Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 27 February 2022 (→Michael Woodley). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Dean Henderson rumours

Recently The Sun reported of a domestic abuse case by an unnamed Premier League footballer. The identity of the footballer cannot be revealed due to legal reasons. There have been rumours on social media that the footballer is Dean Henderson, and we may see this added to his article without reliable sources. The content has not been added yet, but hopefully active editors can watch for it and request for page protection if necessary. starship.paint (exalt) 10:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• . It’s started. starship.paint (exalt) 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  How many go arounds like that before we request semi for a bit? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: - I'm guessing three instances of BLP-violating content. I expected more, actually, but thankfully it has been limited to one instance so far, and hopefully this has blown over. starship.paint (exalt) 06:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Siegfried Zielinski

 Courtesy link: Siegfried Zielinski A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The page on Siegfried Zielinski reads like his LinkedIn page. The list of publications is overly long for what is supposed to be just a selection. Isn't too much weight being given to this one scholar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japkiw (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japwik you can indicate that on articles using the template {{like resume}}. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz I added it, thank you! Japkiw (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japkiw, fantastic! I've left a message in your talk page with a number of helpful links for other contributions you might want to make to Misplaced Pages. Category:Cleanup templates has a list of other templates similar to {{like resume}} that you might find useful as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sayani Gupta

 Courtesy link: Sayani GuptaFor those interested. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you hover over the name on any other Misplaced Pages article it shows a death threat instead of the usual page preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:ADA7:8300:4542:DF36:5075:B4A2 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is true, but I don't know what template is being used to do this. Short description is normal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming it has something to do with the recent vandalism. I didn't see anything on Wikidata, or in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, yeah. I've also gone through page information but I'm at a loss. I've requested permanent page protection as this page has been vandalized for over a year. I've never seen a page so heavily revdel'd without having protection. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a quick CE edit, and it seems to have resolved the issue. Must have been some weird caching between the revert, or possibly because of the revdel? Who the hell knows. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like most likely issue. I'll see if there's some place where I can report this bug, as it certainly is a very harmful issue. That's such a weird fix tho. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:ADA7:8300:4542:DF36:5075:B4A2 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Lexi Elisha

Anonymous user (possibly the subject of the article or someone working on her behalf) is trying to delete the "Early/Personal Life" section, likely because it contains unfavorable - yet accurate, newsworthy (inasmuch as the entire article is noteworthy), and sourced - information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4850:2CD0:E109:BF9A:9BB2:FAF3 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You brought this to the scrutiny of the wrong noticeboard. What you consider as unfavorable but newsworthy is tabloid trash failing several of our BLP policies (WP:BLPNAME, WP:WELLKNOWN or WP:NPF) with its inadequate sourcing. I also question the notability of this musician or playwright under WP:MUSICBIOWP:CREATIVE and have nominated it for deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling

Hello - Starting 20 Jan 2022, this entry was intentionally revised from neutral to argumentative and biased against the subject. (Please note that I am the subject of the entry.) Obviously it need not be flattering but several revisions are poorly sourced and argumentative. I'm not familiar with Misplaced Pages editing - those who edited this will simply change back edits I figure out how to make. Specific concerns below, any help appreciated: Opening paragraph: 1. "widely criticized for being 'overzealous, grandstanding, and politically motivated'": source does not support this - the comment is in regard to a single matter (involving charges against a local trial judge). 2. "anti-immigration rhetoric in discussions with right-wing pundits": sources do not support this - the subject matter was legal criticism of the sanctuary city movement, which is not "anti-immigration rhetoric," but a policy position on an important current legal issue; Adriana Cohen is a reporter, not a "right-wing pundit." 3. "his partisan criticism of Presidents Biden and Obama while still serving in the role of US Attorney": - source does not support this - article is about drug enforcement policy. There is nothing "partisan" about disagreeing with the anticipated approach of the incoming administration on a policy issue. 4. "and his inappropriate statements such as a call for drug dealers to be "buried." - quote ("buried") is correct, but editorializing ("inappropriate statements") is improper and demonstrates the editor's bias.

In final section ("Indictment of MIT Professor"): 1. "The Department of Justice later announced that, after further investigation, there was no evidence that Dr. Chen violated the law" - this is factually incorrect and unsourced. More accurate: "after further investigation, the government could no longer prove an element of the offense."

Thank you for whatever help you can provide on this. SMaturin99 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not rely government PR for statements about living persons (with the possible exception of very simple stuff like when Lelling resigned) noting that anything we say affects not only Lelling but Chen. Otherwise me might as well use Chen's lawyer

“came forward and told the government how badly they misunderstood the details surrounding scientific and academic collaboration,” saying that “without them this case would likely still be ongoing.”
Mr. Fisher, a partner at Nixon Peabody, said the scientist had “never lied to the government or anyone else.”
“Today is a great day,” he said. “The government finally acknowledged what we have said all along: Professor Gang Chen is an innocent man. Our defense was never based on any legal technicalities. Our defense was this: Gang did not commit any of the offenses he was charged with. Full stop.”

I've reworded the sentence to better match what the NYT says which makes it clear that the prosecution fell apart because the Department of Energy themselves said they didn't think the connnections need to be declared, and they would not have made any difference to their funding decision. Even the U.S. Attorney said "said the decision to withdraw the case had been made after prosecutors obtained new information indicating that the Chinese affiliations at the center of the case were not of material importance to the funding agency" so whatever the DoJ may have said in their PR, it's clear that further investigation meant their case fell apart. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, on further examination I removed the Chen thing. The secondary sources (two NYT articles) make it clear the prosecution was controversial and as I said that it fell apart, but don't significantly link this controversy to Lelling. I also removed the entirety of the Biden and buried thing. You're right that while the source does mention Lelling making these statement, they don't say they were controversial let alone mention the partisan or inappropriate. I also removed the earlier part about anti-immigrant rheoteric since again you're right, the source doesn't mention any criticism. I left in the overzealous thing for now since it is mentioned in the source but removed the widely bit. Note that sources are what matter here. If we had sufficient sources saying he was criticised for his partisan statements or his inappropriate statements our article will reflect this no matter any editor's personal belief that his statements were not partisan or inappropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply - all makes sense. SMaturin99 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Bibo Bergeron

Please take a look at the sources that have been added to this article on Bibo Bergeron: https://es.wikipedia.org/Bibo_Bergeron#cite_ref-:0_4-0

the articles are all linked back to one article that contains unverifiable content. any article that relys on "unidentified sources" is misleading. only accredited news sources should be used. the type of information news reporting that has been added only encourages Media_bias|biased or emotionally loaded impressions of events rather than Journalistic_objectivity|neutrality and may cause a Media_manipulation to the truth of a story.

I am new to Misplaced Pages, trying to figure out how to do this properly. please help? it is not ok for an entertainment magazine to be used as a news source when it is clearly based on selling entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: There is nothing we can do about the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Please take the discussion to Es:Talk:Bibo Bergeron or whatever dispute resolution boards they have, not here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mercy Muroki

Mercy Muroki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent attempts to add an unreferenced date of birth, now culminating in an Instagram post saying "TWENTY SIX FEELS PRETTY GOOD" supposedly referencing a date of birth. FDW777 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking into this, the Instagram does include a photo suggesting a celebration which although it's very ORy at least reduces my concerns that the specific comment could be something someone says weeks or even months later. However the account is unverified and I still have no idea why people always assume someone only ever celebrates their birthday on the exact date. (And while OR suggest it's unlikely in this case, why people assume someone's post is from something that happened on that exact date.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where there are lots of bad sources (Instagram, Companies House, Daily Mail) which tell a consistent story, which is also consistent with known dates when she achieved certain things. Personally I don't have the slightest doubt that that date being argued over is correct, but that doesn't mean that we can use it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Krystal Ball / Kyle Kulinski

Krystal Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyle Kulinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski are the co-hosts on a political podcast. On Valentine's Day, Kulinski tweeted out this photo of them, which Ball retweeted. Trouble is, as far as the reliable sources know, Ball is legally married to someone else. The extent of the new sourcing is this and this, and I've reverted its addition on both pages per WP:BLPGOSSIP. In fact, I just put Ball on extended confirmed protection since autocomfirmed editors were still adding it while I had semi-protected it. Kulinski is permanently semi-protected with arbitration enforcement by El C. Thoughts and input are welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the reverted edit would have read as follows:

On February 14, 2022, Ball publicly confirmed she was in a relationship with co-host Kulinski in a photo of them embracing via Twitter. Author Marianne Williamson verified the post remarking, "The perfect Valentine's Day". There was no other information regarding the status of Ball's marriage at the time.

--NoMagicSpells 06:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Involved). Initially I was against the revert since we have secondary sources, but after investigating, the secondary sources are based on a Twitter post, and that Twitter post is pretty meh. It doesn't actually say "we are in a relationship" or "we are dating". The viewer is left to synthesize that on their own by looking at a photo and some emojis. At this point I think it likely they are in a relationship, but to make sure we get it correct, I think it is reasonable to wait for better sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The previously cited secondary sources aren't exactly high quality RS either in speculating about their relationship. No better than TMZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all the analysis so far. Saying they're in a relationship at this point strikes me, at best, as WP:SYNTH of sources, and not terribly high-quality sources. For me, this falls into the vast canyon of things that are almost certainly true but not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It can't be a SYNTH because information is taken directly from the sources. None of the editors on this thread have proven the sources are unreliable with the information. In the meantime, the Misplaced Pages article can't say the individual is married or not when the current evidence clearly suggests there is no information to state either. POV remarks aside, is the information provided reliable and factually correct or not? --NoMagicSpells 04:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you should read WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The focus appears to be about "gossip" and not on getting the article right. The editors on this thread are aware the Misplaced Pages section for the BLP is incorrect. Do you want the wording in the article to remain inaccurate or provide a solution? If editors want to leave section in its current form then it fails any integrity. --NoMagicSpells 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Which section is "inaccurate" again? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We could just wait for one of them to make a clearer statement, then revisit this at that time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is correct. Gossip and guesses about a tweet with two people hugging is not fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and certainly not worded as you had written it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There were no guesses and the sources reported the information correctly and factually. It's not the sources fault that the individuals (who ironically tout their journalistic integrity) didn't make a clearer statement regarding their relationship. At the very least this edit here which was reverted needs to be reverted back. Otherwise Misplaced Pages will be fuelling that gossip based on older info. The current wording for the opening sentence remains incorrect when editors on this thread know the situation to be different. --NoMagicSpells 05:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There has been little discussion of these sources at RSN, so I cannot say whether they are reliable. However, their conclusion that the two are dating is an analysis of the picture and therefore is not reliable per News organizations. Anyone who thinks that being photographed with a man kissing a woman on the cheek means they are in a relationship obviously doesn't know much about relationships. TFD (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire sentence about her family has been removed because there are no adequate sources that satisfy WP:BLPNAME without synthesis. Same with the name of her ex-husband in the infobox. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm content with this edit. Thanks. --NoMagicSpells 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Catherine L. Ross

Hello, full disclosure I am affiliated with the center run by Dr. Catherine L. Ross. Her Misplaced Pages has received an undisclosed paid editing tag 'requiring a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed'. How would I go about getting that review on the way to get that tag removed? Thanks so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGRD (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since your name presumably stands for "Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development" you should read WP:ISU and WP:NOSHARING. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see this thread from ^^^ SN54129 20:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@CQGRD, I suggest you might get a more sympathetic hearing for an article about a female professor by asking at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Women in Red. They are working to increase Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable women. We are a volunteer organization that is inundated with paid PR people writing glowingly non-encyclopedic articles about topics which often don't meet our standards for inclusion. Lots of volunteer time is spent in cleanup. Catherine L. Ross is an article written by a now blocked user that had to be cleaned of copyright violation. There is little incentive for further help with such articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Chitra_Ramkrishna

Respected Team! I think this bio was started in 2013 and in 2022 (14 years later), the page shows a warning that it has been written like an advertisement. I got interested in the page owing to the latest news flowing about Indian NSE fraud case. Naturally, I wanted to read the lady's Misplaced Pages. Is that a right page I am looking at? How do I know I am not being presented a wrong page and that the page I am looking at is at its best? I mean any indicator that says this page is 99% accurate or 30% accurate? I am knew to Misplaced Pages editing. Sorry if this is a repeat question. Thanks. Anastasius Hartmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnastasiusHartmann (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@AnastasiusHartmann Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer and Reliability of Misplaced Pages may have something helpful. IMO, if you're looking for any reason above personal curiosity, then you should not put your trust in WP-article text, but in the sources provided (if any), if you think they deserve it. WP has a lot of good stuff, a lot of crap, and quality can be very uneven even within a specific article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Poilievre

There is a sentence saying Poilievre supports defunding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Two editors have supported its insertion. Two editors have supported its removal. Further input welcome here or on the talk page]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

As members of this noticeboard know, under WP:BLPBALANCE because of the potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. There are two statements in the article about David Copperfield (illusionist) that fail this test. I have a personal connection to Copperfield, so should not edit the page directly but I have researched the appropriate sources and policies.

1. In the section David Copperfield (illusionist)#Career and business interests, the following two sentences from the end of the sixteenth and final paragraph of the section should be removed:

“This approach, despite its obvious popularity with audiences, has its share of detractors within the profession. One magician has described Copperfield's stage presentations as ‘resembling entertainment the way Velveeta resembles cheese’.”

Here is the actual relevant excerpt of The New Yorker article used as the citation:

And, with that, David Copperfield—a man who owned neither a home nor an automobile but was reported to be looking for a warehouse; a man whose stage presentations were once described to me as “resembling entertainment the way Velveeta resembles cheese”—had bought the Mulholland Library for two million two hundred thousand dollars.

The Misplaced Pages statement is a WP:WEASEL creating a broad generalization about “some” magicians” (plural) that is based on a quote about one person, said to be a “friend of Jay’s.” The person is not even identified in the source as being a magician. Under MOS:QUOTEPOV, while direct quotes with emotive opinions can sometimes be used if relevant to the article, (e.g. from a professional critic), but only with an attribution. The attribution given here is false – there is no “magician” being quoted, merely a remembrance of off-hand snark from a person whose profession or relationship to the author isn’t even identified. There isn’t enough specificity in The New Yorker article to even come up with an attribution, which is perhaps why the editor falsified a weak one. Nor can this quote be paraphrased within policy (with or without an attribution) since it does not present a neutral fact, just an unattributed, anonymous malicious attack. See WP:BLPSTYLE for prohibitions against “contentious labels, loaded language…” and WP:BLPBALANCE for prohibitions against “biased, malicious… content.” The quote also arguably violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it is a snarky anonymous quote. As a whole, this statement is a WP: NPOV violation manufactured to disparage a living person.

2. In the section David Copperfield (illusionist)#International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts, the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph, should be removed

“Copperfield's 1991 Mulholland purchase, which formed the core of his collection, engendered criticism from some magicians. One told a reporter, ‘David Copperfield buying the Mulholland Library is like an Elvis impersonator winding up with Graceland.’”

Here is the actual relevant excerpt of The New Yorker article used as the citation:

A friend of Jay’s who also knew Copperfield said to me later, “David Copperfield buying the Mulholland Library is like an Elvis impersonator winding up with Graceland.”

This is a WP:WEASEL creating a broad generalization about “some magicians” (plural) that is based on a quote about one person, said to be a “friend of Jay’s.” The person is not identified in the source as being a magician. This could be anyone from the rival entertainer’s publicist to an insult comedian to his lawyer. Again, under MOS:QUOTEPOV direct quotes with emotive opinions can sometimes be used if relevant to the article, (e.g. from a professional critic), but only with an attribution. The author does not say that a “magician” is being quoted, He only says he is quoting an anonymous friend of a rival magician, Ricky Jay. The author pointedly does not say the person is a magician. Indeed, there isn’t enough specificity in The New Yorker article to even come up with a Misplaced Pages-acceptable non-anonymous attribution, which is perhaps why the editor falsified a weak one. Nor can this quote be paraphrased within policy (with or without an attribution) since it does not present a neutral fact or relevant opinion, just an unattributed, anonymous malicious attack. See WP:BLPSTYLE for prohibitions against “contentious labels, loaded language…” and WP:BLPBALANCE for prohibitions against “biased, malicious… content.” The quote also arguably violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it is a snarky anonymous quote. As a whole, this statement is a WP: NPOV violation manufactured to disparage a living person.

Thank you for your consideration. MagicTech1902 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Singer, Mark (April 5, 1993). "Secrets of the Magus", The New Yorker, retrieved April 5, 2016.

Bruce George Peter Lee: Primary sources contain important updates

What should be done about the above article? Secondary coverage I can't seem to find anywhere. A fresh appeal has changed matters considerably and contradicts other older material;

• "11 of these were overturned on appeal." This number has increased substantially.
• "Lee was imprisoned for life" the primary source indicates he received a hospital order rather than a custodial sentence.
• The individual's name. The judgement refers to him merely as T, but does not clarify the reasons for this anonymity. It does note Bruce Lee as a name used previously; a BBC article cited once in the article suggests the name should be Peter Tredget. A piece this month from a law firm connected to the case also states Peter Tredget as the appropriate name.
• "arguing due to his physical disabilities he could not have committed the crimes and falsely confessed" is a somewhat misleadingly simplistic summary of the grounds of appeal, albeit an attractively succinct one. This is a complicated appeal heavy with, and revolving around, detailed analysis of a range of concepts and points.

The article also contains a lot of citation needed tags, many of which can be addressed by the primary source. Am I correct in thinking that the source is considered largely unuseable, though, without secondary coverage?

Judgement is here and it's lengthy. I spent much of yesterday and today reading it. Law firm article is here. The BAILII version of the judgement is here. It is the same document, but listed as between R and Tredget rather than simply T.

Any thoughts/advice? 79.71.44.32 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Details that can only be sourced to WP:BLPPRIMARY should be removed. If reliable secondary sources do not bother to report on the detail, we shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

While we sometimes have problems with appeals being given minimal coverage when the hype has died down, given the extremely high profile nature of this case and accused crimes, I'd be surprised if the key details aren't covered in secondary sources. A quick search shows that these article seems to do an okay job of summarising the result of the most recent appeal and also the various claims made in it although I haven't compared them to the judgment. At least one of them does mention he's been detained in a secure mental hospital since 1981. The earlier stuff is probably in the contemporary sources and maybe in general overviews of the case which may exist. I suspect some of the existing sources cover these details and the problem is partly a lack of inline cites although admittedly I see Daily Mail and Daily Mirror as sources, as well as a book by the detective in charge and Tru TV none of which seems to be great sources. (Well not totally sure about Tru TV but, I'm wary of true crime TV documentaries as sources especially when it affects living persons.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A minor note, perhaps, but the Daily Mail of Hull is distinct from the Daily Mail 'of London'. Those new sources, I haven't read them yet (will shortly), but they could hopefully solve the problem. 79.71.44.32 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the ref is Daily Mail of Hull not the deprecated Daily Mail of London so may be fine. I also see that the Tru TV is actually some sort of true crime story on their website rather than a documentary. I still don't think it's a great source, indeed on of the reasons I got confused is it mentioned chapter which I assumed referred to parts of a documentary but it's actually referring to very short chapters in their story. I don't have much experience with that sort of writing but fear like true crime documentaries there may be a great focus on the story telling and entertainment aspect. However it may not be bad enough to require immediate replacement which I feel does apply to Daily Mirror. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Chris Hurst (Virginia Politician)

A user is repeatedly adding false conspiracy theory information to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.23.184 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is protected, and the person that originally added the information has been warned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for my reverting of the removal of the content. I was doing recent changes patrolling and when I looked at the changes made, it looked like content blanking. On closer inspection, the information seems untrustworthy and likely a BLP violation. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Phillipe Cunningham

Article:

• Phillipe Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors:

• Mplsnirvana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MPLSpolitico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mplssouthside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the recent editing at this article. Cunningham is a Minneapolis politician who gained fame for becoming one of the first transgender politicians of color to be elected to public office. He has also held controversial views regarding the defunding the police movement. The editors involved appear to be in an edit war involving whitewashing the article vs over-emphasis of controversy. Some or all of the editors may have a conflict of interest in the matter. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiDan61 please notify the editors of this discussion. Advocacy editing seems clear in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. The directions for this noticeboard only required placing a notice of the discussion on the article talkpage, so that is what I did. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, WikiDan61. Since this thread has a similar tone to WP:COIN threads I forgot we weren't discussing the issue there. I do think it's good to notify editors in their talk pages of all relevant discussions, though, but I see how that is not required in this noticeboard. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:WikiDan61, thank you for your diligence. Can you please clarify from your perspective what the difference is between whitewashing and neutralizing language? I initially came to Cunningham's page because as a constituent, I was really proud of all the work he did and was quite devastated when he lost. I thought it was pretty unfair to have his page littered with overly negative and controversial content. I guess I'm just wondering how balance is created without neutralizing editorialized language and, furthermore, how to address those edits that are very clearly made in bad faith, i.e. the 'powderhorn 9' content Mplssouthside/Mplsnirvana added. Cunningham did so much work, can you please explain why adding it to the page is considered whitewashing? I left the negative/controversial content that the other use actually properly sources - and neutralized their editorial language. I've been monitoring this page at this point purely because that person appears to be trolling. Thanks again for your guidance and all of your effort to maintain wikipedia data integrity. MPLSpolitico (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MPLSpolitico please be aware that your political affiliation is highly likely to skew what you see as neutral. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Checking back in about this - Mplssouthside/Mplsnirvana (same person; see their contribs and history, including the content in the edit summaries they are leaving which there are two summaries with identical language between the two accounts) continues to revert to bad faith and inaccurate/editorialized edits. At this point, I have to wonder if they are a troll or actually getting financial benefit. Any help is greatly appreciated. MPLSpolitico (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If you believe they are the same person, please report this at the Sockpuppet investigations page, MPLSpolitico. In fact, I would encourage you to do so in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Replying to MPLSpolitico re whitewashing: if you remove sourced information because you feel it paints the subject in a negative light, that is whitewashing. If you disagree with the source, you should discuss the matter at the article's talk page, indicating why you think the source is incorrect, providing alternative sources that provide a different perspective. Then editors can collaborate to find a proper neutral article. But that is not what you did.

Also, I received this message on my user talk page that is relevant to this discussion:

Thank you for the messages. I don't know if you are an admin or not but yes, there is an edit war going on with the Phillipe Cunningham page that doesn't need to be. This page was 95% in its original form for YEARS then about a week ago Phillipe Cunningham went on Twitter and asked his supporters to engage in a campaign to scrub his resume. The link for that is here. https://twitter.com/CunninghamMPLS/status/1494825591710916613 . Shortly after, this person mplspolitico COMPLETELY rewrote the wiki page on Cunningham. This person is either Phillipe Cunningham himself or his husband based on the things said. I went back and merged the two hoping it would resolve the issue and once again, mplspolitico took out 95% of what was originally posted. This chain of events is CLEARLY a campaign to make Cunningham look good as he is a politician. I hope the admins fix this as soon as possible. I never wanted to get into this back and forth and I am trying to meet this person in the middle but they seem bent on minimizing any controversy with Cunningham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mplssouthside (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

While I can't confirm that MPLSpolitico is either Phillipe Cunningham or his husband, as alleged, I do recognize that this user has an undue interest in cleaning up this biography. I also recognize that other users appear to be interested in giving undue weight to any controversy about Cunningham. I believe a middle ground needs to be reached, but that may not be possible as long as the two extreme factions are involved in editing the page. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz WikiDan61 I respectfully suggest that the way the other user has been writing is in an editorial format - not just providing information, but using opinionated language. I welcome feedback about where I have done so in my updates. I was initially drawn to this page via google because I follow his twitter and saw the post referenced by the other user. That's when I saw all the negative content on his page. That's when I created this account to update content to the page I found on Cunningham's website and google. It has been my intention to use neutral language, and thoroughly cite sources. I would be interested in knowing what middle ground can look like. Thanks again for your attention and guidance. I will report the account to sockpuppet as suggested by A._C._Santacruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPLSpolitico (talk • contribs)

@MPLSpolitico: I agree that Mplssouthside has edited in a non-neutral fashion, but no more so than you yourself. Both sides of this edit war apparently have feelings on the topic that are too strong in one direction or the other to edit neutrally. I suggest all of the MPLS... editors take a break from this and allow other editors to sort out the details. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers has undertaken a cleanup of the article. (Thanks!!!) I recommend we await the conclusion of their work. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I could use some support from experienced BLP editors. A set of my edits were reverted, and I'd appreciate a third opinion rather than re-revert. There's also a lot of content sourced to Cunninham's website and LinkedIn page and I'm thinking through what's reasonable from a WP:ABOUTSELF lens. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the bulk of the political positions that were cited to his campaign site as being WP:UNDUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely willing to wait and cease editing. Thank you for your efforts Firefangledfeathers MPLSpolitico (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Violet-Anne Wynne

Violet-Anne Wynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ureferenced full date of birth (that's contradicted by the previously referenced year of birth) and WP:UNDUE coverage over a rent arrears incident restored without consensus here. Due to a 1RR restriction per WP:TROUBLES I'm unwilling to take any further action on the article myself. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The date of birth is referenced.

The rent arrears section has existed almost as long as the article but you never had an issue with it until I added further information to it.

--ObtuseAngles (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the current coverage of the incident is WP:UNDUE, whereas the previous coverage wasn't. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. FDW777 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the issue is that would don't like people disagreeing with you so you run around to as many pages as you can making as many reports as you can in the hope you can a. shut people up and b. get your own way.

The issue Wynne came to national media was over the rent arrears. This attracted the most reporting on her. Of course this is going to be a significant section. Honestly, your tactics kind of work because I am not sure I can put my efforts into editing wikipedia if gatekeepers like you keep acting like this. It is bizarre. --ObtuseAngles (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like overkill given that the news about the rent arrears popped up only three times in the first five pages of a Google News search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree it seems undue, especially since the additions don't really seem to add anything useful to the story. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Woodley

Content focusing on this individual's association with right-wing and fringe race-and-intelligence research has apparently accrued over recent years, sourced especially to three secondary sources: this article in The New Statesman, this one in Review of General Psychology and this one in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology. Recently Grayfell added a summary statement noting Woodley's fellowship with the far-right Unz Foundation to the lead: . This was reverted by Ferahgo the Assassin, who cited a user-generated website to argue that Woodnely was no longer an Unz Foundation fellow: . I restored the sentence, changing it to the past tense and providing the date when Woodley was last known to have been an Unz fellow: (subsequently updated: ). I also performed some pretty straightforward copy edits to the section in the main body referring to this same set of facts: . These have been my only edits to the BLP.

I was therefore very surprised to receive the following message from DGG on my talk page: " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Michael Woodley, you may be blocked from editing. More exact, restoration of material having a negative implication to a BLP"

How on earth could this be a BLP violation when the statement is so well sourced, and my restoration took pains to change the affiliation from present to past tense (with a reliably sourced "as-of" date)? My understanding is that it is standard practice to mention people's affiliations, including with far-right groups, when these are well sourced to reliable secondary refs, and indeed to include them in the lead if those affiliations constitute a major source of notability for the individual, as is clearly the case here. Given this context, I do not understand why DGG would think to leave such a dire warning on my user talk page.

I should also note that, in their series of edits to the BLP which accompanied this warning, DGG didn't even remove or alter the statement on Woodley's affiliation with the Unz Foundation which was the whole point of the warning: . They simply messed up the formatting of one of the references and cut another sentence in the main body which I had not edited at all. What is going on here? Generalrelative (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: DGG has removed the warning with my express permission and at the urging of Bishonen. See User talk:DGG#Please don't misuse warning templates. Generalrelative (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've also edited the article, fixing two broken references and replacing text which DGG deleted, " a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence" with the edit summary "Removeeditorializing. We don't use inneundo by asociation in bLPs" with "a secret invitation only conference for research on controversial aspects of human intelligence, including race and intelligence and eugenics." which is from the lead of the conference article. My edit summary was "this needs context and it is completely factual, plus we mention his formal response". See also Talk:Michael Woodley#Guilt by association. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The connection between Woodley and the London Conference on Intelligence is not well-sourced. Of the three sources that Generalrelative listed above, two—the papers in Review of General Psychology and in American Journal of Biological Anthropology—do not say anything about Woodley's connection to the London Conference on Intelligence. (The Review of General Psychology paper discusses Woodley and also mentions the LCI, but it does not mention a connection between Woodley and the conference.) The only source that actually makes a connection between Woodley and the conference is the New Statesman source, which mentions Woodley in a single sentence as part of a list of several people who attended it.

By attacking Woodley for his having attended this conference, the Misplaced Pages article is making an accusation that is not made in reliable sources. You can call this guilt by association or you can call it original synthesis, but the bottom line is that it isn't appropriate for a BLP article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objection here is. Are you saying that he didn't actually attend the conference? He's listed in the program. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) First off, I did not edit anything having to do with Woodley’s connection with the London Conference on Intelligence, so pointing out that the references I cited do not connect Woodley to this conferences is entirely beside the point. My use of these sources was to show Woodley’s connection with the far-right, antisemitic Unz Foundation. Or rather, I was simply presenting the sources that were already used in the article.

Incidentally, and contrary to Ferahgo’s claim, the American Journal of Biological Anthropology ref does explicitly make the connection between Woodley and the London Conference on Intelligence in footnote 23, where it mentions: “For a rejoinder from conference participants see Woodley of Meine et al. (2018)” But again, this is entirely beside the point.

As to Ferahgo's claim that the article as currently written is “attacking Woodley”, I’ll quote what Bishonen wrote earlier today on DGG’s talk page (with apologies): “Well-sourced negative content added in a neutral tone is not defamatory.” I do not see how any impartial observer might think that what is written there is either “guilt by association” or original synthesis. It seems to me to be simply reporting on what both primary and secondary sources say. But perhaps others who are less involved in long-running race-and-intelligence content would like to judge for themselves. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In this edit, you restored text that says, "In January 2018, Woodley was criticized for his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence, a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence." The sources for this material are a primary source (a program from the conference itself), and a single mention of Woodley on a list of conference attendees in the New Statesman article. Do you feel that these sources are adequate for the inclusion of this material in a BLP article? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution