Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 10 November 2024

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Lea Haggett

I'm trying to confirm that this person is actually deceased. There is a death date in the article which has HAGGETT, LEA MAUREEN, 1972 GRO Reference: DOR Q2/2014 in Kent (564-1Y) Entry Number 510398914 as the reference, but I don't know how to access that information to confirm if it's right. Please also see the talkpage of Lea's article, where there has been a back-and-fourth with claims from people apparently related/connected to her, but fail to supply anything concrete. Google searches only bring up the following https://forum.athleticsweekly.com/forum/current-events/39336-lea-goodman-nee-haggett with literally nothing else online (that I could find) to support her death. Any help with this mystery would be appreciated. Thank you 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources announcing her death, for Lea Haggett or Lea Goodman, and there is no other info in the article pertaining to her death. It's a mystery to me what that reference means as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The death date and incomprehensible citation were added by Kwib in this series of edits in 2020. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

GRO = General Register Office for England and Wales Schazjmd (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a birth registration from the GRO for her and apparently her twin brother, both had same dob, both had same mother's maiden name and both born in the same district. I couldn't find any death registration with the GRO though for Haggett or Goodman. My assumption is that reference is pertaining to her death certificate, weird though how her death doesn't seem to be documented in sources, that I can find, considering her past notability for representing Great Britain at the 1996 Olympic Games. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have just double checked the GRO reference that I added (General Register Office for England and Wales) and it is correct. It can be checked at the GRO website https://www.gro.gov.uk. Kwib (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Kwib that's just a generic link, do you have a more specific link, or an archived copy, or a screenshot? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I can take a screenshot, no problem. What is the best way to then share this? To load it to Wikimedia? Kwib (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Kwib - have you got the screenshot? it doesn't have to go on wikimedia, any site that can upload a free image will do. thank you

Kwib any help you can provide here would be much appreciated. On a personal note, I do find it incredibly odd that there is no coverage on this person's death anywhere online, seeing as she was a multiple UK champion in the 1990s, won a world junior championship medal, and went to the Olympics. For someone who supposedly died just over ten years ago, and that no-one can uncover anything apart from this generic GRO page, I have my doubts on this being true. But, of course, I could be wrong. 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kwib You've been editing since these requests were posted here. Please can you provide the screenshot AND the URL of the GRO reference so it can be checked by other users? Isaidnoway I shall drop a note on Kwib's talkpage to alert them to the progress of this conversation and the doubts that have been raised. If nothing can be found to support the death of the subject, I will update her article to remove that information. Thank you. 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting on my page. I had not received a notification of the 4 October posting and I appreciate your diligence in following up. I have uploaded a screenshot of the GRO reference here: https://ibb.co/q9qT0DG

The URL I am afraid will simply take you to the GRO website and then you would have to navigate by looking for Lea Haggett. It seems the website is not configured to allow a link directly to the reference. I would note that the reference I supplied is absolutely verifiable, but would involve physically looking at the index or utilising the reference to obtain the death certificate.

I have also uploaded the front page of the Order of Service from Lea's Memorial service. In general, my edits are not connected with me personally. In the case of Lea, she was a friend to a family member, and that family member attended her funeral. Here is that image: https://ibb.co/jWrxqJD

I am also genuinely astonished that there is virtually nothing online pertaining to Lea's death. The fact that a former elite athlete has been so easily overlooked is something that ought to be remedied. I have a mind to write to Athletics Weekly to suggest they do a piece on Lea. Thanks again. Kwib (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Dick Davis (Translator)

Not mentioned in the article is his collected poems volume entitled Love in Another Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.113.11 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Added to "Published works". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jacob Appelbaum

Hagiographer on aisle three. The account is JunkmailU, which says it is a reincarnation of an account called BlueSapphires. My particular concern was some of the accounts first edits sought to paint Appelbaum's accusers as liars, though (for now at least) it has appeared to back off from that effort. This is a request for more eyes on the article.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Murphy's allegations are untrue. I never called anyone a liar!

What i wrote was that: I watched the documentary JA (which is on AppleTV) and I wrote what the documentary detailed: one of the guys who accused JA was himself later accused by the two women who started the board. The guy doesn't like JA, but he wound-up questioning the situation. That was part of the documentary. If you watch the documentary on Apple TV, you can see what what I said was the truth. Whether that's the correct way to write about it on Misplaced Pages may be another question.

Murphy claimed that I'd made a BLP violation against the women. That's false. I didn't draw any conclusions. I wrote about the documentary's content. In any event, I dialed-it-down. Murphy is running around "waving his red hankie", with dramatic flair.

My account is indeed BlueSapphires and I can't log-in, and I'm not getting a password reset, so I made a 2nd temp account, which I declared. He turned that into a crime too.

It seems like he is not neutral, i.e. Murphy distorted the facts, all-around, in a manner which was neither kind, nor accurate.

Thanks for your understanding. Cheers. JunkmailU (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is now a mess. Looks like someone is trying to WP:RGW after watching a documentary. Here is what the lead used to look like; now it has eight paragraphs. And I don't understand this edit either - Nowhere else are the doctoral thesis advisors of any Phd-holder listed on their Bio. - I don't know what is meant by "nowhere else", but it is literally an infobox parameter that is widely used in BLPs, see for example: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Donald J. Harris, David Deutsch and Lex Fridman, just to name a few. The documentary is probably/maybe due for inclusion, but the entire article shouldn't be re-written in favor of the docs narrative. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right in that other people who have Phds listed show their doctoral advisors. This seemed OTT in this case, given that the advisor names were listed before his work was even defined (if you look at the history). Moreover, thesis advisors only appear to be listed on topics or personalities which are REALLY famous, such as : The father of the current Vice President (Donald Harris), the pioneer of Quantum computer (Deutch). I could be wrong, but listing advisors didn't seem appropriate. Perhaps I was wrong.

The introduction was a total mess before, outright libelling someone with rape for whom formal charges were never raised.

But I guess Murphy did a canvassing,and the article is going to be written using the word rape. Chapeau. JunkmailU (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

JunkmailU, here you clearly added the claim "The film found that many of the persons who made the rape allegations had falsely accused others". The claim does not appear anywhere in the only source you provided and I fairly doubt any reliable secondary source will present the film as having findings in that way. So this is a clear BLP violation. Please don't do that again or you can expect at minimum a BLP topic ban. BTW, your own description of what you saw in the documentary above doesn't even support the content you added, not that adding content directly from the documentary was acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. In fact the documentary found that to be the case. So when you say *The claim does not appear anywhere in the only source you provided". YES. It does. In fact, one of the guys who supported that platform, and made allegations against JA, got accused of rape by one-of the two women, she did it online (according to him, in the documentary) - he explains that he was beaten-up by some person-or-persons who was/were holding a phone with he allegation on-it saying "you know why I'm hitting you". It was quite something. Go check it out for yourself.

Returning to the point of my original-sin (!!!) ... in fact, if you look above, I wrote: "If you watch the documentary on Apple TV, you can see what what I said was the truth. Whether that's the correct way to write about it on Misplaced Pages may be another question."

This feels like being cross-examined. Frankly. Spanish-inquisition-ish. JunkmailU (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

<It's like you want to parse my thought-crime. JunkmailU (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal stake in this point, and I changed it. But I made it in good faith to start-with.

Documentaries are not reliable sources. I know their supposed to be fact-based, but they have no editorial oversight and the "facts" are usually stitched together to fit some narrative in order to make it more interesting than actual journalism. A good example is White Wilderness (film) by Walt Disney. It was supposed to be a documentary about animals in the far north where he shows how lemmings commit mass suicide, but it was a complete hoax. They took thousands of shots of lemmings and stitched them all together into this completely fake narrative, thus creating a myth that still persists today. Now I'm not saying all documentaries are that bad (some, like Ken Burns, are rather good) but it's the reason we can't consider them reliable sources. We can't use Ken Burns for history articles anymore than we can use Forensic Files for crime articles.

The factual parts of most documentaries tend to come from reliable sources. For example, Forensic Files gets much of their info from newspapers, so it's best to find those sources and use them instead. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Zareth. Sage advice, well received. JunkmailU (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually hadn't given it enough thought when I made that edit, so I revised. JunkmailU (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabriel Wainer

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabriel_Wainer&oldid=1218964877 The original page was vandalized and it includes insulting and libelous items.

I would appreciate any help to have them as they were in April 2024. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 Oct 2024 (UTC)

While the IP's edit summaries cause me concerns about whether they are editing in good faith, they do have a point about deleting a large chunk of the article, saying his works "don't meet the threshold of merit to be included on a wikipedia page. The benchmark he created and his most influential research has less than 10 citations." Now, the unsourced addition from the IP has already been removed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they were not editing in good faith, that edit summary pales in comparison to the BLPVIO content they added. I left a warning on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred, the 15:00, 3 October 2024‎ edit was revdeleted, but the edit summary is still there and strikes me as a BLPVIO. Would you take a look? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose this is a warning for people vain enough to create autobiographies of themselves that people can vandalise your articles with defamatory information, though this partially the WMF's fault for allowing IP editing of BLPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Gebru

Could someone have a look at Samuel Gebru? I've reverted the recent addition of some unsourced allegations against him here, but the current version of the article has a statement to the same effect on the Political Involvement section, another passing comment in the EGI section and something about his "alleged" school. Looks like this goes back a year or more, and I'm not confident about resolving it myself. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is he notable enough for a wikipedia bio at this point? Not sure its worth resolving if we can't establish notability. If there is not enough sourcing about him, we should consider WP:AFD Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, can't use blogs as refs, added some refs for his high school. If the IP editors add it back, just revert it. Looking at some of the content they have added, it's clear it is vandalism and BLPVIO. An admin might want to take a look at those diffs, see if it should be rev-del. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protection would probably help, the BLPVIO vandalism dates back to 2021. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving that. I'll keep an eye on it and request page protection if further vandalism happens. Re notability, I've added some additional coverage. I'm leaning non-notable despite this, but will leave it for a while and see if anyone responds to the notability tag. Thanks again, Tacyarg (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No comment on notability but I've fixed a bunch of errors where editors haven't even spelt the guy's name correctly. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Exclusion of Dating, Live-In Relationships, and Broken Engagements from BLP Articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force

Dear editors,

I propose the addition of a clause under the Indian Cinema Task Force's Manual of Style (WP:ICTFMOS) that explicitly excludes details about dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements from BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force. This suggestion follows a concerning trend where these personal aspects are disproportionately highlighted, often overshadowing a celebrity's professional achievements.

In the Indian entertainment industry, particularly among A-list celebrities and prominent television personalities, there is a growing trend of using staged relationships, live-in arrangements, and broken engagements as strategic PR tools. While celebrities have the right to discuss their personal lives publicly, these narratives are often orchestrated by media companies and PR managers to generate attention. Even after marriage, some celebrities continue to discuss past relationships on public platforms, which can blur the lines between genuine personal disclosures and PR manipulation. In some cases, reputable sources report these fabrications as fact, making it difficult to distinguish between truth and PR strategy.

What further complicates the issue is the way Misplaced Pages's principle of verifiability (WP:V) is sometimes exploited by PR managers. Once these stories are published in otherwise reliable sources, they are often cited in BLP articles, lending them an air of legitimacy. Journalists and other media outlets sometimes reference Misplaced Pages content, creating a circular reinforcement of potentially misleading information. Misplaced Pages should not amplify content that is based more on PR-driven sensationalism than on factual, career-related information.

While WP:BLP provides general guidance on the removal of certain information, it does not fully address the cultural nuances of the Indian entertainment industry or the PR-driven narratives that often lead to misrepresentation. In Western societies, dating is publicly accepted and often seen as akin to marriage without formal commitment. In India, however, dating tends to be private, usually involving minimal interaction and often arranged by families to assess compatibility. These differences are frequently misrepresented in Misplaced Pages articles, where PR-driven narratives based on Western norms distort the personal image of Indian celebrities.

PR management often sensationalises relationships, including broken engagements, as extensions of dating, strategically manipulating a celebrity's image for public attention. While these narratives may occasionally influence public interest, they rarely contribute to the individual's professional notability. This becomes problematic when exaggerated or fabricated stories are published by reliable sources and included in BLP articles. These narratives, especially concerning female celebrities, result in a disproportionate focus on their personal lives rather than their professional achievements. Broken engagements, in particular, can carry significant social stigma in India, yet they are often portrayed in ways that sensationalise the personal experiences of individuals, further distorting their public image.

WP:BLPPRIVACY does not fully address these cultural nuances or the impact of PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context. For example, live-in relationships are widely accepted in the West but remain controversial in India, often used to sensationalise a celebrity’s image. My proposal discourages the inclusion of such PR-manipulated personal details, ensuring that articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force remain professional, culturally accurate, and gender-neutral, focusing on the subject's contributions rather than on sensationalised personal matters. It is important to emphasise that excluding these details does not limit a celebrity’s autonomy, but ensures that Misplaced Pages maintains its role as a reliable and neutral source.

To address these concerns, I propose the following:

1. Exclusion of dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements: These personal aspects should not be included in BLP articles, as they do not typically contribute to the individual's notability in their professional domain. While there may be public interest in these stories, Misplaced Pages should avoid becoming a platform for amplifying tabloid-like content.
2. Focus on professional achievements: Articles should primarily highlight the subject's contributions to the cinema or television industry, ensuring that their professional work takes precedence over personal life details. The integrity of Misplaced Pages’s content should be safeguarded against PR-driven manipulation.
3. Gender-neutral approach: BLP articles should ensure balanced representation, avoiding poetic or narrative embellishment in one article while reducing the significance of similar content in another. The sensationalisation of personal lives, particularly of female celebrities, should not overshadow their professional accomplishments.

I believe these changes will help maintain the integrity of Misplaced Pages and ensure a fair and accurate portrayal of celebrities, especially in the context of articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.

I welcome any feedback or further discussion on this proposal.

Note-- This proposal was first raised in the Indian Cinema Task Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Film%2FIndian_cinema_task_force#Proposal%3A_Exclusion_of_Dating%2C_Live-In_Relationships%2C_and_Broken_Engagements_from_BLP_Articles_under_Indian_Cinema_Task_Force), where participants suggested that it be posted here for consideration.
W170924 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why the editors at the Indian Cinema Taskforce sent you here – I would have thought that it's up to them to decide what their manual of style says. I'm not sure how much editors here know about the Indian entertainment industry specifically. In general, I would not be unhappy if Misplaced Pages only covered celebrities' dating lives if they have been discussed in high-quality reliable source: if only tabloids and gossip magazines discuss something, we probably shouldn't consider it encyclopedic. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: I acknowledge that this proposal might have been better addressed within the Indian Cinema Task Force, but I was directed here by other editors. I do not have insight into that decision or any existing rules governing it. My main concern is that PR-driven stories, even from reliable sources, blur the line between encyclopedic content and sensationalism, resulting in tabloid-like material in Indian BLP articles. Correcting these articles requires extensive and tiresome case-by-case discussions, which could be avoided through this proposal, preventing similar narratives in the future.W170924 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Paid news in India is a greatly complicating factor here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

May also touch on WP:RS issues then? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem unreasonable on the face of it but is rather task-force specific. Are you asking for a formal survey to take place here in WP:RFC style to decide the matter?

There are specific provisions in various Misplaced Pages:MOS namespace manuals of style (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/India-related articles), and I don't see why there couldn't be something similar under BLP, although I am not sure there is precedent for that. If being added to a subpage of WP:BLP it would probably need to be discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:BLP or at least clearly notified there if this is to become an RFC. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:Thank you for your response. The issue is indeed prominent and visible in celebrity BLP articles, especially those covered by the Indian Cinema Task Force (ICTF). It is less common in other BLPs related to Indian personalities, as such personal events tend to remain private, with public attention often focused only after formal engagements. Considering this, I believe it would be more appropriate to incorporate this guideline specifically into the ICTF’s Manual of Style, with a cross-reference in the broader Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Given the limited scope of the change, I don't think it warrants creating a separate page under WP:BLP. As for the process, I’m not entirely sure how to move this forward correctly. When I raised the issue at ICTF, editors directed me here. Any guidance on next steps or suggestions for relevant region-specific editors to reach out to would be greatly appreciated.W170924 (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:BLPPUBLIC apply in a lot of instances? Where it does then projects can't arrive and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that is at odds with core Misplaced Pages WP:PAG. TarnishedPath 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thank you for pointing out WP:BLPPUBLIC. However, the situations I’ve described don’t fall under the threshold of allegations covered by this policy. My concern isn’t about major scandals or significant allegations, but rather the glorification of private events—such as dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements—that are frequently used by PR teams to generate public attention.
Even though these stories may be reported in reliable sources, the issue is not just about verifiability but about maintaining WP:UNDUE neutrality and relevance. These personal details often add little to the subject's notability and create an imbalance, where PR-driven content overshadows professional achievements.
In many instances, policies like WP:FRUIT and WP:SOAP are not adequately considered, resulting in a narrative style that feels more tabloid-like than encyclopedic, even when coming from otherwise reliable sources. Misplaced Pages’s role is to provide neutral, fact-based content, and my proposal is aimed at preventing unnecessary PR-influenced material from distorting biographies.W170924 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly WP:FRUIT is neither policy nor guidance. It's an essay. Secondly, if there are a bunch of reliable sources reporting something it is not WP:SOAP not WP:UNDUE to reflect those sources. You can always make arguments about how much prose should be devoted to covering the reliable sources but that's an entirely different question. TarnishedPath 23:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we suggesting that gossip from reliable sources is acceptable simply because it’s published? Could this be viewed as a case of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTSCANDAL? While I understand that WP:FRUIT is an essay, does this imply that PR-driven stories automatically qualify as encyclopedic content? Should we reflect on whether tabloid-style language aligns with the principles of WP:UNDUE?W170924 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't say how strongly I oppose your 1st proposal as a broad policy. This can be done on a case by case basis, and an umbrella policy would only stifle the ability to address each individuals article. As for the 2nd proposal, this should already be the case most of the time if the person is note worthy for their achievements. However, a persons relationships may be notable, and broadly excluding them to focus only on professional achievements seems like it could easily be abused to make a page promotional. Many celebrities have very blurred lines between their professional and personal relationships, even striving to create Parasocial interaction. Look at the page Public image of Taylor Swift, and you'll see wide coverage of her romantic affairs as part of what makes her a notable person. When it comes to humans, we should take a gender-neutral approach. That said, it is odd that you want this policy applied to the personal lives "particularly of female celebrities."

What makes a person interesting or noteworthy is hard to pin down, and what someone might consider important others may find irrelevant. Consider an actor trying to portray a celebrity from 50 years ago. Their professional achievements may help them broadly understand the persons career, but it gives them little insight into what the person was thinking or feeling during those achievements. If a person is a scholar of pop culture (they exist I assure you), then the stuff you're trying to remove may be the entire focus of their research. GeogSage 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. While I acknowledge that personal relationships can contribute to public figures' notability, I remain sceptical due to the widespread use of “PR relationships” in the media. My focus here is specifically on the Indian cinema industry, where PR manipulation and sensationalism surrounding personal lives often overshadow professional achievements. Regarding female celebrities, my intention was to highlight that tabloid-style language seems more common in their articles than in those about men. However, my aim is not to prioritise one over the other, but to ensure that all Indian BLP articles are free from sensationalism. I mentioned Indian cinema because this issue is particularly pronounced there, and the ICTF is an active community where these changes could effectively be initiated. This proposal is meant to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming a platform for PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context.W170924 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

An article, vandalism persists (... User:AntiDionysius; User:Daniel Case)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please, someone revert to Special:Diff/1249994783. --109.163.168.198 (talk); 04:41, 10. October 2024. (UTC)

Seong-Jin Cho

Article: Seong-Jin Cho As of four months ago, June 2024, this article was up to standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Seong-Jin_Cho&oldid=1229219333 However, this article now consists almost entirely of uncited information, non-neutral language, with an obvious Korean nationalist bias inserted (e.g. repeated removal of the 'Hanja'/Chinese version of the subject's name, which is standard for those of Korean descent).

Most of these edits are due entirely to months of edits from one person: Floresebius, who is now also attempting to do the same to Yunchan Lim, which I've manually reverted twice after reinsertion by this user. However, no one else is actively maintaining the Seong-Jin Cho article. I believe the page should be reverted to the above diff and the page or user locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.118 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Same is now ongoing on Yunchan Lim 130.132.173.118 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you're calling a "Korean nationalist bias". I haven't looked at the Yunchan article, but from digging into the Seong-Jin article I tend to agree. It reads like an autobiography. I didn't check all the sources, but sampled quite a few. There are some good ones mixed in, but we also have things like concert promos and youtube in there quite a bit. Most of the sources are short and tend to only support the sentence they follow, not the entire paragraph or section above them, so there is a lot of information there that could only have come directly from the subject or someone very close to the subject, so it looks like a case of COI editing to me.

Not to be harsh, but much of it is just too detailed and difficult to read. I mean, the English is very good, but there are many entire paragraphs that consist of a single sentence, simply listing every venue he played at or person he's performed with, or things like that. That makes it difficult to read because of the sheer monotony and how boring it is. It's hard for the reader to absorb and retain info that way, and overshadows the forest with all the trees. I definitely agree it needs to be whittled down a lot.

However, there may be some good info added in there as well, so rather than simply reverting to an earlier stage, perhaps it would be better to go through all the sources, keep what we can and toss out the rest. Unfortunately, this really requires someone who can read Korean fluently to do it right. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Salim Yusuf

An IP user is insisting that a section noting that some of Salim Yusuf's views regarding salt intake and saturated fat is opposed to the mainstream medical consensus is libellous and should be removed. I personally don't see how it is libellous, given the reliable nature of the sources cited, but I thought it would be worthwhile getting input here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any case for libel there, as long as we're faithfully representing what the sources say (and providing they're reliable sources, which at first glance it looks like they are). His medical views are most certainly important to a bio about him, just as a politician's political views are to them.

I really don't know why reporting his views would be an issue at all, but I ask myself this a lot for anyone who comes here worried about being labeled fringe. All the really great scientists of today were the fringe scientists of their time. Lavoisier had his life threatened for speaking out against the phlogiston theory. Wegener was a laughing stock when he proposed plate tectonics. Young had the crap beat out of him for calling light a wave. Those that have their fringe theories immediately accepted, like Einstein, are extremely rare. If history says anything, if you're not being called fringe then you're probably just going to be forgotten.

I don't disagree with his views myself, but then again I tend to eat a lot of salty, fatty foods, as did my dad and most of my ancestors with no ill effect. (Salt was the only way to preserve meat.) Ask any good doctor why and they'll tell you, "We really don't know." If these are the subject's views then it seems to me he should want to stand behind them. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely the question about how Yusuf's views should be the framed, but the fact that his views have brought him into disputes with other doctors and several medical organisations seems relevant and due to include. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Before 2016, Yusuf used to do a lot of valid epidemiology research but he joined the cholesterol denialist camp in 2017 and allied himself with Nina Teicholz, authoring a paper that was funded by her Nutrition Coalition, a group known for promoting all sorts of pseudoscience. These-days much of his content is promoted by fringe figures from the low-carb camp and not on mainstream websites. Yusuf is in conspiracy theory terrority when he claims that Ancel Keys fudged his data . That is a typical low-carb diet talking point that has been discredited.

Yusuf was the co-author of the 2017 PURE study (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) . This is a flawed study that is widely quoted by carnivore diet proponents and those in the low-carb community to justify their belief that saturated fat is "good" in unlimited amounts and "all" carbohydrates are bad. As seen here the study had many methodological problems such as grouping all carbohydrates together , . One study is not going to alter consensus dietary recommendations based on decades of research. As we can see on this link , Yusuf claims the American Heart Association's dietary recommendations are all wrong. He is arguing from an extreme position. I am not convinced we should remove sources from the article just because some of his followers may be upset with it. The article can be updated and improved, it is probably worth mentioning his involvement with the PURE study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the IP is from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada where Yusuf works, I suspect that the IP is someone closely associated with Yusuf, rather than just a fan. The article needs to balance the fact that Salim Yusuf is a distinguished and high-profile cardiologist with his promotion of controversial and widely disputed claims regarding sodium and saturated fat intake. I think the current version does this OK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, his views are not primary to his notability, so it would be undue to give it anymore weight. Besides, if someone is interested in "debunking" his views, opinions are not facts and thus can't be debunked. We can and should show that others disagree with those views as a matter of NPOV, but for purposes of debunking that often tends to have the opposite effect intended. People are far more likely to believe something just because someone tells them not to. For example, I don't trust the medical industry as far as I could throw it because, as I see it, they're puppets of big pharma and for them it's all about the money. People are far too likely to cite some random study or two as fact, but to be scientifically sound those studies need to be repeatable many times over, and they rarely are. One week honey is a magic cure-all, the next it's bee stings, then fish oil, then acacia berries, etc.

Nutritional advice like the food pyramid comes from the FDA whose primary goal is to help the farmers sell their products, not protect the health of the public, so I don't put much stock in them either. I just eat the way I was raised and don't worry about it. The point is, the weight of information is usually far more significant than the info itself, and giving stuff like this more weight than it deserves will often have the exact opposite results that were intended, whereas less weight would be more effective towards that goal. I agree it's probably fine as is.

I also had a feeling the IP was somehow connected with the subject, hence my previous comments about fringe scientists were directed specifically at them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to state those views publicly then by god you should own them. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

libelous sounds vaguely like a legal threat… if any legal threats are bandied about those are grounds for admin actions Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to use the word libelous, but that in itself doesn't constitute a legal threat. It's simply a comment on the info itself, as perceived by the IP editor, and if any info is found to be libelous it should be removed immediately per BLP policy. But I don't see that as being the case here. Just a misunderstanding of the law. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Roberto Rosario

Roberto Rosario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across the article of Roberto Rosario by chance; to me it looks like it has very obviously been edited to put the subject in a more favourable light. All of the stated facts are positive, the 'controversies' section only mentions a controversy made by other companies that he disclosed/solved, and the provided references are questionable at best - three sources are linked that are purportedly meant to illustrate that 'PyCon Cuba a joke', but they link to some April's fools joks post from 2018 and 2 reactions to it.

Finally, a post by him regarding his current status is quoted, but the 'many situations' (as quoted) that led to it it are not listed, referred to, or otherwise acknowledged at all. From doing a bit of google research it seems that the actual reasons where quite controversial, which makes it all the more prudent to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.189.90 (talk) 13:19, 11 october 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any significant edits to the article in the past five years, and the account that created the article has been inactive since 2015, so there is no complaint to be made about recent behavior. If you feel that there are aspects of his biography that need enhancing, you can of course suggest edits or even make them yourself, provided that you have reliable third party sources discussing the matter in ways that do not violate our standards for biographies of living persons. I will note that we prefer to avoid having controversy sections at all. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-public accounts being linked to by IP editor

What I believe to be a non-public Instagram account of a public and notable artist has been linked to multiple times by an IP editor. I'm unsure if this falls under the pervue of BLPN but the content has been removed and the user warned for vandalism as the information was added uncited and inserted in the lede and various locations within the article that aren't external links. This account has done this multiple times to this page. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has been page protected by Drmies for a month, so that should help. And hopefully, the IP editor will heed the warnings on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs (Main Page)

Could I get someone familiar with the policy to double-check content before it hits the main page. Josh Hawley's book Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs has been near universally-panned by critics who mock Hawley for initially supporting the January 6th mob before "running for his life" like a "bitch", ask "Is Josh Hawley All Right?", and describe the book as a "disaster". Two hook facts are approved for Misplaced Pages:Did You Know, both are somewhat negative but I think that is likely necessary to meet WP:NPOV. Any approved hook fact will not run until after the 2024 United States Senate election in Missouri is over.

Comments welcome at: Template:Did you know nominations/Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs Rjj (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Pinging @Steven1991 and @Butterscotch Beluga

Most of this list after 2000 is WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME violations and seems extremely troubling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, before I delve too far into this, I'd like to clarify if we should simply remove names from incidents that lack convictions, or should we flat-out delete those? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The same issue happened for List of Islamophobic incidents. I would appreciate if we can address it as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That article is a mess as well. Arguably, not sure why we have an article like that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider taking both articles to WP:AFD then due to WP:NOTDB, as you suggested on talk? Or should we try to narrow their coverage first before considering deletion? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is what the article was originally approved for? I can see that entries started in 2020 and a number of cases were well-documented, well-sourced and the ones widely discussed in Western media, e.g. Charlottesville ramming, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Steven1991 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. If they weren't convicted of a crime, we shouldn't list it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, I had a look at List of Islamophobic incidents and it appears to have similar problems. Should we address them as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I read your first response already. I haven't looked there yet, but let's focus on managing one topic at a time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For the betterment of Misplaced Pages, it’d be good to address them all. Steven1991 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I know & we should clean that article up as well, I'm just saying that it'd more efficient if we don't split our focus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The entries are as carefully worded as possible to indicate their “suspected” nature, mainly quoted directly from the news articles cited to provide objective descriptions of the hate crimes that happened. Would be there suggestions on how they can be reworded to minimise any impression of presumption of guilt? Steven1991 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at the list suggests there are a lot of incidents that fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. Additionally, if there isn't an article covering the incident it really shouldn't be listed, per WP:DUE. The WP:ONUS is on editors to find consensus for inclusion, and I'd argue about 90% of that list should be deleted per above policies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Mark Carney

Mark Carney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes on this would be nice. Stickhandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added a "controversy" section to the article (after being reverted) that is based on a single sentence from a single source, which doesn't even focus on that supposed "controversy". This is entirely undue weight, and even though I feel justified to remove it again per WP:BLP policies, I'd be more comfortable if someone else did. Stickhandler refused an offer to self-revert. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

They are now repeatedly reverting my changes to the article, ignoring WP:ONUS in the process. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now stepped in. The other editor is claiming on his talk page that his repeated reinsertions of this material are not an edit wa and criticizing the above poster for acting "entitled" to take the concern here. More hands would be welcome. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Jane_Hayley

This article got the name of the person they are covering wrong - her name is Jane Haley (only one y at the end, not after the a). How can this be corrected?

Source: every quoted article on the page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8D40:417C:34E6:5BF4:8C27:DDBF (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, but only since 2021 :/ Afaict you're absolutely correct, so I moved the article, it's now at Jane Haley. Thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.

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)

• This article appears to provide a good overview -- it uses he/him pronouns to refer to him, and he states in the interview "I'll pick out a man in the audience and say, "I'm reading your mind, sir. You're thinking, Is it a man or a woman? Sir, the answer is no."" The pronouns in the intro appear to have been changed to he/him, which is probably correct given it is what is used in an LGBTQ-positive magazine (i.e. not going to be something deliberately misgendering him). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert Rosen (writer)

This is false and possibly libelous: "In 1981 Rosen stole copies of John Lennon's diaries from Frederic Seaman, Lennon's personal assistant, and tried to sell them to Jann Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone Magazine." The footnote for this information, "Double Theft-Rosen Testifies" is a dead link. 2603:7000:3802:27B4:ECF7:7654:9C02:DACF (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

the article does not seem notable anyways. should probably be deleted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff where it was introduced yesterday by an account created yesterday. Then it was reverted today by an account created today, and reverted back again today by an experienced editor, AntiDionysius, who I'm hoping will join the discussion and explain how they decided that the current version is accurate.

Normally, we could check the archived copy of the reference, instantkarma.com, but unfortunately, the Internet Archive is not available right now due to a DDOS attack. Offhand, I don't know that instantkarma.com is a reliable source for anything. The Washington Post says that Seaman pled guilty to grand larceny for stealing the diaries and other material from Yoko Ono, but that's distinct from Rosen allegedly stealing from Seaman or vice versa. Per WP:BLPCRIME, I don't know that either allegation should be there, and it certainly shouldn't be presented as a fact. Per "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," I'm going to remove it, and it can be reintroduced if appropriate later, after further discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Rosen did send a copy of the manuscript to Wenner, who told him he couldn't do anything with it because Rosen had no proof. This is all addressed in the first chapter of his book. I'll open a discussion on the talk page since no one else has. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. When I said "the current version," was referring to this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Jilly Kelley

Jill Kelley is a biography that could use some attention from thoughtful editors with no particular interest in the subject but an interest in NPOV and getting things right. There's some discussion that I posted on the talk page but the tldr is that there's a claim in a reliable source that her charity went bankrupt, but there's also good reason to think that may not be precisely right - per the form 990, it spent all the money donated to it down to the last penny, but there's not really any evidence of filing for bankruptcy. For a few years after the "wind down" (I'll use that for lack of a better term at the moment) it appears to have been revived. I've recommended to the subject that she contact the Huffington Post for a correction, but that may or may not ever happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording has been changed from bankrupt to defunct, which is supported by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Town & Country magazine, refs in the article. Per the Tampa Bay Times - "According to state corporate records, the group was dissolved in 2007". - Gale A308382313. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to deal with the issue very effectively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Vexxed

This has been raised before (Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Vexxed) but I'm still unconvinced by this article, firstly whether they are actually notable or not, and secondly that their death is currently sourced to Reddit. On the other hand, removing that would suggest that they're still alive, which doesn't appear to be the case but pretty much everything regarding this is on social media and therefore unreliable ... Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is an unacceptable source for a death, I reverted those edits. Also agree his notability is questionable, some of those sources look sketchy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Richard Curtis urgent Edits

Dear Editors / Administrators

I am Richard Curtis's assistant. For 6 months now we have been trying to edit his page so that it is up to date, relevant and correct. Every time we have made adjustments they have been deleted and old notes reinstated. Richard is about to receive a humantiarian oscar and so its imperative his page is up to date and lists his campaigning achievements.

Please could you let me know how we can resolve this asap.

Account in question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portobellostudios (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you have made a request for changes at Talk:Richard Curtis#Updating Richards Page. That's in principle the correct way to go about this, but I suspect that particular request is not going to go very far – you seem to have suggested the removal of a lot of text, primarily that which might reflect poorly on Curtis, with no explanation beyond much of what is written is a little out dated or doesnt list his campaigning achievements fully. You'd do much better to suggest one change at a time, and give specific reasoning for it.

For instance, one of your suggestions is to delete the sentence While at Harrow, Curtis directed a school performance of Joe Orton's play The Erpingham Camp; this controversial choice was given the 'green light' by his classics master, James Morwood. Later, Curtis commented that Morwood's support had helped him understand that it was all right "to push boundaries and to be funny". This is supported by an article written by Curtis himself, and seems to have direct relevance to Curtis' later career; I don't understand what your objection to it is.

Other suggestions (e.g. that the entire "controversy" section be deleted") I do understand why Curtis would not want them to be included, but "Curtis doesn't like it" is not a compelling argument from Misplaced Pages's point of view as to whether they should be included. As it is it just looks as though Curtis wants to hide any record of potential criticism, which Misplaced Pages editors generally don't like. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Axl Rose

Axl Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’m reviewing old edits, I can see the tabloid entries were removed in agreement. That information has made its way back in using unreliable sources. A section has been made called “Legal Issues” and another “Lawsuits”. How is this relative to the entertainer’s notability? His biography reads like a personal attack and in every conflict situation and every accusation made, he’s assumed as guilty. The sources are mostly music blogs using clickbait headlines. Demsuz (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of an article must be notable, but there's no expectation that the article's contents are limited to the subject's notability. If you see content that is sourced to an unreliable source or a self-published blog, or where the ostensible source doesn't actually back up the claim, you should remove it. If you think that there are missing viewpoints, you can add them. If you think that the amount of text devoted to his legal issues is WP:UNDUE, you can edit it, or wait to see what kind of discussion your post on the article's Talk page -- only opened yesterday -- leads to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your direction. I did remove twice and it was put back twice. We reached no agreement on the Talk Page. I am seeking more help. Demsuz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s an option for editors who want to expand on stories that stans have an obsession with and that’s to make a separate page. The average person cannot make sense of every non-essential story about him when trying to understand his life and perspective. Demsuz (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the material and while there may be some claims with dubious sourcing (I deleted one where the claim did not match the source), looking at the bulk of sources, I'm seeing both good general sources (Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Deseret News, the L.A. Times) and good music-specific sources (Rolling Stone, Spin, MTV News, Billboard, etc.) I'm not saying that absolutely nothing should be trimmed, but it is hard to assume that legal matters are not worth our attention when the are being covered in significant and reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

To Demsuz, I took a brief look at both the changes you made and at the article as a whole. You're correct, in an article about a celebrity it's really difficult to keep people from inserting every little bit of trivia they can scrape up, no matter how small. We have policies in place to keep this stuff in check, so pay attention, because this will help you with your talk-page argument.

The main policy we have to mitigate this sort of thing is WP:NOPV, and in particular WP:Due weight and WP:Balance. I'd suggest reading those policies very carefully. Outside of Misplaced Pages, "notable" means people are interested in it; that is, it's noteworthy. To avoid confusion between this and Misplaced Pages's definition, I'll use the synonym "significant" to mean this definition. If something is significant or noteworthy, people will write about it in reliable sources, because that's what they do.

I think a lot of people come here with a mistaken idea of what an encyclopedia is, and what one is for. An encyclopedia is not a place for excessive detail. They're quick references designed to give the reader the basic gist of the story without having to read the whole damn story. They're brief summaries, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty, focusing on the most significant aspects of the subject. Weight and balance is how we keep most trivia out of celebrity articles.

What weight and balance means is we take all the sources that exist about a subject and divide up the info like a pie chart. Things that get the most coverage are the most significant and deserve the most space in the article. Things that are less significant get less space, and those with the lowest significance doesn't deserve any. It all depends on the amount of public interest in whatever that thing is, which we can measure fairly accurately this way.

Balance in addition can refer to how the info is arranged in the article. It's like, if you load all the heavy cargo in the back of the boat it will likely sink, but if you evenly disperse the weight the boat will be better balanced. Similarly, putting all the bad stuff in a section titled "legal issues" is like putting all the heavy stuff in the back of the boat. Better would be to work these things into the timeline of events so it's more balanced throughout the article.

Weight and balance are best determined by those who edit the article regularly and are familiar with all the sources, so it's best to take this to the talk page and work it out there. If nothing else, throw down some good arguments for others to read, because once you do that, if you still can't come to a resolution, then you can try our dispute resolution process, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation and it’s written beautifully. This was very helpful and encouraging. I will reread this a couple more times and see about how that info can be integrated throughout the bio. I appreciate the kindness editors like you give when you share your wisdom and experience. Demsuz (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I took your suggestions and put a notice on the Talk Page. I hope editors can rework the page to balance the biography. It has a GA rating. Demsuz (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is Rolling Stone online will use click bait articles and opinion pieces unlike what they publish. Demsuz (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to Delete Categories Affecting BLPs

There is a discussion that may be of interest at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_15#Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent related to a previous BLP discussion here (Patricia Marroquin Norby) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Patricia_Marroquin_Norby . If you have the time and interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Florentina Holzinger

i am Florentina Holzinger, a choreographer, theatre and opera director from austria. recently one of my shows, which deals with women in relationship to the history of the church, gets hijacked from the conservative and far- right movement. since then i am a victim of cyber hate and bullying and the tabloid press. i just detected that also my wikipedia entry (english) got altered recently as a consequence by an internet troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/Florentina_Holzinger The current describtion does in no way represent my artistic work. Please compare here the english and german versions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Florentina_Holzinger

https://de.wikipedia.org/Florentina_Holzinger

I ask you to urgently remove this offensive and wrongful entry about me and my work.

Thank you Florentina Holzinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.38.85 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You should be more specific given everything is well-sourced, as lurid as the claims were. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Onision

There has been disagreement over whether to include some accusations in this BLP. Herostratus is opposed to the information being included while Shamus248 and Sink Cat support the inclusion. We could use some wider input. I don't really have an opinion on this as I am not familiar with how this has been handled in other articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on when to refer to incidents as antisemitic regarding BLP?

In regards to List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime? Furthermore, would it be a violation to refer to something as antisemitic if there were never charges or investigations into the incident as a hate crime, even if sources refer to the incident as antisemitic /potentially antisemitic?

Thank you in advance for your time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's sufficient sourcing for a label we can use the label. If there's not, there isn't.

Convictions really are a special better quality of evidence for accusing someone of a crime, so we certainly shouldn't be saying someone committed a hate crime without a conviction. But they're not necessarily the best source on the elements of the crime by themselves. So if sources agree a crime was antisemitic we can still say that even if that's not present in the original conviction. Loki (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the former, WP:BLP policy is absolutely clear: we don't assert in Misplaced Pages's voice that a living person committed a crime unless and until they have been convicted of such. Whether the events involve antisemitism or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, I tend to believe much of the racism we see today is perpetuated by the media. It just makes a story much juicier if you can put a racial spin on things. There are incidents that are truly racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's not nearly as much as we're led to believe.

That said, "antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime. There must be more to the story that involves a real crime. Or incident. Because an incident does not necessarily imply a crime was committed. I find "incident" to be a rather overly-broad term here, because it could literally mean anything. I often find lists like these to be rather problematic because they become dumping grounds for anything that some editor even remotely believes fits the bill. As any good psychology book will confirm, at the heart of all racism is categorization. Categorization lumps real individuals under a narrowly defined label, or "stereotype". The title of the category is the sole, defining characteristic of anything placed in it, making it a very powerful propaganda tool, so great care must be taken when categorizing people. A list article like this is just a form of categorizing, and it's far too easy to become the very thing you fight against.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is when living people are involved. For example, the first one on the list names a non-notable person as being a part of this incident, and per things like WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, etc., we shouldn't be naming non-notable people like that, especially if the incident is a crime and they have not been convicted. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

""antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime"

This was specifically what I was trying to get at when asking this. Apologies for not making my initial question quite clear, I was struggling to find the proper wording.

According to WP:BLP policy, is it acceptable to refer to an "incident" as antisemitic, even if no one has been convicted of a crime? Is that acceptable or should it be treated the same way as WP:BLPCRIME? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If a preponderance of reliable sources call an incident antisemitic, you have grounds to call it antisemitic. Hate crimes that lead to a conviction as hate crimes are much more rare than incidents that can be reasonably described as antisemitic. But that's not quite the same thing as calling a specific person antisemitic. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone spray paints "Death to the Jews" and swastikas on the wall of a synagogue, and then throws a firebomb though one of its windows, that is an antisemitic crime even if no one is ever arrested or convicted for it. Unsolved crimes are still crimes. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Loki and AndyTheGrump, and I think I agree with asilvering and Cullen328 too, even though the latter two have some disagreement perhaps. But it can be both be true that an event is an unsolved crime, and described as an unsolved crime by RS, and that no living person is accused but not convicted of a crime that would be BLPCRIME and not PUBLICFIGURE. That's the problem with hypotheticals. I disagree with Zaereth, I think we need to trust the RS, whether they are news media or other RS like books and journal articles, when they use a racial or ethnic lens to look at events. As far as Butterscotch Beluga's question, I believe it's clearly being answered here that "antisemitic" isn't a crime necessarily, and if and only if RS call someone antisemitic, Misplaced Pages can do that without running afoul of a BLP bright line. Andre🚐 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We can already see some problem in the article as it stands. For example, the incident listed for 5 October 2024 has three sources, none of which calls the incident anti-semitic in the body of the article in the source's voice (one of them cites police as saying it was antisemitic.) And it's tricky because while the incident involves a visibly Jewish person getting punched, and antisemitism thus seems a likely motive, Jews aren't immune to stray violence from other motives. Should someone be charged, it would be a BLP concern for us to have that linked with antisemitism without specific evidence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a matter for the article's talk page. I am not the author of the article. The question was whether, per OP, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime. The answer is that if RS call it antisemitic, that is fine even if not convicted of any crime. I think the fix to the situation you talked about it is simple, simply attribute the claim to the police, and the problem is solved, assuming what you say about the sources is true and no others exist (I didn't check). Andre🚐 07:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is an anti-semitic incident that is not a hypothetical and no one was arrested or convicted because the two perpetrators were killed by law enforcement: 2019 Jersey City shooting. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this was an antisemitic incident? Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I sure hope not. That is pretty clear, and no BLP issue as you point out. But I think OP was talking about a situation with a living perp who hasn't been convicted. Then there is the question of whether BLP applies. Andre🚐 07:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to conceive of circumstances where a living individual is charged with a crime that some sources have labelled antisemitic. In such circumstances we may need to exercise caution, as stating that an antisemitic incident occurred can sometimes be tantamount to stating that individual charged actually committed a crime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Attributing it might be fine in an article on the crime. But we're talking about a list called "List of antisemitic incidents in the United States". It's not "List of possible antisemitic incidents in the United States". This suggests anything in the list is something that can be called an antisemitic incident in wikivoice the same as if we were to add a category. Which by your own admission we can't do since we need to attribute it to the police instead. I actually agree with the wider point that I don't think we need a hate crime charge to call something an antisemitic incident. I think like terrorism but unlike rape or murder, antisemitic incidents is normally taken to mean something different from crimes where living participants are convicted of hate crimes related to antisemitism. So RS widely calling it an antisemitic incident in their voice is enough. But if the only thing we have is police called it antisemitic and even RS weren't willing to do so in their voice (and they was never any antisemitic related convictions) then IMO it clearly doesn't belong in the list. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight being given to conviction of non-public figure

In the article Larnoch Road murders the conviction of the former detective for drug dealing is mentioned twice in the article, including at the very top. The user doing so has used edit summaries such as 'Place detective Franklin's drug problem up front' and 'This pot smoking detective led the botched prosecution'. Discussion on the talk page has not been useful. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Louise Glover

An AfD on this subject recently closed as keep, but the delete !voters were concerned about issues of balance, harm to the subject, etc - if noticeboard regulars could have a look and clean this up, that would be welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere

This article has a strong, negative bias against Max Lugavere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:2EB0:9C35:3934:A6FF:3CB9 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Without going into specifics, I'd merely note that it is entirely possible for a biography to be strongly negative, and still comply with Misplaced Pages policy, if the negativity is the consequence of following what published reliable sources have to say about the individual. Beyond that, you'd have to be more specific, if you want anyone to take action here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've never heard of Lugavere before, but like many Misplaced Pages articles about dietary writers, this one has problems (although not the most egregious). It appears to use a pre-ordained framing to build references and structure, and sacrifices nuance for an urge to 'debunk' claims or overemphasize the fringe. First: the lead: it's top heavy, and over-emphasizing things that aren't mentioned in the body: "supplements to 'supercharge' the brain" are not mentioned in body, and nowhere in the OSS article is it explicitly stated that Lugavere's views on supplements are not supported by scientific evidence. Secondly, the Little Empty Boxes section makes the WP:SYNTH inference "was negatively reviewed by critics" apparently by simply cherry-picking two negative reviews (from outlets of dubious reliability). A few seconds of Googling finds several Tomato-meter Approved Critic reviews including a positive review from IndieWire, a positive review from an LAist film critic, and a couple more generally positive reviews (here's another) that are likely not Wiki-reliable sources, but arguably of the same caliber of "Movie Jawn" and "Loud and Clear Reviews" currently cited. What is needed is a good deep dive for sources, including print newspaper sources, to more fully and fairly describe the subject, his views, and productions, without giving undue weight to particular critics or elements. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • An addendum, one of the major contributors to the Max Lugavere article and its talk page is also a major contributor to Lugavre's article on RationalWiki, which may explain the underlying tone I perceive, which is "this guy is fringe, so we'll go with that, even if the sources aren't around to call him fringe". --Animalparty! (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    We can see he’s been exposed for his bait-and-switch maneuvers on his website. “ He tells you that his book has “no bias” (an impossible task) and “no B.S.” He writes, “I’m not selling anything. (Seriously!)” Except he is.

    He sends you an email about these amazing sunglasses to help you filter out the blue light that keeps you awake at night. He knows the founder of the company personally, just so you know, so you can grab a pair and save 20$. He’s also really worried about airborne particles causing Alzheimer’s disease, so he reached out to the manufacturer of a fantastic air filter, and you can purchase it for 299$ instead of 599$.”

    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/quackery/brain-health-max-lugavere-and-bait-and-switch-maneuver

    Demsuz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Alex Breingan

Hello there. I am wondering if any editors can help assist. I am very familiar with this story due to the coverage here in New Zealand. An editor who is closely linked to the subject has shared a fair statement on the emotional stress that this Alex Breingan has brought to the subject here . Upon looking at the article itself, every single note about the financial issues and legal issues are cited from just one reporter. This is not giving it a neutral POV at all as per the rules with Misplaced Pages. The only other reporter out of the section talked about a website that was setup and questioned here and about the recievership issues but every single else source is from a single reporter under the Media Insider section of the NZ Herald. This needs to be adjusted and fixed so it's neutral. It's not fair on the subject with a single reporter writing these articles which the subject hasn't even talked back about them being true or not.

The comment earlier claims that they aren't true, alot of the facts. Thank you. Can any experienced editors go and take a look at this? The friend of the subject has asked if the article can be deleted. If this is an option, can this happen? Thank you. It's just very unbalanced, the entire article and shouldn't be mostly cited from one single reporter. The New Zealand Investigation section should be cited from the source of the people doing the investigation, not from a reporter who is reporting everything about the subject. And the furniture purchases is completely a civil issue, not related to his company. --MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a crappy article (which are legion on Wkipedia), with the financial/legal issues over-emphasized, overly-detailed (WP:VNOTSUFF) and written in pedantic Misplaced Pages:Proseline, as if every single news article warrants a new paragraph. The section should be consolidated into a couple paragraphs, to summarize without being so tedious, although some will probably scream "whitewashing!!!". --Animalparty! (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I trimmed a bit. What also worries me is the archive.ph links which violate copyright being used as a reference rather than as an archive link and some close paraphrasing:

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Integrity and Enforcement Team stated that while Breingan is already under consideration for prohibition, any additional breaches of the Companies Act reported to the Registrar of Companies would prompt a review, with enforcement actions considered in line with their established enforcement approach (Misplaced Pages)

While Mr Breingan is already under consideration for prohibition, in the event further breaches of the Companies Act are brought to the attention of the registrar, enforcement action will be considered in accordance with our enforcement approach (Original)

In September 2024, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's (MBIE) Integrity and Enforcement Team confirmed that they were investigating Breingan's suitability for prohibition under Section 385 of the Companies Act 1993. (Misplaced Pages)

is currently investigating Alexander James Breingan’s suitability for prohibition pursuant to section 385 of the Companies Act 1993 Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The single reporter reporting on pretty much all of the issues on the subject is concerning. It does need to be narrowed right down as far as I am aware. It's very unbalanced in this section. A policy on wikipedia is about having a Neutral point of view. This isn't the case here at all. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You weren't far off the mark. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigi Wimala

• Sigi Wimala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Timo Tjahjanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Sigsterz (talk), who claims to be the subject of the first article, has edited these articles to say the subjects are no longer married to each other. We may have a case similar to Emily St. John Mandel's, and I'm wondering what they can be advised to do to avoid having to be interviewed by Slate and just satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. Nardog (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As a stop-gap measure, I edited the latter's body text to say they "married", rather than "are married" or "were married", so it's not inaccurate while we seek sourceable information. Here is an interview from 2022 in which Wimala says she is "alone" (from machine translation). OTOH, I do find this 2022 article that appears to refer to them still being married later than the editor's statement of a 2021 divorce, but it's such a short list item that I don't trust it as a serious source. Here's one from early 2021 that talks about how solid their marriage is. 2023 article that still refers to them as married (but also lists what appears to be a Twitter handle for her, so that could be checked for earlier statements.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Irene Tracey

Irene Tracey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been a handful of substantial additions to Oxford's Vice-Chancellor's page (5k+ bytes to a 30k byte article), mostly by one user, covering Palestinian solidarity encampments and protests happening at the University of Oxford over the past 6 months or so. This would appear to me to be undue weight; however I shouldn't be editing this page and would appreciate someone with a neutral POV who can review.

If someone were willing to take a look and consider what might be appropriate, that would be appreciated. As always, happy to discuss further or provide any additional information/links that would be useful. Liz McCarthy (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's very probably undue. In addition, it's mostly incoherent. It's disjointed, like a collage of different bits and pieces of information rather than a brief summary. I see this a lot in scientific articles, for example, someone comes along with a brilliant new theory of gravity and, instead of summarizing the sources, they cite a single sentence from a hundred different sources and put it all together into an entirely different picture.

For example, we're framing this as a nice, little, peaceful, sit-in protest which wasn't bothering anyone. They took over her office and refused to leave --which is quite a different thing-- and we don't mention any of that! I'd call the cops too. Then we say things like she allowed the police to arrest them. As if she's in control of the cops?

I think this entire thing is probably noteworthy, but could be summed up rather nicely in a simple paragraph or two, a lot more succinctly and directly. For instance, each of the subsections on student response and such, these could easily be reduced to a single sentence each. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. The office occupation is still mentioned in the career section. The user, Kiri of Karitane, appears to be a SPA who gamed ECP in order to add the material. If you continue having issues with them I would take them to WP:AE Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump exempt from WP:BLP

Dion Aiye

Sexual assault allegations here. Polygnotus (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Did Julia Roberts attend college?

A discussion at Talk:Julia Roberts has found there are conflicting sources about whether Roberts attended Georgia State University or if she never pursued higher education. Could we get more input on this and where to go from here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Better to err on the side of caution. It looks like the talk page is coming to a consensus in that direction. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkin

I am pretty sure he is not, in fact, "JOHN CENA," nor the "Dictator" of Virginia. 2600:1700:59E0:B300:64A6:265C:5A7C:5FDE (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ItTollsForThee has reverted the vandalism. Thanks so much for pointing it out. Knitsey (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sources?

Hi everybody. I am an IR student writing a dissertation on protest movements across Central Asia and an analysis of their causes (obviously I'm not just using Misplaced Pages!). On the article Karim Massimov some of the sources are raising red flags for me like this exclusive article which pulls from LiveJournal of all things and Russian language media like RIA Novosti which has links to Sputnik. I wasn't sure who to check the inclusion of such sources with, but there was a link on the Talk page to this noticeboard. Should I trust these sources or should they be removed, and who by? Thank you Jezzaqueen (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick review of the sources, but keep in mind this was from machine-translation so my impressions may not be the same as a native speaker of Russian. I'd wager pretty close, though.

The first two sources are very opinionated and have sort of a "gotcha" tone, so they come off more as persuasive writing than expository. Bad sign. Further more, they seem to be doing some pretty iffy research methods, for example, pricing out all these properties through Zillo. The source is all about him owning a bunch of real estate in America, which I guess is supposed to be a bad thing? (Don't know why, but I suspect some cultural difference.) Most concerning is it shows Google Earth pics of each house and give their addresses, so I think per BLPPRIVACY these should be removed. We're only cherrypicking a small sentence at the end, which is tangential to what the sources are all about.

The third source, on the other hand, is very well-written, and comes off as neutral and professional. That in itself doesn't make it a good source, just that it appears good at first glance. I don't know its reputation for accuracy, reliability, or things like that, but if it's government owned then I highly suspect it's probably not good. Someone who is familiar with Russian media and can read it fluently should really give their input on it, so perhaps WP:RSN would be a good place to ask.

You can remove them, along with the info they cite, yourself. Just leave a detailed edit summary explaining why. (You can link this discussion in your edit summary if you like.) If no one objects then no problem, but if someone restores it you can start a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Zaereth for your advice. I'll remove the sentences referenced by the Exclusive article from the page. Also, thanks for pointing me towards WP:RSN which I didn't know was a thing! I'll see what they say about trusting Ria Novosti later on this afternoon. Jezzaqueen (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jezzaqueen It looks like there has already been quite a bit of discussion and you can see links to the discussion at WP:RIANOVOSTI. Still 7,187 links from WP. You might ask David Gerard who looked at the looked at the source last before starting a discussion. fiveby(zero) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, per that discussion RIA's probably bad now since the thorough RT-ification of Russian state media and is a branch of Sputnik, but used to be okayish maybe with care? But that link's from 2023 so we would ignore it in the normal course of events as it's well into the Sputnik era. The hard part is finding any usable coverage of notable people where all the sources are going to be problematic at best - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is I didn't see the subject in question mentioned in that source anywhere. Maybe I missed it, but I do remember looking. It talks about an attempted coup that I am guessing the subject was somehow allegedly involved in, but it didn't name any names. Good or bad, it doesn't show much relevance to this person without some other source to connect the dots. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF at Devin the Dude

A couple days ago, Devin the Dude made a post on Facebook saying the information about him on Misplaced Pages was incorrect. Several fans saw the issue and tried to correct it, but they didn't know how to add sources so User:Fred Gandt kept reverting them (describing it as vandalism). He then requested semi-protection, which was granted by User:Johnuniq.

An edit request brought my attention to the issue and directed me to the Facebook post, so I used that as the source per WP:ABOUTSELF. I also noticed that the Facebook bio used some of the same language as the Misplaced Pages article, including the old date, so I mentioned that as well and thanked the IP for making the edit request.

Fred Gandt reverted and responded with Are you kidding? Preferring a primary source over independent, secondary, when you know that source disagrees with itself, while also agreeing with some of the info you just changed. Absolutely incredible. Good job. This is why people mock Misplaced Pages. *facepalm*

The issue needs to be resolved one way or another, but I don't plan on engaging with this so it would be helpful if others could take a look and decide where to go from here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hindsight being 20:20 makes for a nice story apparently. How about keeping the discussion in one place? We could have started on the article talk page, but no. Or on the request to remove the protection? No. Here? Apparently not. My talk? No. Yours? No. You're successfully not engaging with me, at all, anywhere, while engaging with everyone else about the article, the contention and me. Feeble. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gandt is correct. We have to rely on third-party published sources with editorial oversight for any claim that a reasonable person could challenge, and this includes DoB. The subject's own Facebook posts don't cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien:re-signing for ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A WP:ABOUTSELF source can absolutely be considered as good on DOB and full name. Compare WP:ALLMUSIC, which seems to have been the source of the DOB. "He's obviously lying that he's older than WP says!" is not a necessary conclusion. Consider also WP:BLPKIND. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We have to rely on third-party published sources with editorial oversight for any claim that a reasonable person could challenge That's not quite true. WP:ABOUTSELF requires that we don't use self-published sources for "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional" claims; I don't think "I was born 1969 rather than 1970" is either unduly self-serving or exceptional. WP:BLPRS requires only a "reliable, published source"; it doesn't say that it must be third-party. (I'm also not convinced that a reasonable person would suggest that someone is lying about their age to make themselves 55 rather than 54: what's the purported motive here?!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We can continue this at article talk, but it was pointed out there that this says 1969 and this says 1970. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Date of birth is controversial often enough that it can and should require a source to be included.

@Caeciliusinhorto: There're myriad reasons, especially in gymnastics and the entertainment industry (TV and film in particular) why someone may want to present their age as different than what it actually is. And by definition, a reliable source is third-party as far as we are concerned; anything a subject themselves says on social media is considered self-published and explicitly not good enough for challengeable biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, Caeciliusinhorto already quoted the policy, which does not make a requirement about third-party sources: WP:BLPRS "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Similarly, WP:BLPSELFPUB does not contain that additional requirement either. – notwally (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally: And I just explained why blindly adhering to the letter of the policy is not a good idea here. If you hadn't noticed, the subject's own words are at odds with themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, you didn't explain anything about "blindly adhering to the letter of the policy". You said "by definition" and "explicitly" while linking to policy pages as if what you were stating is in those policies. It's not. Policy also does not require anything be included. The fact that there are conflicting sources is a perfectly valid reason, even when "blindy adhering to the letter of the policy", to not include certain information. – notwally (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think people get far too obsessed over birthdates. There's somehow this weird idea that a person might be lying about their age and we need to right this great wrong. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, as in, I don't think people consciously think that's what they're doing, but there does seem to be this underlying sense of urgency to it as if we need to expose some great truth or expose them for dirty liars that they are.

People lie about their age all the time. It's as common as lying to your kids about Santa Claus. Who cares. I was 21 until I turned 28, and stayed 28 until I hit 40.

The thing is, it's not very important. In the grand scheme of things, it's not really important at all. It's statistical data not much more significant than height, weight, or eye color. It doesn't reveal anything substantial about the subject, and if removed entirely the article reads exactly the same.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is BLPPRIVACY, because we have to be certain the subject is ok with us publishing the date. If they mention it on their own website, then that pretty well confirms they're ok with it being put out there. I have no reason to doubt them, and even if they're lying does it really matter? If there is some doubt then simply leaving it out won't hurt anything either. I suppose we could say "Source A says this while the subject says that..." but that seems a little pedantic for such trivial information. But what if Source A is the true date and they're not ok with that being published? Zaereth (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd quiet agree with Zaereth on this one. IMO we should only publish dates if there is at least one sufficiently reliable secondary source also publishes the date. If they've just decided to trust the Facebook post, so be it. While I do agree it doesn't matter that much if we're wrong, I think it's far better we're not wrong by just not publishing the date. The date doesn't matter so why publish it when no one else cared to? Also I'm not convinced Allmusic is sufficiently reliable for this purpose and even if they are I'm unconvinced it counts as widely published enough. And importantly, I don't think we can take the subject's Facebook post to indicate that they don't care. If anything it's the opposite, they apparently do care if we publish the other date. Whether this is because it's the wrong date or some other reason it doesn't matter. It's not widely published and the subject does care so......... Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB states "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." In the case under discussion, the source linked to the subject says 2 things on the DOB, and the WP:ALLMUSIC source is arguably not the best/sufficient, so dropping the DOB from the article seems reasonable.

See also Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure there are many reasons why someone might want to present themselves as a different age to what they actually are in general. But in the specific case of a man in his mid-fifties in the music industry I cannot think of a likely reason that he would want to present himself as exactly one year older than he actually is.

That said, the current situation of just not including a date of birth at all seems like a perfectly fine solution. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If sources do not agree, speculation on why one is better than the other is not helpful. There's an error, but it is not possible to guess where it is. Just omitting the conflicting information produces an accurate article. Travelmite (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are many situations where discussion is very helpful about why one source is better than another when there is a conflict between them. We evaluate sources in that manner all the time. In this situation, there are two conflicting sources from the article subject's own verified Facebook account. As a result, I think it would make to not include the date, at least until there is some way to resolve the discrepancy. – notwally (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion partly echoing this is ongoing on the talk page of Devin the Dude. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Florentina Holzinger

Hello, I would like to report that the page of Florentina Holzinger is being hijacked in its content by an editor inserting partial or false information. The current version, edited by me, is the sourced and verified ones. Is it possible to deny editing the file from the aforementioned editor? Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulia Messia (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you'd specify the actual issues that would help. Your version lacks citations and is filled with flummery. Calling information false without specifying what information is false and why it is not true (because all content is supported with citations) would allow editors to actually do something about you concerns. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what issues are in the article as the content appears to be adequately sourced. I also agree with Traumnovelle that the version you created has far too many issues with it. Please realize that Misplaced Pages bases its content on independent, reliable sources. If the content in the article is not supported by those sources, it should be removed or changed, but if the issue is that you do not like or agree with what those reliable sources say, then that is not an issue that can be addressed here. Please also read WP:COPYVIO as it appears you are directly copying from sources, such as the sentence "The performance invites the audience to embark on spectacular physical experiences and explores individual spirituality and faith, sexuality and pain, shame and liberation.", which (aside from not being neutral, encyclopedic langauge) was taken directly from the cited source . It appears may have also been plaigarized. I have also left a message on your talk page about copyright violations so that you have additional information. – notwally (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Mykolas Majauskas

Frankcrook user keeps adding original research and framing (e.g., this phrase: 'While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence, in 2018 Majauskas was accused...') and pushing their non-neutral point of view on the page of a living person. Additionally, they avoid discussion on the talk page, and to make things even worse - they continue removing properly sourced material from the page without any explanation. --美しい歌 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I started making small changes by reviewing each source again and removing anything not covered by the sources. 美しい歌 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

all my edits again were reverted. I will wait fot the admin help here. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Here I made a list of violations and additions to the page that violate the BLP and just have no sources behind in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/Mykolas_Majauskas#Sexual_violence_allegations,_#MeToo :

• of making sexual advances in his apartment after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) - not found in the source; a fabricated sentence made with the hope that non-native speakers won't understand and won't pay close attention to what is actually stated in the source.
• While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - using the tactic of editorial framing to show the subject in a negative light. This type of statement can be seen as biased or non-neutral, as it subtly suggests that the subject's actions or public image are insincere or contradictory without directly stating it. Such framing violates Misplaced Pages’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy and is an emotional language bombardment.
• schoolgirls who have been attacked by Majauskas - not correct, no mention of attack. I've already provided the correct wording (right not it's misleading)
• Allegations were corroborated by a victim who waived her right to privacy and was publicly named; she described a pattern, extending over at least five years - confusing, no sources found about "publicly named" or "pattern extending over at least five years"
• Majauskas hosting alcohol-fueled house parties with schoolgirls - no source found, just added there with the hope that no-one will double check and review the sources
• has never been publicly disclosed by the media due to fears of retaliation - not properly worded
• He was also accused of intimidating the victims. - yes, but it was his opposition faction member, which I already stated and added, but it was reverted
• Following the scandal Majauskas did not resign from his parliamentary seat, continued his political career and remains a catalyst for the Lithuanian chapter of WEF Global Shapers - added without a source; it reads like a fabricated or original research statement

美しい歌 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, could you kindly take a look at this case, please? 美しい歌 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I don't do BLPN. My views are too extreme. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. thank you! 美しい歌 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just started taking a look at some of the disputed content. I looked first at While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - using the tactic of editorial framing to show the subject in a negative light. The source in Lithuanian does appear to suggest that "Until now, M. Majauskas created the image of an exemplary family man and a fighter against any violence." The specific allegation of date rape does not appear to be in the source, nor that he "plied her with alcohol". The article states he made sexual advances which were rejected and that he had been drinking. So I think there is an issue with how that incident is described in the article currently. This article in Lithuanian also details allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour but short of what is written. It does corroborate allegations of anonymous complaints about alcohol-fuelled parties with young political staffers (over 18). I think the section on the allegations could do with some work, it was obviously a significant political issue but some of the current section is poorly-worded. AusLondonder (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AusLondonder exactly. exactly. It’s written in a skewed way, cherry-picking information and making up unusual outcomes, with too much emotion and original research added.

  Also, another hug problem, I can't understand why that user keeps deleting all the other neutral additions — entire sections on political activity, civic activity, etc. I even added more sources and trimmed content that wasn’t properly sourced, but everything was reverted, and my work was lost. If possible, please restore some of my versions and adjust them if necessary 美しい歌 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - should be removed per WP:HEADLINES - News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source - and that quote is from the subheadline and can't be used. That whole section needs to be reviewed and rewritten per what the sources actually state. And this - accused sex offender - needs to be removed immediately from the lead. It looks like to me the wrong version was protected by Daniel Case. Since this is contentious material about a living person that is being disputed for misrepresenting what the sources actually state, the WP:ONUS is on those to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh my God ... you actually used the phrase "the wrong version" with absolutely no apparent sense of self-awareness or irony. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case thanks for protecting the page, hope you will have time to rewrite it in line with BLP and the actual sources. And thank you fellows for helping to evaluate the sources @Isaidnoway @AusLondonder. BTW, I guess the user Frankcrook who pushed blp violations should be restricted from editing the page. Should I raise this question separately somewhere else? 美しい歌 (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Which specific BLP violations did I push, and how?

  When editing Misplaced Pages I am focusing on providing mainstream references and succinctly wording them. I am more than happy when other editors are able to word the sources more precisely, considering how precise automatic translation has become (something I planned to start using as editing default for some time). Unfortunately there are usually few other editors around. The sources you mention are not mine, but apart from nuances of translation I fail to see anything wrong with them.

  I endorse in advance any wording provided by automatic translation except in cases of editorial cherry-picking from said translation. On article's Talk page yesterday I described (some of) 美しい歌 edits as well-intentioned; what I objected to was complete rewrite of the article by 89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv and 美しい歌 repeatedly and falsely claiming their version had consensus (of themselves?).

  As for whether my revert of 89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv complete rewrite of the article was justified I have just reread what Notability is (especially what constitutes significant coverage, reliable sources independent of the subject, context, fringe topics, original research, and self-promotion and publicity) and What Misplaced Pages is not (indiscriminate collection of information, means of promotion, battleground, censored, propaganda). How would you compare your and IP's version to the current version, on all or some of these criteria?Frankcrook (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let more experienced users review the page and take appropriate action regarding the content and your behavior. You cannot just removed anything you want, but you are welcome to discuss and refused too. Besided BLP violations, you have removed well-sourced material, including references from the Parliament and other credible sources. You're only causing more harm to your position. You even threatened to block me, though you're not an administrator, and you were doing so only to push your views, which goes against the friendly and collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. I hope other users will take the time and interest to evaluate what is happening here 美しい歌 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  美しい歌, do you plan to address any of the points/questions I made here or on the article's Talk page? I replied to every single post you made on Talk (I started the thread and invited you there) so it is patently untrue that I "refused to" engage. Unfortunately I found your responses somewhat evasive.

  What is my "position"? This is probably around 5th (?) time you are making a personal accusation, which is in contradiction of Misplaced Pages's Assume good faith advice.

  I did not once "threaten to block" you. While yesterday was the first time ever I used vandalism warnings I was following Misplaced Pages's policy on Vandalism which states: "Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention (...) users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism." After warning you first on your Misplaced Pages profile without using the template, I ran out of warnings after 3; you continued reverting article even after stating you will wait for an administrator's intervention. I then asked for administrator intervention and called for more experienced editors to take a look on the article's Talk page.

  I would prefer to focus on discussing exact edits and specific Misplaced Pages policies instead of having to address your mischaracterizations.Frankcrook (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  In this edit summary, you wrote: the cases have not been settled by either law-enforcement or apology, or proven to be false accusations, so he continues being "accused", as it were. According to this source, it says: "After reviewing the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct," the prosecutor's office's report said. So it has been settled per the prosecutor's statement. And although you did not add sex offender, that contentious label is defined as a person who has committed a sex crime, so according to WP:BLPCRIME, we can't suggest the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. There is no conviction, and according to the prosecutor no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct. So that is an egregious BLPVIO that can not be stated in the lead sentence in Wikivoice, and the article should not have protected to that version with that BLPVIO. And quite frankly, that whole section - Sexual violence allegations - is one gigantic BLPVIO, as the wording in that section does not accurately reflect what the sources actually state. I don't necessarily oppose the allegations being included, but according to our BLP policy - Misplaced Pages must get the article right, and as it stands right now, it is not right. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  MeToo movement made accusations and convictions were not secured in many cases; in fact the accused often chose not to defend themselves; Harvey Weinstein Misplaced Pages page mentions both accusations and convictions. Successfully impeaching Majauskas was prerequisite for prosecution to go ahead; prosecutors said they will not begin the investigation because it was not possible to prove that the anonymous accuser was contractually subordinated to Majauskas, and she would not waive anonymity until he was impeached; however this is not the same as stating, as you do, that prosecutors said "no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct". Would you mind providing the original quotation and the source? In any case, there were (5?) other accusers, including a woman who was publicly named.Frankcrook (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be more precise: "Prokuratūra atsisakė pradėti ikiteisminį tyrimą dėl parlamentaro Mykolo Majausko galimo seksualinio priekabiavimo, nenustačiusi pavaldumo ryšio tarp politiko ir jį anonimiškai kaltinusios merginos. „Pagal turimus duomenis, nenustatyta tarnybinio ar kitokio priklausomumo tarp M. Majausko ir redakcijai duomenis pateikusio asmens“, – ketvirtadienį paskelbė prokuratūra." > "The prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation into the possible sexual harassment of MP Mykolas Majauskas, without establishing a subordinate relationship between the politician and the girl who accused him anonymously. "According to the available data, no official or other affiliation was established between M. Majauskas and the person who submitted the data to the editorial office," the prosecutor's office announced on Thursday."

  I helped myself to a Google translation of the following: "Prokuratūra ir ikiteisminio tyrimo įstaigos nesikiša į privačius asmenų santykius, nevertina etikos ir moralės klausimų, nekontroliuoja ir nesikiša į įstaigų ir organizacijų veiklą, tol, kol nenustatoma nusikalstamos veikos požymių." > "The prosecutor's office and pre-trial investigation institutions do not interfere in the private relationships of individuals, do not evaluate ethical and moral issues, do not control and do not interfere in the activities of institutions and organizations, as long as no signs of a criminal act are detected." It is a general statement from the institutions about their mandate, not judgement concerning this particular case. Elsewhere in the article prosecutors say they did not establish contact with the accuser; Landsbergis says that prosecutors in theory are allowed to initiate the investigation of their own accord in exceptional cases of public interest, but they decline to do so. I would also like to draw your attention that prosecutors specifically mention criminal prosecution; there are other types of prosecution in Lithuania, for example civil, which may (or not) be more applicable in this case. But civil prosecution would still bump into Majauskas parliamentary immunity, therefore, to repeat, this is prerequisite for prosecution (or honest attempt at preparatory investigation) to go ahead.Frankcrook (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  And one more quotation: ""After studying the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to start a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or misdemeanor," the prosecutor's office said in a statement." "Crime" again seems to refer to criminal law; civil law would necessitate the woman/women to make formal, non-anonymous accusations against a person who's "unimpeacheable".Frankcrook (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  As a mental exercise, let's presume innocence and discuss what were the avenues available to Majauskas for the last 6 years. Let's assume he had unknown reasons not to waive his parliamentary immunity. He only needed to sue the women or the media and establish his innocence by winning.Frankcrook (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations do not amount to a conviction. And he wasn't accused of sexual violence, as the section heading suggests, he was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior and/or sexual harassment. The girl did not say that Majauskas forced her to do anything. According to her, he realized that nothing would work out. And plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) ... Majauskas hosting alcohol-fueled house parties are complete fabrications. And there was no civil judgement against him, so he wasn't held liable in that regard. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point of the page I linked is way at the bottom, after all the sarcasm: Admins must be neutral when they protect a page. Other than obvious vandalism, I never make any reverts coincident with a protection. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, my bad, I thought WP:BLP still applied to pages with contentious material on English Misplaced Pages. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's primarily a wording issue, which any editor can now address. The content should not simply be wiped as some IP was trying to do. The topic is clearly worthy of inclusion, the allegations led to two impeachment votes in parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to this source, it says: "After reviewing the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct," the prosecutor's office's report said. So it has been settled per the prosecutor's statement, but yet that info is missing from the article. And although you did not add sex offender, that contentious label is defined as a person who has committed a sex crime, so according to WP:BLPCRIME, we can't suggest the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. There is no conviction, and according to the prosecutor no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct. So that is an egregious BLPVIO that can not be stated in the lead sentence in Wikivoice, and the article should not have protected to that version with that BLPVIO. And quite frankly, that whole section - Sexual violence allegations - is one gigantic BLPVIO, as the wording in that section does not accurately reflect what the sources actually state. I don't necessarily oppose the allegations being included, but according to our BLP policy - Misplaced Pages must get the article right, and as it stands right now, it is not right. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is as far as I know no exception to this where BLP is concerned (one of the rare places in policy where this is so). I suppose the "unsourced or poorly sourced negative statements about a BLP" exception from 3RRNO could also be applied. But as noted here the question seems to be about interpreting the sources, not their quality. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:BLPRESTORE. Zaereth (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  That does not say anything about protecting a page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to our protection policy: when protecting a page, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as poor-quality coverage of living people, and when I raised this issue about the version that was protected, I didn't receive any serious consideration to my good-faith query; I was instead mocked and ridiculed on a community discussion noticeboard. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway :( 美しい歌 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Given the strength of this dispute I'd say that the quality of this coverage of a living person is not settled. As noted it's the wording, which you are trying to settle. And full protection expires soon.

  I chose protection because it doesn't go on individual user's records and because this is what we do during edit wars like this. Clearly, based on all the flak I'm catching here, the consensus is that that was a mistake. I had seriously considered blocking the editors involved who had gone way beyond 3RR. If, after protection ends, this continues, I think blocking all the editors engaged in edit warring from the page for some time might not be a bad idea.

  Alternatively, we could impose 1RR on the page.

  And if you want your version restored, feel free to put a formal edit request on the talk page. Or ask another admin. I really don't want to be seen as taking sides here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't a matter of having my version restored, I've never edited the article. The issue was you protecting a version that contained policy-violating content, which was the completely false and fabricated material about the subject, which is not a wording issue, it's a straight-up BLPVIO issue. And choosing protection to stop edit-warring is fine, but as noted per our protection policy, you also had a duty to avoid protecting a version that contained policy-violating content. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case thank you for your time here! Please advise what to do with the person who, over ten times, removed well-sourced material (not rewrote or adjusted but just removed). As far as I know, that is punished on Misplaced Pages by a temporary or permanent block.

  Another issue is about interpreting the sources—but I must admit, having thoroughly read the sources multiple times, that is a very soft explanation because the sources don't tell what is already in the article, and that is what BLP says—to be careful with.

  So we have a double issue: the removal of content without a valid reason, and the repeated addition of made-up content, trying to manipulate sources and clearly violating BLP. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Repeatedly removing sourced material without explanation is, yes, disruptive. Making one's preferred changes repeatedly while discussion is underway is also something we have blocked many people for. But we should never suggest that BLP requires the inclusion of anything. There have been many times when validly sourced material has been removed after a consensus discussion of its BLP relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Patricia Tolliver Giles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patricia Tolliver Giles

Introductory paragraph of the article appears to be vandalized by people violating NPOV policy for biographies of living persons as a result of recent judicial ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:800:6D90:4429:A66:EAAF:E563 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Alan Holyoake

We have an ongoing situation at Alan Holyoake where an IP editor is reverting the removal of unsourced claims about the article subject that violate WP:BLP. See this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You could request page protection if the issues continue and the IP continues to refuse to respond to any messages or talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the IP has been blocked for now but this appears to be a long-term thing, so I suspect that may be needed at some point. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)]

I looked at this article, and it does not look notable to me at all. I think it could probably be nominated for deletion.GeogSage 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ian Katz/Justine Roberts

Hi

I am Ian Katz (https://en.wikipedia.org/Ian_Katz)

Both my entry and Justine's state that we seperated in 2019. We have since been divorced with a final order being granted on 18 Sept 2024.

Divorce case No: 1685-0858-5153-1765

I would be grateful if you could ammend our pages to reflect this.

Thank You

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.230.157 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is tricky, because Misplaced Pages generally doesn't accept primary court documents because they can easily be misused, which has historically made it difficult for the divorce status to get added to Misplaced Pages biographies when it hasn't been covered by sources like newspapers. This resulted in the infamous case a couple of years ago where Emily St. John Mandel had to give an interview to an online magazine in order to get her divorce status into her Misplaced Pages page. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is here, and I'll let the noticeboard regulars chime in who might have a better idea of what to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I hestitate to use court documents for these purposes (per WP:BLPPRIMARY), I think a Twitter post or similar self-published source would be adequate under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Forcing an article subject to have an independent source for this kind of personal detail seems pointless, especially given how personal this type of information can be and how much having it incorrectly stated on Misplaced Pages could affect the person. – notwally (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed twitter, insta, FB etc or official website, these could all work (and editors noted as much in the Mandel discussion, though after she had got Slate to interview her, it happened pretty quickly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia @Notwally I haven't found any confirmed sm or official website, but I think linkedin would be acceptable in context, provided it says he divorced in 2024, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Susanna_Gibson

One editor wishes to apply a potentially libelous label to Susanna_Gibson. Long discussion on the accuracy of the label did not resolve the disagreement (cf. Talk page). Here's a diff ] at the first entry (I guess) of the use of the label by the editor who is unmoved by the discussion to abandon the label. Pmcc3 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your slick attempt to remove another editor's comment from the discussion notwithstanding, two editors have concluded that label is supported by the sources. Vagenie1 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that and your impugning that it was "Your (my) slick attempt" is misplaced. Looking at the time stamps, as best I can guess, between when I opened the Talk to edit it, the other editor added a comment to their original one, and then when I saved the version I was editing (slowly, intermittently), it over-wrote the one that the other editor had saved while I had my copy open. I don't know how all this works. In this case I recommend the old expression, "better to assume incompetence than malfeasance." Pmcc3 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I might add a possible solution that would make the issue about the label moot: delete the S.G. BLP and replace it with a redirect to a single-event article (cf. also the discussion linked in the top (yellow) box on the Talk:Susanna_Gibson). Pmcc3 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be original research if none of the sources actually label her as a sex worker. Simply deriving this disputed label because RS label the activities as sex work is an analysis that "reaches a conclusion not stated by the sources" per WP:OR. The more appropriate or less disputed label may be webcam model BTW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Webcam model is fine with me but worth noting I have provided a list of sources that describe it as "sex work" which is in the introductory sentence. Vagenie1 (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sex work" not "sex worker". There is a difference. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The behaviors can be described without using inaccurate or misleading labels. Pmcc3 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. Took me a while to figure out RS = reliable sources (I guess). Pmcc3 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Both WM and SW are inaccurate in the sense that if I fix some shingles on my roof, that doesn't make me a roofer, or if someone takes videos of me playing volleyball on the beach, that doesn't make me a beach volleyball player. Inaccurate labels to describe the professional history of S.G. indicates a lack of NPOV ]. Pmcc3 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A bit more on the NPOV concern. I count 18 revisions, most of which are about two words (SW or now WM) that one editor is invested in. I propose that administrators revert the S.G. article to its form on 06Oct24 and freeze it until this discussion about labels asymptotically approaches completion. Pmcc3 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The previous AfD discussion was closed as a redirect‎ with "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal." Vagenie1, you're the one who removed the redirect. Would you say a bit about what had changed that led you to remove the redirect? For example, do you think she's now notable because of her activism? If so, the relative amount of text in the article doesn't reflect that. It looks like all of the current sources discuss the privately streamed sex videos with her husband that were made public without their consent. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with FactOrOpinion, who I think raises several important concerns.) The way the article is written seems problematic, and the way the lead was framed before I made edits to it was even more problematic. I think the fundamental problem is that this article was turned into a redirect in September 2023 after the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson, and was recreated in February 2024 by Vagenie1, with largely the same article (deleted version vs. recreated version) but a few additional sources about the article subject's advocacy work after losing her election. The administrator who closed the AfD noted: "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal". After the article was recreated, there appears to have been efforts to add more and more details about the videos that received media attention into the lead as well as an effort to label the article subject in some way in the lead sentence based on the videos (previously "pornagraphic actress" and now "sex worker" or "webcam model"). Here is the most recent version prior to my edits to the lead. Has the article subject's advocacy work since the election made her notable? I think it's doubtful the news coverage since then alone would satisfy WP:GNG. Even Vagenie1 appears to believe that her primary notability is the news coverage during the election, as they recently removed any mention of her subsequent political advocacy work out of the lead. If she is found to be sufficiently notable based on her activities since losing the election, then we would need to present a balanced, neutral biography, rather than one that is obsessively focused on salacious details reported by news media during a political campaign for a losing candidate. I made the suggestion on the article's talk page to rely more heavily on articles written after the 2023 election, both in consideration of WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:BLP. – notwally (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article being recreated by a brand new user only a few months after being deleted is frankly extremely poor form. I've put the article up for AfD again Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Hopefully this time some protection can be applied so the redirect can stick. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hanni Pham infobox

Singer Hanni Pham of NewJeans fame is incorrectly described as a dual-national in the infobox which states nationality. The archived discussion page suggests that a consensus was reached, however the curt 3-day timeline suggests this was not the case. The reference is a PhD candidate in Canada who only says "The Vietnamese-Australian singer", much in the same way as Misplaced Pages refers to Vietnamese Australians. There is no specific mention of nationality or citizenship. That article suggests that Hanni Pham is the target of nationalist abuse, which Misplaced Pages must avoid inflaming. There is nothing in the article suggesting any considered knowledge of Hanni's citizenship or nationality.

The archived discussion page shows sources are confused, referring to the singer as either "Australian" or "Vietnamese Australian" without reference to nationality. https://www.wikidata.org/Q113455973 refers to her incorrectly as "South Korean-Australian singer". A comment within the page infobox, at nationality incorrect cites the guideline MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES which only refers to having a dash. The policy is that Misplaced Pages must adopt a cautious approach, which is not being done. I submit that the Biographies of living persons guideline is being breached. Travelmite (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity is removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Pompliano

Misplaced Pages:DOX in draft articles

• Draft:Ava "Kris" Tyson 1
• Draft:Ava "Kris" Tyson

I am fairly certain these drafts runs afoul of this policy--Trade (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They run afoul of multiple Misplaced Pages policies: Unsourced negative material on multiple people. I've tagged both for speedy deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we wanna blacklist the title in the draft space entirely if no one are keeping an eye on it. These drafts have been up since August Trade (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted both pages. Worth noting that there is an article with some of these details reliably sourced: Ava Kris Tyson. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I just voted in that discussion for deletion. Thanks for pointing it out. GeogSage 02:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at Robert Norris (sheriff)

E.g. this edit. Polygnotus (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have invited the IP here to explain for us outsiders. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of problematic WEIGHT issues with weak sources and synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no clue who that dude is and I haven't looked at the sources but it looks like Robert Norris (sheriff) can use some work. It is using Google Drive as a source??? Polygnotus (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Net worth

What do we do with claims about the net worth of a living person?

Are any of those websites reliable? Are they just guessing? Rich people hide money and assets, or own stuff that is difficult to quantify in terms of money (e.g. art).

Are some of those sources more reliable than others? I found quite a few for example:

• Financial Review Rich List
• Sunday Times Rich List
• The World's Billionaires
• Forbes 400
• Bloomberg Billionaires Index

If I have an article that contains outdated and potentially contradicting claims like Richard Farleigh, what if anything should be done?

Should we just eat the rich to avoid a future where every rich person has those little and icons in their infobox?

Polygnotus (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are contradictory values then at least one of them are evidently unreliable, and if they can't be reliably sourced then there's not much point in having it. I would thus support the proposal to consume the rich, or at least their infoboxes, as the least troublesome plan of action. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true in general that if two sources claim contradictory things then at least one of them is unreliable, certainly not for something wooly like estimated wealth. Reliable sources can be wrong. In fact, these rich lists (or at least the ones I am familiar with) are very clear that they are only estimates of wealth based on publicly available information; even if all of them were estimating at the same time with exactly the same information they may not come to the same totals, as they estimate the value of e.g. art and property differently. If they are making their estimates at different times, then there's also the issue that volatile investments such as stocks and shares can have radically different values in even a short period of time – look at what happened to FTX stock in November 2022 for a recent example.

When quoting rich-list placements we should certainly be clear what it is we are saying ("in 2006, the Sunday Times Rich List estimated John Doe's wealth at £X.y billion" rather than "in 2006, John Doe was worth £X.y billion") and I suspect that we should not include these placements in infoboxes as infoboxes inherently lack the nuance required here, but I don't know that having different sources give different estimates is inherently a problem.

In the specific case of Richard Farleigh, I'm not seeing a contradiction: of the two net worth estimates listed, one is undated but was included in the original article in 2006 so possibly is from around then. In 2006 A$160m ≈ GBP66 (exchange rates were at or a little over 0.4 AUD = 1 GBP), so the estimated net worth is pretty similar. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Varying estimates can form the basis for identifying net worth in the sense of a range. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

1995 education reform

1) 1996 "During his trip to the Philippines, H.E. Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol was conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Education by the Philippine Normal University. His will to reform education and strong leadership in educational management were highly commended." https://web.archive.org/web/20220904100222/https://www.seameo.org/vl/library/dlwelcome/photogallery/president/sukavich.htm

2) 1997 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114483

3) 1998 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141834

Why it was deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.198.215 (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• This was part of a large-scale change in March this year by Paul_012 which they explained on the talkpage. As Paul said in that discussion, the previous version was a complete mess. As the article is semi-protected until March next year, you cannot make changes directly as an unregistered editor, but you can propose edits on Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Amy Shiels

Amy Shiels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, the photo being used for this page is not permitted to be used. I've tried removing it several times, however, someone keeps uploading it. It is not Amy Shiels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wififan1 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Amy Shiels sings (cropped).jpg appears to be the photo in question. I've never heard of her until today, but after comparing other photos in Google, it certainly looks like her. It was taken at a Twin Peaks event per the description, and she was on Twin Peaks. There's a note on the photo page saying the original photographer on Flickr changed the license, but the CC FAQ says that doesn't affect us. I'm not sure what else can be said? Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is permitted to be used, according to this, CC licenses are not revocable. What is your evidence for It is not Amy Shiels.? Isaidnoway (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Weller

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

someone snuck in Paul is a jew hater. Not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.81.34 (talk • contribs)

That was WP:VANDALISM and it has been removed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted all the relevent revisions. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Isaac Mass

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no source other than the website of the law firm, I don't think it qualifies under Misplaced Pages:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.207.254 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mass. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman and The Keys to the White House

My mistake -- I started this thread on the Talk page instead of here. Moving it. Sorry! JamesMLane t c 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman is a professor who’s received considerable media attention for his formulation and application of The Keys to the White House, a method for predicting U.S. presidential elections. There is dispute about whether his prediction of a Trump win in 2016 was correct. Lichtman says he correctly predicted the Electoral College winner, but some critics say he was predicting the winner of the popular vote, which Trump lost.

Repeated edits to the Keys article have taken one side of this dispute, asserting, in Misplaced Pages’s voice, that Lichtman was wrong (violating WP:NPOV). What's more, these edits clearly impute dishonesty to him. (From the version current as I write: "Lichtman...claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College, but this claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016, which explicitly stated that the keys predict the popular vote.") I did a major rewrite that presented both sides of the controversy without endorsing either, and made other changes. It was reverted five minutes later.

The basic problem is that there are three SPAs that are fervently hostile to Lichtman. User:Apprentice57 had one edit in 2007 and one in 2019, then beginning in June 2024 made numerous edits, all of them related to these two articles. User:Tomcleontis and User:Caraturane began editing in June 2024 and have primarily edited these two articles and their Talk pages. All three were pushing a then-recent blog post critical of Lichtman, which they wanted to cite.

My repeated explanations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP got nowhere, so I had to start an RfC. Only one experienced editor, User:Classicfilms, responded. She agreed that BLP applied and that my version was better. Another experienced and previously uninvolved editor, User:LittleJerry, did not join the RfC, but made this edit to remove some of the POV. Apprentice57 reverted. LittleJerry restored his correction, commenting that the POV violation was obvious. This time it was Caraturane who restored the violation.

The three SPAs dismiss the RfC because, according to one of them, a "majority" wanted to keep the attacks on Lichtman. When I pointed out that they were accusing a living person of making a false statement, the response was: "For the record, Lichtman is not being accused of making false statements. He has reportedly, on multiple occasions, made false statements." This blatant BLP violation is defended on the grounds that " strict BLP application to the entire page seems unwarranted."

I'm not trying to suppress the criticism. My NPOV version has a whole section presenting both sides of the controversy without adopting either. Would some other editors knowledgeable about WP:BLP please weigh in? Thanks! JamesMLane t c 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We have all engaged in good faith to try to find compromises here, and I refer to the Talk page at large for a more thorough discusion of this, which I also ask independent editors to review. We've also cited numerous independent sources which dug into this discrepancy (not just single lines about his record, but about the dispute itself) and reached the conclusion that he has been inconsistent or dishonest about it:

https://www.imediaethics.org/did-professor-allan-lichtman-correctly-predict-the-winner-of-the-2016-presidential-election-his-own-book-says-no/

https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/

Tomcleontis (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As Tomcleontis says, he and his allies have reached a conclusion, and they want their conclusion (that Lichtman "has been inconsistent or dishonest") to be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice.

That's not a rebuttal; it's a confession. JamesMLane t c 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't me or "my allies"... this is the reporting of independent sources, which I encourage you to read and rely upon. Time and time again JamesMLane has suggested we have all engaged in bad faith just because we push back against his unilateral changes and cite actual sources. This is despite my own attempts to try to find good faith compromises concerning wording, sourcing, etc. but it's really out of control how tooth and nail this has become because of the acts of said editor. Several editors all reached these same neutral conclusions relying on these sources (these are not our own conclusions, other than the plain reading arugment, which is clear), which have reported on this dispute in more depth than any of us could. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the first two sources cited above by Tomcleontis (I cannot access the Atlantic article), I'm not sure how much weight should be given to them, but I think the issue boils down to this quote from the first one: "The fact is, Lichtman’s model did not predict that Trump would win the presidency. It really predicted that Trump would win the popular vote. It’s an inconvenient fact that Lichtman will not acknowledge, as numerous media stories tout his unblemished record." If this is the case, that most media outlets report that he was correct in his 2016 prediction, then that is what should be reported. Maybe there should also be an additional sentence or note mentioning that there have been challenges to the 2016 prediction based on this distinction between winning the election (which is determined by the electoral college) and winning the popular vote, but it seems like even these sources admit that is not the widely-held view of most reliable sources. The edits adding in words like "claims" do not seem appropriate. – notwally (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Was able to get a link to Atlantic that should work, sorry I didn't even think of that. So I think a key part of this problem is the sources that actually report on the discrepancy all come down on the side of 2016 being wrong, but those that only catch the headline don't really say much more and just add a sentence. What is undeniable is that Lichtman's own book and paper from 2016 (including before and after his September 23 prediction) said the system not just only predicted the popular vote but did not predict the Electoral College, this is a point many of the editors have relied upon is that any plain reading makes a pretty clear case. Tomcleontis (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, notwally, you've identified the crux of the dispute. There are indeed sources criticizing Lichtman for an allegedly wrong 2016 prediction (based on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue). In my rewrite, I cited the most prominent of them, Nate Silver. He's not unbiased -- he and Lichtman have been trading barbs online for years -- but he's a notable person in the field of election prediction. I also linked to the sources relied on by Lichtman's critics, namely writings by Lichtman referring to the popular vote. I also quoted Lichtman's response (he had switched to predicting electoral votes), as well as the independent media that credit him with a correct prediction. That, IMO, is the WP:NPOV way.

  If Tomcleontis really thinks that there's "a pretty clear case" in favor of his opinion, then there's no need to spoonfeed it to the readers. We just explain both sides and let the readers draw their own conclusions. JamesMLane t c 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would argue that the critics all identified in the current system are relevant, or at least more thorough than Nate Silver, given a number of them (particularly the Postrider critics, who are not so much critics as reporters on this) are noted as the named Lichtman critics in numerous articles. Julia Azari is also a prominent scholar on these issues and she is cited. The iMediaEthics source is also useful in terms of providing context (though again, another source that is not so much critics, as it is reporting). The Newsweek and Atlantic sources cite many of these critics as well but are obviously the most prestigious sources to comment on this, though I note the NY Post does as well. But yes, I'd love to have some neutral editors review. Tomcleontis (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing the prior version that OP posted and their proposed version , I think the proposed version seems far more neutral and informative, particularly the second paragraph of the lead and the "Reception" section, which I believe are the two largest points of contention. – notwally (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can more comprehensively reply later, but a related issue to all this is that JamesMLane will initiate one conflict resolution process, for instance a RfC on the current 13 keys page, and then when it doesn't go their way they'll initiate another one.

This is not proper. The RfC indicated that most want the article to stay the way it was. We can continue to let people weigh in and perhaps that will change, but that's how it is currently. We already addressed the issue of BLP within. You don't get to relitigate the issue in hopes of a better result by rerolling the dice. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, you claim "majority" because three SPAs continue to fight against Misplaced Pages policy. That doesn't mean the RfC went against me. JamesMLane t c 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is ongoing, and currently has found no consensus. The three "SPA"s are us who have been maintaining the page in question and part of the discussion that lead to consensus and to the article in its current form recently. That's another process you didn't like the result of and relitigated with the RfC in the first place.

You created the RfC, which I appreciate but it puts some legitimacy to that process in the first place. See it through to the end, wait some time, and *then* wait to reintroduce the issue.

If you want this to lead to admin intervention/arbitration, this is the way we're headed. I don't recognize this Noticeboard discussion as legitimate. Apprentice57 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire framing of this is inherently unfair. It is not that "critics" are saying he was wrong in 2016, it is that reporters are saying he is wrong. It is that his own work says he was wrong. And there has been a pattern of Lichtman's own bad faith efforts: his wife editing the page, him making explicit calls on his live streams to remove critical material, and calling anyone who has ever reported on his inconsistencies (including third party journalists) unethical or liars.

I also strongly resent this notion that any of us are fervently hostile to anyone, we've all tried to work in good faith to find consensus with JamesMLane, which seems to result in a unilateral act or a persistent resort to an RFC or other noticeboard request. This is despite attempts by Tomcleontis to find compromise, my own good faith efforts to find compromise wording, and repeated pleas by many involved to take a step back for some time to let tensions simmer down. Caraturane (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The amount of space dedicated to retelling (in a biased fashion) the inside baseball of the past arguments on those talk pages rather than BLP itself I hope makes evident to onlookers isn't actually about whether the page adheres to BLP requirements or not. The editor in question wants backup on implementing their version of the article when they failed to get it in the *ongoing* RfC (4-2 against their changes, at time of writing).

On the meta issues, I won't respond comprehensively so as to ratify this as the proper venue for this sort of thing (it isn't). I'll only say that coming to a contrary position on whether the page constitutes a violation of NPOV/BLP isn't actionable. We (the editors JamesMLane complains about) have all been part of the original discussions and consensus that led to those edits in the first place, and have repeatedly tried to find common ground with them on this. We will continue to do so.

Important context is also that we have our guards up for editing the article in the way they ask to do so, as it would move the page to one explicitly desired by Lichtman. He has personally attacked his page and the 13 keys page because they do not recognize his 2016 call as correct. One of his interviewers even tweeted at Jimmy Wales himself about this about getting the page edited. Later, a new user with the same name as his wife attempted to edit the page themself. Shortly after that last incident, JamesMLane began their aggressive pattern of behavior to remove the reporting (not criticism) Lichtman objected to.

On the issue of BLP (assuming it applies here for sake of discussion, which it does for Lichtman's own page but is not immediately obvious for the 13 keys page), I think this may be an unusual situation for editors here to come across. The dispute at hand is whether the facts are so clear that we can recognize that Lichtman's model was wrong in 2016 (as wikipedia does not "both sides" issues to present a false balance: see how it covers issues like climate change (I am not comparing this to Climate Change, I just need a clear inarguable parallel)). This is a proverbial high bar, but I cannot see how we *don't* clear that: Lichtman went on record on the eve of the 2016 election in a paper to say his model (still) predicted the popular vote: "As a national system, the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes." Lichtman used similar language about this consistently until after the 2016 election. The journalists at the postrider point this out very well https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/ (this piece is mostly citing and quoting Lichtman's own record, and I use it just for that limited purpose here), later repeated by the Atlantic et al. Lichtman called the popular vote for Trump in that same paper, and then Trump went on to lose the popular vote.

I think the focus on media sources tends to miss the forest from the trees when we have such a smoking gun from the author himself. Nevertheless, we have previously pointed out that the sources that tend to recognize him calling 2016 correctly tend to be opinion articles with less editorial oversight, or use it as an introduction to his credentials and then dedicate the vast majority of the article to his model regarding 2024. The postrider, the Atlantic, others cited above, etc. are the only pieces I'm aware of that look into his record and they ratify the incorrect call that the wiki page currently recognizes. If there are media sources we are missing, especially those that interrogate his record and come to a contrary conclusion, then I welcome those coming to light.

In short, BLP requires editors to recognize when there is a dispute and to present all sides of said dispute. But there did not seem to be a dispute from Lichtman on this point until after the 2016 election (which is irrelevant when it comes to predictions, and when he has a perverse incentive to not recall his history accurately) and there does not seem to be a dispute from current media sources interrogating his record.

There are always other ways to make the article better, James and another editor here have pointed out that "claim" is problematic language and not suggested by the Manual-of-Style. This is something I would take no issue to amending to less charged language. I would have already made an edit if not for the section being under discussion in the RfC. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your characterization of the RfC is incorrect. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the role of this Noticeboard is incorrect. Your touting of your prior role seems to disregard WP:OWN. Your personal attacks on Lichtman are utterly irrelevant to the question of what the article should say. As for the WP:NPOV violation, you continue to tout one side of the controversy -- a side that we can and should report, as my neutral version does, without our needing to take a position. If, as you contend, there is no dispute, then any reasonable person reading my neutral version will see where the preponderance of the evidence is, right? JamesMLane t c 02:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect how? Are you claiming there is consensus reached by the RfC? Are you disputing that there are 4 top level "support version 1" and only two "support version 2" at the time of writing? I tout no prior role, only prior consensus you seek to undermine because you didn't participate and disagree with it. And there are no personal attacks on Lichtman, I think you may be taking anything that doesn't prop up his record as insulting on his behalf, for some reason.

Misplaced Pages does not both sides issues when the facts are clear. Argue against that on the merits or present your own sources with investigation of his history to counter it. We have been through this over and over again, and you don't get to be the gatekeepers on this. Apprentice57 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)