written, like law of the land, stating all men are to be treated equal. Oh! We have the Constitution. So you probably want to put people in charge whose gonna fight for the Constitution. Just thinking. God bless you." Or the way a recent friendly interview on Fox New gradually descends into incoherence. Or his August 2020 appearance on another right-wing platform, which devolves into a completely insane endorsement of an anti-COVID product that does not exist. Simply put: Walker does not appear able to speak, or think, beyond a set of memorized talking points. Andre🚐 02:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Even though I probably agree with that opinion given my observations of Walker since his playing days, it's still opinion (at most RSOPINION). This discussion reminds me of the Jameela Jamil conflict where the dispute was over laundry listing all the inane things that the actress said about her health with concern that it was implying she had Munchausen[12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We didn't add this to the article though. My point was that it's difficult to paraphrase some of his more incoherent comments. Andre🚐 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Firefangledfeathers. It should really be summarized, rather than quoting, but until that summary is done I don't see it as a huge problem to keep the quotes in place. It's not great, but it's not blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So in reading the discussion is there consensus to remove the more mundane non-gaffe quotes that are already summarised in the article (usually preceding like the examples Masem gave)? If there is consensus to keep the gaffes in quotes because there is no way to paraphrase them, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Andre🚐 02:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I really think a lot of neutrality problems can be rendered moot by considering the gaffes he has made wholly separate from his political statements - or at least should be deemphasized over his positions. As I said above, most of his positions can be summarized without his quotes, gaffes or not. Then a separate section to highlight a few of his gaffes that have been noted by secondary sources would be fair. The problem is that by including his gaffes intermingled among his positions, it is very much a mocking tone in Wikivoice and should not be written that way. Masem (t) 04:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I truly fail to see how accurately and neutrally incorporating direct quotations from a Senate candidate without any type of cherrypicking can possibly constitute a "mocking tone". If the candidate's own freely chosen words create that sort of tone, then surely that is the responsibility of the candidate, not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors who neutrally quote and summarize what reliable sources say about his words. I would also like to point out that nobody has contested the accuracy or the neutrality. Nobody has been able to say that any quote was inaccurate, or that on such and such a date in such and such a location, Walker delivered a speech consisting of coherent policy points A, B, C and D, and that content was deliberately excluded from the article. Where are such sources? I certainly hope that no editors are trying to use Wikipedia to protect Walker from the reasonable conclusions that readers may draw from what he has repeatedly said, and what he stands for in his own words. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The section on his politic views starts with the assertion he makes many gaffes. And then proceeds (with the added material) to include many statements that are gaffes. Even if that's not intentially mocking, it comes out like that, as it prepares the reader to look at his quotes in a humorous or demeaning light.

It is not that we can't include the gaffes, but they should be separate from outlining his positions. His positions can be articulated without neither his coherent quotes nor his gaffes. But certainly him making gaffes should be a section and giving a few examples (like the IRA/tree quote), but that needs to be separate from political positions. Masem (t) 13:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cullen328. Regardless of whether you want to tweak or change the article to improve it, it's not a BLP issue and this noticeboard thread continues to lack a rationale for a BLP issue. It is not an NPOV or a BLP violation to factually state that the individual in question has made many gaffes and then go on to quote him directly. The same thing happens on the Joe Biden article. As to exact question of how the gaffes should be treated in terms of sections or whether some quotes should be summarized, that should be discussed on the article talk page and this thread closed. Andre🚐 14:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Masem's and Iamreallygoodatcheckers's take on this. If a specific gaffe quote doesn't actually establish a political position because it's completely word salad, they should be separated from that specific section and just listed as an example of his many gaffes somewhere else. If it turns out that he can't formulate a coherent response on a position or subject, perhaps he's just winging it and a specific position doesn't exist for that topic without non-gaffe evidence. There is a general consensus that his gaffes should be included in the article rather than wiped out, but multiple editors have argued for reduction of quotes (gaffe or non-gaffe) to maintain balance which is a BLP issue, and there is no consensus to keep everything as it is right now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a serious problem with trying to dismiss this as a BLP issue. It's not neutrally organized which is a requirement of any BLP article. The focus on the gaffes in the midst of the political positions is basically treating the positions as laughable, which is not an impartial stance. Editors have to put themselves in the shoes of the BLP and ask themselves if they feel the writing is appropriate. Yes, a BLP would take offense at the gaffes, but that's something that can't be ignored, but then weakening their political statements by ready-inclusion of the gaffes is something that is being introduced by Wikipedia ediors, and must be fixed. Masem (t) 18:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It will get fixed...AFTER the election is over. This isn't the first time that editors have done this to BLPs based on their clear political biases, which is too bad. --Malerooster (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Come on. We're not dealing with a person here who had an occasional gaffe--this man's politics is mostly made up of gaffs, or so reliable sources say. We do not have any kind of equivalence with Joe Biden's or whoever's gaffes, and claiming there's an anti-COVID spray that the FDA approved but no one knows about it, calling it a "gaffe" is actually being kind. Here's just one of those rare BLPs where there's very little not-negative to say in the political section. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a gaffe (taken as used here, saying one thing when he implies another due to something like a brainfart or spur of the moment mistake), and an extreme or far-fetched political position that he otherwise stands behind. The latter is of course what has drawn some attention to him, but he has also made numerous gaffes that, at selected times, has made his message hard to figure out. But they are two very distinct concepts, and attempting to treat it as one is definitely against BLP/NPOV. Masem (t) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. "Gaffe" is actually far too charitable a description of his many statements, though RS have called them this. I don't really care if we call them "gaffes," "statements," "positions," or whatever else. He said those things, and reliable sources talked about that, so those things belong in the article, and there's no BLP violation. It's style quibbling. It just so happens that most of his statements were about his positions, or views, or whatever. BLP doesn't say you can't say anything negative or anything that makes someone look bad or look foolish. That's an extremely maximalist interpretation of BLP, which is mostly to protect people from vicious attacks like libels and that sort of thing. If you're a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and RS report you making public gaffes on your political views, that belongs in the article. Andre🚐 01:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP absolutely does say we are to protect BLP from being made to look more negative than what sources give, and this is a fundamental problem when we are a tertiary source... WP editors nearly always want to include the negative but not necessary balance out the positive, so we are making these articles too negative relative to what RSes actually say. Yes, the RSes talk about his gaffes, but they don't like group them all together to make it a laundry list of every gaffe, which absolutely makes him look worse than the RSes say. So we have a responsibility to be far more careful with how we present material here. Masem (t) 02:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The benchmark is that the article should express exactly the proportion of negative to positive information as reliable, published sources do, in proportion to the extent that prominent and reliable sources express said negative or positive information. So a BLP about a public figure with a lot of controversial statements is going to have a more controversial biography given the reflection of said statements in reliable sources. The idea that we need to zero out the negative-positive value to 50-50 is not correct, in my view, NPOV doesn't say we need to both-sides reality, NPOV says we need to be neutral in hewing very closely to the weight of reliable sources. If reliable sources say it and it meets standards for meaningful, relevant, encyclopedic material, we get to say it. Especially if it's a quote and not even a Wikivoice description of anything controversial: it's literally just letting the BLP speak for himself. Nothing was an allegation, or an opinion, or a controversial claim. Andre🚐 02:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a DUE/false balance issues, its how the message is being put across, which is a tone and neutrality issue. I don't see sources readily trying to make him look like an idiot because of his gaffes, there's separate discussion of his gaffes from his political positions and that's what we should reflect too. Masem (t) 03:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If Walker gets elected (and he's leading in the polls), the gaffes will just pile on but at least the actual political positions would flesh out over 6 years. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The race is a statistical dead heat and a tossup.[13] The recent poll that showed a narrow lead for Walker was within the margin of error. Andre🚐 02:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue, not at all. The article accurately presents exactly what he says on the campaign trail. Points: 1) The weird things he says are in response to policy questions or issues. 2) These things have to be quoted exactly; there is no way to paraphrase them. 3) These are not “gaffes,” which would be things like a slip of the tongue; these comments are the best he can do at coming up with a coherent comment on a subject; and 4) his comments are usually so incomprehensible or so far off base that it is one of the most constant things about his campaign. In other words, our article is presenting the candidate exactly as he is, based on his own words and on widespread neutral reporting. If there are particular quotes that people want removed, for reasons which they will have to explain, that is matter for the article talk page, not here. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Uh, we have actual sources that call them "gaffes", so that no, we cannot treat them as "coming up with a coherent comment on a subject". Taking that attitude onto a BLP is a BLP problem which is what is underlying this here. --Masem (t) 02:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If we had other examples where he makes coherent or consistent comments on the same subject, then yes, the things we are talking about here would be gaffes or slips of the tongue or something. And if we did have such comments from him, we would certainly include those comments as his true position. But since these quotes are ALL we have from him on the subject, we have to report them as his positions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure as long as the positions are reported in reliable sources, we should report them. But the need for quotes is highly questionable. Take the abortion quote. The source is from a NYTimes article which expresses his position against a near-total ban on abortions in its own plaintext, so the quote is unnecessary to include.

We definitely should have a section on his gaffes and that can only be demonstrated through a few quotes, certainly. But we should not be flooding the political position section with quotes just because they were also called out as gaffes, when we have RS articles that speak the position directly in a manner that requires no interpretation to summarize. Masem (t) 03:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kiwi Farms

A link to Kiwi Farms's domain name has been removed from its article because that site endangers people's lives. However, it has been added to the talk page of the article anyway (Talk:Kiwi Farms), by a user who originally wanted it in the article, as a comment. It should be removed from there. PBZE (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This is currently the subject on an ongoing RfC Talk:Kiwi_Farms#RfC_on_linking_to_Kiwi_Farms, so it's probably best if editors post their opinion there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We link to Stormfront in its article, where murders have been planned and called for, and that has been retained after a challenge. Sorry, not exactly getting how Kiwi Farms is any different, could you explain further, I might get it if you elaborate? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to know, because, to quote Pontificalibus on Talk:Stormfront (website), Wikipedia is not censored. To have an article about a website without linking to that site would be absurd. If you have anything to challenge this, I would like a discussion on it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that regardless of the result of whether the URL should be included or not (I don't have a strong opinion on the matter) that the result should be consistent with whether or not the Stormfront URL is included. The concerns about including the urls for both articles as you say are basically identical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Are they though? I haven't yet !voted but a I'm leaning towards excluding Kiwifarms but am unconvinced the same for Stormfront or any of the other sites people have named. My impression from what I've is that Stormfront, VDARE, The Right Stuff are all general hate sites of various kinds. They spread general hate speech like how all non whites should be inferior, should be killed etc. I'm assuming they sometimes attack specific individuals but I suspect these are highly notable individuals. I'm sure Obama is disturbed by some of the crap Stormfront has about him and especially his daughters but even the latter is likely more of a general concern and external concern. I'm sure these websites sometimes attack non notable and barely notable living people but it doesn't seem to be their focus. By comparison, a big part of Kiwifarms purpose seems to be to mock and attack living people most of who seem to be non notable and barely notable living people. Indeed they were originally started to attack one such person and even named themselves after it. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides because of this. A skim through the Stormfront discussion mentions their use to organise hate crimes including murders (edit: just noticed this as also mentioned above) which is concerning but I don't consider in the same vein. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Given that their latest provider has kicked them off the service now, and it appears that Moon may be calling it quits, this question may be moot. --Masem (t) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Having a link to this kiwi farms site does not add to or subtract from the danger of the content found there, let's not pretend that an incoming link from the Wikipedia actually matters one way or another. IMO the only time an outgoing link should be censored is if direct harm could come to the reader, e.g. malware at the URL, or something grossly obscene like Goatse. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  External links in Wikipedia infoboxes do matter, as they usually end up in the first page of search results and the Google knowledge panel. In that regard, there's a parallel discussion on Wikidata regarding whether the link should be removed from there as well. Funcrunch (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we to assume the people (or algorithms) who maintain Google knowledge panels have no agency of their own, cannot edit high profile searches as seen fit, and are at the sole mercy of Wikipedia/Wikidata? Clearly this is not true because entities with neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikidata items can have knowledge panels. And if they are mindlessly suckling the data teats of Wiki with no filters in place, shame on them. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your colorful hyperbole aside, according to the Google Knowledge Graph entry I previously linked to (and I did check the source on this), "There is no official documentation of how the Google Knowledge Graph is implemented." Funcrunch (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Per the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED, we should not simply be removing links because the websites they go to are distasteful, when he have an article on said website. The activity of Kiwi Farms users may be harmful, but the website itself will not kill you. Harm being caused to you requires more than simply opening the website. Facebook and Twitter can be harmful too. I think the only instance where it would be appropriate to wholly remove a link is if it is to a website has malware upon being opened or something extreme like child porn (which both cause direct harm upon being opened, regardless of the user interaction with the users of the site). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sasha Roseneil

Hi,

Can we change her current occupation from 'Executive Dean of Social & Historical Sciences Professor of Interdisciplinary Social Science' to 'Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex' please?

She came into post at the start of August 2022

Many thanks, Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Littlejones (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio

Should the name of the suspect be listed at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio? I have asked to have it removed, but with no success. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I am assuming we are talking the suspect accused of raping her (there's a lot of possible victims in that story depending on angle). I would tend to agree that that suspect need not be named even though his name is widely available in many news reports, he's not a public figure and in terms of the narrative for this event, it just needs to be said the suspected rapist was caught and thus validated the story after some tried to whitewash it away. --Masem (t) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked here and at WP:AN for the edits to be permanently removed, but to no avail. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit, that is the worst infobox I've seen on Wikipedia. Event type pregnancy, participants... Jesus Christ. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize to the infobox which I commented on, and to the 10 year old girl who was listed as a participant in her own rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the infobox. Yikes, it should not be in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any article talk page discussion about this. Am I missing it? I'd like to respond there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The info is still in the page history. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jax, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight may get you faster results than anything else you have tried. Include diffs with the request so they can find what diffs contain the offending information. --Jayron32 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd redact this here and now but I can't see where the suspect is named, so I'm not sure what to do, other than WP:G6 the entire article and just leave the last version. Actually, I think I've managed to redact the requested information, citing WP:BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Does this not fall under WP:NOTNEWS? This could probably be merged with Abortion in Ohio. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 closed as keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that existed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think in a year or so it would be possible to get consensus to roll it into another article. I agree with the notnews, but it's hard to tell when something is recent of it will have any lasting significance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Chriselle Lim

The birth date listed in the sidebar is incorrect. It is April 10, 1985, which is correct in the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6a40:3ecb:10b8:3138:8fbc:e653 (talk)

Are there reliable sources that confirm her birthdate to put it in the article? If not, they should be removed per WP:DOB. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Brian Stafford (businessman)

Brian Stafford (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, noticeboard editors! I am Julia and I work at Diligent Corporation. Due to my COI, I posted a request for editor assistance at Talk:Brian_Stafford_(businessman)#BLP_concerns. I question whether recent edits to the Personal life section are problematic based on WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. More info is available on the article Talk page. I appreciate your expertise in this matter. JHDiligent (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy seems entirely reasonable - I've removed the material concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oldest Published Author

Henry T, Bradford DOB 13 October 1930 has had several books published and another is about to be released he may not be as popular or sold as many books as Mr Mcewan but he is considerably older 124.169.219.55 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@124.169.219.55: Can you be specific about which article and content you're referring to? Neiltonks (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that an author who is only 91 years old is the oldest published author. That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Shaneel Lal Multiple issues

It would be great if a fresh pair of eyes could look over the article, as there are two major issues with the article. First, I believe the main editor of the article has a close relationship to the subject, and secondly there is a lot of material on there that I don't think should be, but a fresh pair of eyes would be useful. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of commentary, analysis, and grievances (all considered original research) that are not actually in the cited articles. I don't have time to check every citation, but you are free to remove any text that's is not directly supported by the citations or anything that is only supported by primary sources. The latter makes the article look like a CV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation and removal request about reinsertions of contentious BLP material

Template:BLP others asks to inform reinsertions of contentious material @ WP:BLPN i.e. here. Experienced users may help or guide about removal of contentious content @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault#Re–insertion of WP:BLP violation by dif 1109434561

Evaluation and removal request about reinsertions of contentious BLP material un til some consensus is achieved.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sonia Handelman Meyer

My aunt, photographer Sonia "Sonny" Handelman Meyer, died at 3:15am this morning, September 11th, 2022. She was 102 years old.

I'm a Wikipedia editor, but because I'm related to the subject, my guess is that I can't enter this fact without an external reference. How to proceed?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puroprana (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait until there's an newspaper obituary or announcement and post the link here. Someone will update it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sanjeevi Shanthakumar

Not notable. Looks like fancy page of the subject. --Narrativist (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• You are free to nominate the article for deletion, but he seems to satisfy criteria 6 of WP:ACADEMIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael Fawcett

Having looked this concerning an AfD related to some of the accusations, this comes across as dominated by British tabloid-style accusation and insinuation. I don't know enough to do the cleaning up myself, but I think it could use quite a bit. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that article sucks, but Wikipedians can't resist shoveling crap when newspapers poop it out (even reliable ones). When a "Controversies" section dominates more than half the article, it risks violating WP:BLPBALANCE (and WP:CRITSECTION). True things can be given disproportionate emphasis. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so should not have 'breaking' faacts like "In August 2022, The Sunday Times reported that Fawcett had not yet been interviewed by the police". Okay? cool factoid, but if it wouldn't be printed in Britannica, it probably shouldn't be printed in Wikipedia. Better to err on the conservative side until investigations are complete: the play-by-play presentation of every new development is unencyclopedic and tedious. --Animalparty! (talk)

Doreen Granpeesheh

Doreen Granpeesheh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A newly created account has twice removed a paragraph from Granpeesheh's biography (removal one, removal 2), relating to Granpeesheh's participation in the film Vaxxed. As far as I can tell, the content is well sourced, verifiable, and compliant with the relevant policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP). Two of the sources used are books on the anti-vaccine movement, and support Granpeesheh's participation in the film as well as her commentary on "detoxification". The quotation "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" can be sourced via both the film and the work by Metwally. I've attempted to engage with the editor at their talk page, however they persist in maintaining that the content in the article "is not factual". I'd appreciate it if another editor could review the situation please. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I persist because I've seen the documentary and you have not, obviously. I'm not challenging her participation. The books on the anti-vaccine movement have nothing to do with Dr. Granpeesheh. She has her own book with her own views. The author is taking words of the documenter, Andrew Wakefield, and insinuating Dr. Granpeesheh said them. There is enough misinformation in the autism community and it's reckless to say one of the top experts said "vaccines cause autism" when she has never said that. Provide what time/minutes she said anything like that or provide a transcript. Pointing out Andrew Wakefields views and that see made a simple "appearance" is a far cry from "Dr. Granpeesheh agrees and said vaccines cause autism". Hopefully we only get responses from people FAMILIAR with the documentary. Jessehutch19 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. From what JessHutch19 has said it seems like he's genuinely confused about the sourcing, so hopefully my edit summary there will clear things up. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz and WP:BLPPRIMARY

See discussion here: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Defamation_lawsuit_dismissed?

A judge recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit against Taylor Lorenz. That can be seen in this primary source court document, but AFAIK has not been reported on in reliable (secondary) sources. In our article on her we mention the lawsuit, but not that it has now been dismissed. WP:BLPPRIMARY says that we shouldn't use such court documents as sources, but if we don't use it, we have no other source to say that the case has been dismissed, and so can't update our article, leaving it to be misleading/inaccurate/out of date. What should we do here -- ignore the letter of WP:BLPPRIMARY and include the update sourced to that court document anyway? Endwise (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, this does leave us in a bit of a conundrum. I believe that we are potentially causing undue/unwarranted reputational harm to Ms. Lorenz and the NYT by not updating it in this instance -- perhaps with a {{better source needed}} template as a bit of a compromise. As Endwise said, this appears to be the spirit and literal wording of BLPPRIMARY colliding. I think that until such a secondary source arises (hopefully one does), we probably need to use this court document/order. I would specify that its use be limited to the fact that the case was dismissed so as to comply with BLPPRIMARY as much as possible while also being fair to the subjects. Right now the article is unfairly (WP:DUE) stating that it is pending when the case was dismissed by the judge, thus upholding (at this time) that Lorenz et al didn't do anything wrong. This feels complicated from wiki perspective; I don't like IAR around BLP but there is an argument to be made here per BLP that it would be in the subject's best interest (and in the interest of WP:NPOV) in this case to at least temporarily use the source. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Additionally: as a rule we should strive to avoid driving the news, by covering topics or sources where media hasn’t. But, at the top of the BLP guidance, we are instructed ”the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment”, which I think probably prevails on this. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These sort of cases are always complicated, I have no clear opinion on what to do but I'd remind editors that that isn't uncommon when this arises, this isn't a simple case doing no harm by IAR. There isn't one living person affected, as some other commentators have suggest but in fact two. If we report the lawsuit was dismissed based on a primary source, we're affecting another living individual who is even named in our article. And remember it isn't simply a case of reporting the truth since we're reporting something that for whatever reason, secondary sources do not think matters about either individual. BTW, I would strongly oppose including this if it were only NYT affected. We should never put reputational harm to a large organisation ahead of harm to a living person by reporting something secondary sources have chosen to ignore. In otherwords, to be blunt, whether it's Fox News or the NYT, fuck them, we should not be reporting things about living persons just because their reputation suffers otherwise. I mean NYT is reputable enough that I would be fine with using them as a source on the lawsuit being dismissed. If even they don't think it was enough to report, then we shouldn't either. One factor why sources may have failed to report this dismissal, beyond the fact it seems a fairly run-of-the mill random lawsuit that happens all the time that just so happened to get attention, is that it doesn't sound like the lawsuit is definitely over. The primary source seems to suggest it could be refiled with the error corrected. The possibility the particular error could be corrected isn't for us as editors to judge. In other words, the lawsuit may have been dismissed, but it's not clear yet whether it's over. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince Andrew

Long standing issue in the lede. [14]

1. Giuffre at 17 is not considered a minor in the UK. 2. He's never been charged or accused of child sexual abuse. 3. The wikilink in there is piped to Age of consent implying she was underage.

As I see it, multiple BLP violations but when an attempt was made at addressing this it's being reverted on sight as a "long standing consensus". AFAIK "consensus" doesn't trump WP:BLP concerning libellous commentary, the BLP issues raised about the removal of such incorrect allegations should be addressed separately and not by simply reverting. WCM_email 07:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen on the thread on the article talk page, that's not quite the full story. WMC reverted to new text about Giuffre which could also be seen as a BLP issue and certainly WP:UNDUE. I think there's a simple solution: leave the original text sans the reference to child sexual abuse. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, this resolves it. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out the editing history [15], you had two reverts [16],[17] Neither of your reverts identified a BLP concern, which the original editor did in their edit summary [18]. It was reverted a 3rd time [19] again not addressing BLP concerns, which I identified in my own edit summary [20] but citing different BLP concerns. Nontheless it restored text that included WP:BLP violations. As I see it, the summary above is accurate, fortunately there is now an ongoing discussion. How long has that libellous lead been in place? WCM_email 11:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert you and I reverted no one that raised BLP. But, yes, fortunately I was the one that's put in new wording and removed both the longstanding BLP-issue text and the new BLP-issue text that you restored. I think we're done here. DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

[21] and has now been put back by another editor [22] who expresses the opinion that If it's in a reliable source and hasn't been retracted, we can use it. Period. WP:BLPPUBLIC actually requires multiple reliable sources and even then suggests caution in including this sort of salacious allegation. WCM_email 00:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Bung Mokhtar Radin

The article is very imbalance but I am not sure if it can be speedily deleted because it has references. I would like to ask other editors to take a look and assess if it is eligible for deletion / reduce to stub. Lulusword (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Unauthorized polygamy huh. Well we don't want that. Seriously though, this one looks a bit like a BLP-disaster. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed some stuff. Have not checked if refs are WP:BLP-good WP:RS, but my guess is there's more to be done in that area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Grimes

Recent disruption, removal of sourced content and insistence on referring to the subject by first name, which may suggest WP:COI. At any event, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, so as not to go down an edit warring path. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Question re: Maya Forstater

I'm being told that this is preferable. Both The Times and PinkNews quote a BLP as talking about "sex", but PinkNews, an undeniably biased source, also says it is about questioning people's "gender identity". An IP, and later myself, believe that the quote is preferable, but two editors think the PinkNews version is to be preferred in Wikivoice. Both sides have pointed to WP:BLPRESTORE, but a quote seems much safer on BLP grounds, and that the claim supported by PinkNews alone seems pooly sourced compared to the quote that both sources contain. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think you could refrain from leaving obviously biased notifications of issues when you are upset? No?

First of all, you do not have "more sources" supporting one thing than another; you have one source offering a longer account and one offering a briefer account.

Second, you are arguing that PinkNews is a biased source without acknowledging the fact, well estaished in RS, that The Times is in pursuit of a clear agenda on transgender issues and is also a biased source.

Finally, for some reason you fail to mention that the version you are edit-warring against is the stable version, and that your CRYBLP rationale has been questioned by three other editors. Perhaps you could collaborate with other editors on a more neutral framing of issues, eh what? Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why, aside from a brief request by me on your talk page to self-revert, the first discussion on this is happening at BLPN and not at the article talk page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I know from experience that the article talk page discussion will just be the same 3 of us arguing in circles.

This isn't a notification, but a discussion. Lots of them on this page are like that, and hence are not neutral at all.

The Times has an agenda by simply quoting someone? Even if they did have biased commentary of their own - I haven't checked - a quote is the most neutral option.

Only two editors as of this moment have been on the opposing side from me on this dispute, not three. You and Sideswipe9th. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Times and The Sunday Times have a well documented anti-trans bias in their reporting (The Guardian May 2019, Mermaids November 2019, CNN, October 2021, Feminist Media Studies journal June 2022), with criticism for it covering at least the last 3 years. According to the authors of the paper in Feminist Media Studies, The Times and The Telegraph both mobilise this discourse by backgrounding the voices of trans people and instead foregrounding the voices of transphobic so-called “feminists”, denaturalising transgender womanhood, and positioning trans agency as a threat to the rights of cisgender women and the public as a whole. While this is ultimately a discussion for RSN with regards to transphobia in the British press affecting their objectivity and reliability, I would be very hesitant to claim that this quote is the most neutral option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian reports on a controversy but doesn't seem to call them anything in their own voice. Mermaids is an activist group; "they would say that, wouldn't they?" CNN is an "analysis" (a.k.a. opinion) piece.

But all this is beside the point really - if The Times described it as "women's rights" or some other obviously gender-critical biased framing, I would be against that in favor of a quote. The quote is the safest option. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting nitpicking of the sources independently, instead of assessing them as a whole. And while you could have a point about the Mermaids research piece were it published in isolation, when taken as part of the whole it seems far less a case of something Miss Rice-Davies would say.

Also, CNN's analysis section is not an opinion piece. CNN clearly categorises their opinion articles as such (random example). You've also left the peer reviewed journal piece unaddressed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Both versions are imperfect. Quoting The Times summarizing Falkner: "Someone can believe that people who self identify as a different sex are not the different sex that they self identify," she said. "A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief." Note, Falkner did not say she finds this an "entirely reasonable" belief, only that "A lot of people would.." yet both versions present this as Falkner herself finding the belief reasonable. Compare and contrast: "Someone can believe in ghosts. A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief." Both probably true statements. But it doesn't follow that I believe in ghosts.

Quotations can be used selectively and here the quotation has additionally been deceptively ellided. The Times summarizes this as [Falkner] said it was “entirely reasonable” for people to challenge the biological status of women who were born as men. but the quotation they provide only has Falkner saying “A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief." Not the same thing. PinkNews has an agenda but so does The Times. If you want to argue for a quotation then it should be the full quotation. If you want to argue for a summary of the interview then I would suggest the BBC source, also used in the same section which has: The letter followed a Times interview in May in which Lady Falkner, who was appointed head of the EHRC in December, said that women must have the right to question transgender identity without being abused, stigmatised or risking losing their job. Or we could include both the full quotation and the BBC summary, which I would favour. CIreland (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC summary works for me. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A source that cuts a quote in a way that misrepresents what was actually said should be considered unreliable for the information in question. It looks like the BBC is the best source. Springee (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have used the wording present in the summary featured by the BBC, per these comments. Broadly speaking, of course we shouldn't repeat novel interpretations of quotes from biased sources in Wikipedia's own voice; a direct quote would be preferable to that, but we seem to have a usable neutral summary in this case. Endwise (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you CIreland. The full quote is self-evidently an unbiased representation of Falkner's words, and the BBC summary is the only accurate framing out of the three. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)