Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 25 April 2023

• 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.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon (un-archived)

Note that I have manually unarchived this thread. See also WP:ANI#Davidcannon's_BLPs. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)>

For some background, reading this conversation is useful context. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of them which are BLPs. From a brief spotcheck, I'm not sure going to ANI is the best course of action (and honestly the idea terrifies me when it's not really something I've tried to do before). Two of the articles they've created have recently been deleted: Laisa Digitaki and Samuela Matakibau. However, the brief spotcheck has somewhat convinced me that not all of their biographies are like this. There does seem to be issues every once and awhile in regards to controversial unsourced information . 600+ articles is a lot of articles to check and I thought that maybe here would be the better place to fix any problems that may be identified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, some articles that could likely use a second set of eyes include:

1. Ben Padarath
2. Angie Heffernan - done
3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
4. Viliame Naupoto - done
5. Willem Ouweneel
6. Jimi Koroi - done
7. Pita Driti - done
8. Ballu Khan - links added
9. Peter Ridgeway - done
10. Imraz Iqbal - done
11. Richard Naidu - done
12. Meli Bainimarama - done
13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
14. Viliame Seruvakula - done
15. Vyas Deo Sharma - done
16. Akuila Yabaki - links added
17. Saula Telawa - links added
18. Jone Baledrokadroka - done
19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
20. Jale Baba - done
21. Sakeasi Butadroka - done
22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva - done
23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa - links added
24. Asesela Ravuvu
25. Asenaca Caucau
26. Simione Kaitani - done
27. Kenneth Zinck - done
28. Ofa Swann - done
29. Injimo Managreve
30. Kaliopate Tavola - links added
31. Ateca Ganilau
32. Petero Mataca - links added
33. Rakuita Vakalalabure - links added
34. Daniel Fatiaki
35. James Ah Koy

There may be more. I'm going to be taking a break for now. As I previously stated, more eyes and input is welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also pinging The Wordsmith because of the aforementioned discussion that started this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Davidcannon's speciality on Misplaced Pages was Fiji and its unstable politics. As far as I am aware, he created well-sourced articles (but with embedded external links rather than references), but the links were mostly to Fijian news sites, and many years later, the links no longer worked and Davidcannon deleted them. Some of these links could be restored using web archives. For example, looking at the just-deleted article Laisa Digitaki, the references to fijitimes.com are recoverable, but references to fijivillage.com and fijilive.com appear not to be. I know there's a bot which can recover dead links, but for it to run, we would have to first restore the dead links preferably without removing subsequent improvements to the article, and we would end up with an article which has not been substantially updated for many years with some unrecoverable links and dubious notability. I certainly do not have the interest in Fijian politics to want to tackle this myself. Two editors currently active in that area are @IdiotSavant: and @Thiscouldbeauser:, would you have any interest in working on such articles? As you're not administrators and can't see the deleted article we're discussing, perhaps we could move it to draft space and blank it if you're sufficiently interested to assess it. (I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit (but he did not actually do so upon reviewing the edit), so I want to make it clear I have no intention of undeleting this article without a clear consensus to do so.)-gadfium 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising it with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fiji, which does have some active users (people who did bios of MPs elected in the 2022 Fijian general election would be a good start). I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup for that project, and focusing on BLPs at the moment. I'd noticed that lots were created by Davidcannon, but not the removal of dead sources. I'll start checking for them, and see what I can do to restore them. Though there is an underlying issue with source availability for that period of Fijian history - major media outlets don't have archives going back that far (some having scrubbed them to avoid trouble with the military regime), and we've also lost the East-West Centre's Pacific Islands Report mirror of news coverage. Some of the latter is archived, but its very haphazard.

WRT the specific article, there appear to be sources available on RNZ. -- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the similarity of content, references for Laisa Digitaki should be available on Angie Heffernan.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So you mean articles about Fijian politicians? Sure, I can create a few of them in the coming weeks if I find enough good info. I haven't created articles about people themselves before though. A quick Google search for Laisa Digitaki comes up with a deleted Misplaced Pages page, a LinkedIn profile, social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and articles about her from generally unreliable sites (i.e FijiLeaks and Fiji News Wars, the latter is a blog hosted on Blogspot which I only found out about today and the former being a site is often critical of Frank Bainimarama and claims to be like WikiLeaks), as well as other random stuff, e.g an e-book on Google Books about her and several other coup-era Fijian politicians and two random TikTok videos. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Its more a case of trawling existing articles, checking whether links have been deleted, restoring them, and adding other references as required (oh, and adding them to appropriate WikiProjects, because not everything seems to be appropriately tagged). Required skills: using the wayback machine and reference templates, and searching appropriate news sources (Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Village, RNZ).-- IdiotSavant (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There was still this content that I removed after you striked as Angie Heffernan "done" . At least from what I've seen, I'm concerned that some of these articles wouldn't follow WP:BLPCRIME. An example is Ben Padarath – he was never elected as a politician (WP:NPOL) and there's a whole section with mostly unreferenced content detailing his alleged crimes. It's been like that since creation . Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem there with undue focus (I assume because of when it was written), but the article may also need expansion - there's stuff he has been convicted of (see here and here), but its not in the article. OTOH, that's not especially notable, and honestly barring the sedition charge, he's not someone I'd remotely consider creating an article for if there wasn't one already (so maybe he's a candidate for AfD?). Regarding sedition, where there doesn't seem to be a conviction yet, is there a guideline for political crimes? Because for a lot of Fijian political figures there's a history of oppression by the military regime, sedition or equivalent charges brought and later dropped, and not including them would be leaving out something very significant.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Gadfium "I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit". This is well before I started serious wiki-editing. However, a more recent counter-example is Micaela Schäfer, which I deleted per WP:G10 / WP:BLPDELETE and was subsequently restored by SoWhy who cleaned it up and fixed all the BLP violations. There was a thread at AN running at the time, where I explicitly stated I had no issue with SoWhy doing this. So I think that's your answer - ask if The Wordsmith is okay with you restoring the article for the purposes of fixing the BLP issues, and if they are, then just do it.

A further point that's worth mentioning is that WP:BLPPROD originally only applied for articles created after the policy was introduced in 2010. Then, in 2017, this grandfather clause was removed by consensus. So at the time Davidcannon removed the dead news links, he might have reasonably assumed BLPPROD didn't apply because the article was verified at one point. Ritchie333 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We used to have a grandfather clause? Are there any others that are still in effect? It seems bizzare to me that we could ever decide anything by consensus and then go "but it doesn't apply to any articles created before now". I'm interested in the rationales that were used at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? for further reading. Ritchie333 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to briefly clarify that, it was a very unusual situation that led to the grandfather clause being created. The BLPPROD process was created because we had an absurd nightmare of something like 80K completely unreferenced BLPs, and one camp was mass summary deleting them while the other thought we should try sourcing them all instead of deleting. As part of the compromise for dealing with them, the grandfather clause was established to prevent people from just tagging them all at once while the effort to source them was underway. The Wordsmith 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Gadfium: I do object to restoring the history of those two articles either in mainspace or anywhere else, since the contents of them are bad enough that they'd be a gross BLP vio in any namespace. Pretty much all they covered was allegations of crimes committed and being investigated. What I can do is email the deleted versions (and the sources used, if you like) to any editor interested in rewriting. I have no issue with a bio (or even a stub) for those subjects being recreated if it can comply with our policies, just not the history of those two. The Wordsmith 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, largely written by David, and the amount of unsourced depictions of underage sexual activity are beyond the pale, and if a new editor did that, I'd revert and redact it. And to make it abundantly clear, my issue here is adherence to WP:BLPSOURCES and our longstanding policy is that unsourced claims involving living persons should be removed - I have no opinion on the content. Ritchie333 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems like his contributions were mostly in 2004. Were the inline sourcing requirements different then? Was he an administrator then? Misplaced Pages policies and BLP (if it existed) enforcement may have been more lax then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. BLP was first started in 2005 by Slim Virgin, who was probably one of the greatest Wikipedians to ever exist and someone I very much admired and looked up to, and even then it took many years to build and refine this policy into what it has become today. Rules were definitely much more lax then (it was basically the Wild West in those days) and not many people gave much thought to the real-world repercussions of the things we do here. Misplaced Pages has grown up a lot since those days, but there is still a lot from back then that needs to be cleaned up. Thank god we had someone with the knowledge and foresight of Slim Virgin. She has been sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I had quite a few arguments with SlimVirgin back in the day, but BLP was one of her greatest contributions. I do know it wasn't taken as seriously as it is today at first. We had Rachel Marsden in 2006, Badlydrawnjeff in 2007, and Footnoted quotes in 2008 which especially strengthened it by creating BLP Special Enforcement. Even until late 2009/early 2010 there was a strong minority who felt that completely unsourced BLPs weren't a problem and it led to that mass deletion and the establishment of WP:BLPPROD. Yes, Slim will be missed but she helped get us where we are today. I probably wouldn't go bringing Davidcannon's articles up at the dramaboards since it was absolutely a different time with looser standards, but we do need to clean up the mess now by making them conform to Misplaced Pages's current BLP standards or summarily deleting them. The Wordsmith 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe pin this to keep it from archiving again until the list has a chance to be seen by more people? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I had my own disagreements with some of Misplaced Pages's policies when I first started, in particular the whole "Verifiability not truth" phrase (which I still think is very poorly worded) but I had a great discussion with Sarah in which she explained the reasoning behind this seemingly contradictory statement, and in her reasoning I agreed entirely. I actually never had much interaction with her aside from that, but over the years you get to know people even if you don't interact. The first article I worked on was the flashtube article, which was mostly just a bunch of really plausible-sounding bunk that people made up because it sounded good in their heads. Same with the tempering (metallurgy) article, or the basic fighter maneuvers article. They were dreadful, but most Misplaced Pages articles started out that way. It was new territory and people were creating articles by the thousands each day. It was a very different time. I wouldn't waste a lot of energy assigning blame or shame. Like anything, we just have to tackle these things as we find them and move on to the next. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

She sounds amazing. I don't think I ever personally interacted with her, but I'm familiar with the username. I had no idea that she was instrumental in starting WP:BLP, we really should have a "history of Misplaced Pages" outlining the major changes we've experienced throughout time. I've noticed some stuff has changed since I started editing in 2018, I can only imagine the scale at which other who have been here for longer experience that. I agree that tackling this and moving on is the best course of action. If I had known that I could've just unarchived the thread, I don't think I would've started the ANI one. I just wanted to make sure these issues didn't disappear into a void and then someone else a decade later would be here to say something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

She did some great things, but she could be absolutely infuriating to argue with. She also had a flair for the dramatic and a habit of unnecessary escalation, sandbagging discussions she didn't like and even wheel warring; there's a reason she has at least 3 or 4 Arbcom cases named after her personally. The Wordsmith 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like RfA was in June 2004. And yes, sourcing requirements were far different then. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note that I've used Template:DNAU at the top of this thread to prevent archiving; once the thread is concluded anybody can just remove that line to allow the bots to archive it as normal. The Wordsmith 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to put my own comment. Feel free to move it or remove it. I've only just seen this, as my attendance on Misplaced Pages is intermittent at the moment. Most of the BLPs in question are Fijian biographies. There was a military coup in 2006, and many of the online sources (news outlets, etc) got censored. A lot of them have not been restored. Much as I would like to go back and add sources, I cannot do so when they no longer exist.

I fully support the BLP rules, and will fully support the deletion of any article of mine that cannot reasonably be made to comply with the rules as they stand. David Cannon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Davidcannon: Thanks for the response! I realize that not everyone is on Misplaced Pages 24/7 (I once took a year wikibreak myself) so I'm glad to hear from you even if it wasn't immediately. IdiotSavant has had some luck with finding sources that were archived, but as you implied, many have been lost to time. If you have some extra time, maybe you could try to help? Many hands make light work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you had any questions about how article creation standards have changed, maybe Ritchie333 or The Wordsmith would have some useful advice? I haven't been around as long as they have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) And yes, I'll be happy to return to the project to help with the cleanup whenever I've got time. Looking forward to it!David Cannon (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note - another resource to help with these: Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre Plus on EBSCOHost has the Fiji Times from the relevant period.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

UK Companies House website

The WP:BLPPRIMARY policy states that Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. However this does make sense at least for UK Companies House website as the information there are verified against the government record see . So I see these information as more accurate than any other sources. Which beg the questions why governmental public records are "not" to be used? This will contradict for example the date of birth reference provided for all US presidents for example Barack Obama's which is referenced to a governmental public record, i.e., white house. I might be missing something here? or thie wording of this policy just do not make any sense, espically the use of "public records" FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The main point of the policy is to stop people doing WP:Original research, they should find stuff in reliable secondary sources which show they have some note rather than trawling through government records for every last silly thing noted there. We shoulc not be going to companies house to find stuff that papers have not bothered to write about. It can be used as backup but that should not normally be needed unless it is wrong in some sources. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum how do you classify it as original research if it’s already mentioned by a verifiable source. That is stretching the definition of original research and can create a circular argument as it equates the process of searching of verifiable information with original findings. These two are not the same, one is doing a proper search and the other is original research

In addition, what makes you jump to consider government sources are not reliable. As I mentioned, many featured articles contain information from governmental sources. This policy wording need to be re-written or dropped entirely FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand the information available at Companies House. It's not "verified against the government record" in any sense. When a director is appointed by a company the company secretary files the relevant form containing the director's personal information. There's no verification of that data by Companies House or the govenment. They just published what they've been given. True, it would be a criminal offence if it turns out the company secretary filed something fraudulently, but the information isn't independently verified. It's not much more reliable than taking information of a company's own website. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa from a personal experience, I disagree. When you send your details as a director you also send prove for these information. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No you don't. I'm a lawyer and I've done this more times than I care to remember. You can see from Form AP01 here it's entirely self-certifying. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I can say that about immigration and visa forms, and as far as I am concern you can be Pope and it would not make any different. Here is what I am based my info on without the need to provide personal infromation or prove my (irrelvant) personal claim.

Feel free to refute it but please provide evidence beyond "I'm a lawyer" FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

FFS Evidence beyond "I'm a lawyer": I already linked to AP01 which refutes your gaslighting nonsense of "from a personal experience, I disagree". Also your link doesn't prove shit. It doesn't say anu=ything about verification. Inconsistency with other forms submitted is tiotally different. Obviously. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

the from is bond by section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, it is “an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly … to make to the registrar … a statement … that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular” FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DOB may be relevant. DOB:s are not gold to be mined. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång the policy am challenging is not citing this DOB policy, so DOB is irrelevant here. And I don’t have a problem with how the DOB policy is written. It’s coherent and makes sense and leaves a room for common sense FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using Companies House to confirm that "at date X, person Y was the director of company Z", given that the information has been confirmed both by person Y and the Government. Using the further information (i.e. DOB, address) has issues with BLPPRIMARY, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mention above, it's not conformed by the government. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa but you said yourself, it’s fraudulent to provide false information. Compare that to any other reference, where also people provide such information voluntarily about their DOB, what is at risk there? How is it considered more reliable?

and moving to the broader perspective, how the way this policy is worded stated “not” to use public records? What is the reason for that general statement FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You started by saying its value comes from government verification. You're wrong about that. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, it is “an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly … to make to the registrar … a statement … that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular” FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. I am contesting this policy not only for the specific example of UK but for the broader sense of prohibiting public records with many examples where this policy is non sensical as public record is a very broad term that can pertain to everything relates to a government FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a fundamental change to long-standing core WP:BLP policy, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump thanks. I still think I might have misunderstood the wording of the policy judging common sense as I really do not think it would have been a policy if - as I understand it - means something as broad as this. Where do you recommend going with this proposal? FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Companies House is an absolute shit source -- they publish whatever is submitted to them. It's the best possible example of why we shouldn't use primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to tell them that (above). Apart from audited accounts it's all SELFPUB effectively. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity citation needed? FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Companies House is dysfunctional and facilitating fraud, MPs told", "Fraud is causing Companies House to crumble. It needs a stronger footing.", "Fakers, fast sign-ups and fraud: the crisis at the UK’s Companies House", "Dead directors’ on records listed at Companies House' etc etc DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa thanks. It’s clear enough now. I surely have trusted this government website blindly. Time to go back and fix some articles FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we should not use this or any other public records for claims about living persons. As mentioned above, they require original research and there are concerns about fact-checking and accuracy. WP:NOR and WP:V should be enough. But beyond that, many documents are effectively self-published, they may involve people who are relatively unknown, and they can enable identify theft. Then there's the very real possibility of mistaken identity. Virtually everything about us is available in public records, often without our choice or consent. Just because someone applies for a job or gets called to testify in court doesn't give us, as editors, the right to reveal their private information. Woodroar (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO this touches on the key point. While our proscriptions are not as strong as for dates of birth or names, they arise from the same concerns. Even in cases where we can be confident the information is accurate, we should not include it for the simple reason that it is clearly unimportant information if the only source you can dig up is a primary source. If it was important or significant information about a living person, then a reliable secondary source would have talked about it. There are often also ORry concerns which arise much less with secondary sourcing especially in matching a person with some primary source. (You can see this a lot in discussions where people say well it's clearly the same person because of the rare name, date of birth and location etc, or they look the same in the photo, or ......) There can also be accuracy concerns although this can be complicated. (Good secondary sources are generally going to check when there is some reason for uncertainty and of course make it easy to request corrections. However, for simple mundane information where they have no reason to doubt its accuracy, my impression is a lot of even decent secondary sources will just republish what primary sources say without additional checking, or rely on what they were told again without additional checking. While the latter may be what is sometimes in primary sources, at least there tends to be theoretical legal requirements for accuracy and consequences where people lie. By comparison lying to journalists is significantly less likely to be legally consequential albeit it might be something that carries more risk someone will notice.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am a Transgender woman and would like that reflected in the Wiki page

16:29, 14 April 2023 diff hist +1,084‎ John Trobaugh ‎ I have changed the language to reflect that I am a Transgender Woman and my Doctorate in Education. Tags: Reverted Visual edit possible BLP issue or vandalism

The above info is what I got when I changed my name and pronouns to reflect my identity. I also added a public newspaper reference to my status as a transgender woman.

In addition, I added a picture reflecting my identity as it is a self-portrait and my Doctorate in Education I received last year.

I am confused as to how to go about this change. I feel embarrassed to see my deadname still on Misplaced Pages but don't know how to fix it.

DrJulesArt (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.telegram.com/story/news/local/worcester/2023/04/01/trans-day-of-visibility-rally-held-outside-worcester-city-hall/70060959007/

@DrJulesArt I didn't mean to upset you in any way, it's just editing your own page would mean you are having a conflict of interest with yourself (and you also didn't provide a source of your transitioning beforehand). In that case, it would've been better to make an edit request on the articles talkpage, but I am aware you were not knowledgeable of that. Me and other editors will make the appropriate changes.

- L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 17:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The page (Jules Trobaugh) has been updated and moved. Since prima facie you were notable under our guidelines before your transition, per MOS:GENDERID, we do keep one mention of the deadname to avoid confusion for readers. For borderline cases of notability that isn't strictly necessary, but I haven't looked into that possibility here and don't have an opinion. For photographs, our image use policy only allows freely licensed pictures of living people. If you own the copyright to the image you are trying to upload and you have not uploaded it elsewhere, you can follow the directions here to upload it under a free license to Wikimedia Commons, after which it can be used in the article. If it has been uploaded elsewhere and you own the right, you should follow the steps at here instead. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@DrJulesArt for more information on how to request changes for articles where you have a conflict of interest see these: WP:Edit requests, WP:Guide_to_effective_COI_edit_requests. But notice that it can take a long time for these requests to be answered. So for urgent changes like issues with deadnaming you should also make a post here to make more people aware of the request and the importance of dealing with them in a timely manner. Fortunately we have a lot of people here on Misplaced Pages who take issues like that very seriously. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have made some changes / additions to this BLP. Dr Trobaugh was editing with a COI, yes, but the biography certainly could be improved by focusing on the edits rather than who made them. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

David Hurwitz (music critic)

LeontinaVarlamonva is repeatedly inserting cherry-picked criticism about David Hurwitz (music critic) on his WP page, sourced to solely writings by David Hurwitz causing a chunk of OR, SYNTH and BLP violations. I've told them twice now that I have no issue with such information, granted it is cited to secondary sources. They have cited the article's use of primary sources for some basic life information as a rationale for why it can be used for critical commentary as well.

They have now accused me three times of "having a close connection" based on solely the fact that I have updated Hurwitz's YT count before and have improved the article (which, as I explained, is part of my project to improve music critic articles). I have absolutely no connection with Hurwitz other than being familiar with his criticism and writings. Regardless, the continue to add the unfounded "close connection" tag to the article. Instead of continuing the conversation, they have ignored me at Talk:David Hurwitz (music critic)#Untitled. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Think that LeontinaVarlamonva's critique that the article is too reliant on primary sources written by Hurwitz is correct. However, like you, I question whether inserting quotes where he calls musicians work "stupid" or "trash" solely sourced to his own reviews is really due. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think examples I provide were any more cherry picked than examples of "high brow" scholarship that were picked to represent him. The fact is this person has produced some quite questionable/offensive content, so only talking about his "high brow" scholarship and "esteemed" roles he has held, seems misleading. The article seemed like a shrine to him, a museum, and from page history I can tell this criticism has been voiced more than once, which is the only reason I restored deleted information. It is not ideal but better than total uniformity.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You've now changed your concerns three times. Not sure why you're inserting dramatic analysis—"high brow"; a "shrine to him". I've now removed all uses of sources written directly by Hurwitz. Aza24 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Bob Morley & Arryn Zech

Bob Morley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arryn Zech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasons I believe it violates the biographies of living persons policies

WP:V

Misplaced Pages:Point of view Specifically the indication of relative prominence of opposing views.

This is in regards to the[REDACTED] page of Bob Morley (actor), the page cites gossip websites including a statement from his ex where she alleges abuse. Upon trying to add other information representing other sides, or more importantly adding life altering events such as knee surgery and marriage, gets instantly removed. The information has the same citations from news sites as well as videos from public appearances of the involved individuals. A timeline of his relationship with his current wife, providing another viewpoint on the accusations (with the same citations as the first accusation) has been deleted as well. Every addition is rejected even providing sources (the same sources as those added before)

Could someone take a look at it? It would be of my interest to add to the article in a way that represents all events and sides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4R4O (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheating allegations does seem like WP:BLPGOSSIP and the cited sources are not the strongest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time. Also, the additional citations added to give "another side" of the story have been even worse than the existing sources. Also, I have serious questions as to whether the person who posted this original inquiry is doing so in good faith, considering their thinking that geekspin and Hollywood life are reliable sources, when it is clear they are NOT. A LOT of page have been editing that page and removing/adding content recently, and the OP is one of those people, causing the page to be muddled beyond belief, leading to situations which almost lead to edit wars. It is really bad.Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed the same thing in the Bob Morley talk, so I'll not repeat too much from there, but one thing I want to point out is that this comment (Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time.) to me is all the more stronger reasons to not include these claims (or drastically reduce how much we're talking about the claims).

Our requirements for how reliable sources should be, should not be lowered because one topic is less covered. Soni (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true. I only added it originally because I was under the impression that it was the "right" thing to do, and never expected this much discussion about it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, we have discussions that can go far and wide over the most trivial topics heh. Sometimes, people just have strong opinions about policies we use here. And so long discussions often go in circles and need explicit closes.

But also, we need to be extra careful when talking about living people we directly affect by just "what goes into their article" so the extra concern and scrutiny is warranted here. Soni (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand that. Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear consensus before restoring any disputed content without fixing the issue which are the sources supporting the contentious claims. Are there are no better ones out there? If they aren't touching the topic,[REDACTED] shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You stated in a recent edit that "compromise text doesn't address the problems with the given sources", and I have to thoroughly disagree with your argument, as I would say NONE of the sources cited in the compromise text I came up with are unreliable. Some sources added by other users are, but the ones I added are reliable, plain and simple. Apart from talking about this on this discussion, there are also the various ongoing discussions on Talk: Bob Morley. I would hope you involve yourself in the latter. This is NOT the time to be acting boldly.Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain why continuing to use those same sources fixes the issue on how DUE this is. It doesn't meet WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS if people are disputing its reliablity on a BLP matter. Soni, maybe you can explain since you originally raised that objection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed my previous comment. Please see my comment at the end of this discussion with new proposed text.Historyday01 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'll be frank and say I'm out of my depth on this one. I genuinely think DUE concerns are met with that wording, so if there's a deeper BLP related reasoning behind why they aren't, I don't know it yet. Happy to be informed correctly, if it's a case of me being not well informed. Else I think this wording is acceptable enough. Soni (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You had a problem with the sourcing itself. I did and a couple of other editors have agreed with removal per WP:BLPGOSSIP. To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? You had mentioned a heightened standard for BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? That's more or less how I understood it. For a claim that's exceptional (the way it was originally phrased) these sources weren't enough. Since WP:DAILYDOT implies it's not an unreliable source, so to speak, but also not the most reliable?

For the claim phrased later Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse I considered it okay because it met the threshold of being WP:DUE for me. The claims are made in a single sentence without implying either side's correctness. I considered Daily Dot to be a single source sufficient to support that claim (or similarly phrased).

That's pretty much the extent of how I understand it now. Sorry my BLP knowledge doesn't go deep enough, so I get the "BLPs should be held to a higher standard" but I don't know if this statement still breaks that expected standard. Hopefully that clarifies my stance and also where I'm confused on our usual way of doing things. Soni (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What makes me doubt the seriousness of dailydot's article (besides having dubious strength as a source for[REDACTED] standards when it comes to contentious issues or claims: WP:DAILYDOT + Nociteboard) is their speculation about Taylor's involvement despite the fact that she was never named (appeals to speculative adverbs like "seemingly" - speculations are considered counterfactual fallacies: articles containing fallacies should be avoided - the writer also appeals to "weasel words"/"glittering generality": "Many are now accusing Taylor of being a hypocrite" WP:BLPGOSSIP). From how I perceive it, its tone and sentences are quite "gossipy", even more so considering that Zech's claims about cheating and alleged verbal/emotional abuse were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything: claims require specific evidence.

Besides, as I said in a previous interaction, I think that if the claim is mentioned, the nature of it should be clarified. This was done only through social media, not before any authority (police or judicial). There are no charges or contentious situation legally reported by an article (as for example occurs in the article about Marie Avgeropoulos, where it is specified that the contentious situation involved charges that were later dropped by her boyfriend who had the injuries - this was also reported by outlets like the LATimes and People - it is worth mentioning that the latter can certainly be considered more reliable than dailydot, but even so the encyclopedia advises against using it as a source when it comes to contentious issues).

To summarize, I think that at least the nature of the claims (social media) should be specified in Zech's article where for now the claims are still mentioned. Without a clarification of this type, I think that the article in a first reading can give the impression that there were formal allegations.

I believe that for now this is all I can say about the solidity of the sources and the wording used in the article. Editngwiki (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. If I understand you correctly, the claims should be mentioned on Zech's page but not Morley's? Is that correct? Historyday01 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I hope not. As I've said to you earlier, BLP or sourcing issues do not vanish just based on what article we're editing. If the sources are spurious enough to not support adding claims of abuse to one page, then they cannot be added to the other.

I think there's enough consensus of the same on this noticeboard to require removal. I will do so now (and we can re-add sections if there's consensus to add parts of it) Soni (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is true, I suppose. Not going to repeat what I've seen in other comments, but currently there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this topic (I don't think), from reading this discussion. I'd be fine with having it removed from the Zech page for the time being until a consensus is reached. Regardless of the consensus decision reached on this topic, would it be ok to use the Daily Dot and Popculture.com articles as further evidence of Zech's bisexuality? The Daily Dot quotes Zech as saying "When he found out that I am bisexual, he was furious", while the Popculture.com article says "Zach claimed Morely was "furious" after she revealed she is bisexual". Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I saw a clear consensus, but I'm happy if someone else uninvolved (and not SPA, duh) wants to re-evaluate or formally close this. It looks unclear at a glance, but that's almost all because of back-and-forth threaded discussion after discussion on this, which only very involved editors have an interest in.

And while it's not clearly specified by every single editor (because the question being asked was slightly altered every few replies), this is roughly the stances from the messages I saw (apart from myself) -

• In favour of removal - Morbidthoughts, Editngwiki (SPA, well supported with policy arguments though), ScottishFinnishRadish, Zaereth, Kizo2703 (SPA)
• In favour of adding watered down text on either page - BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, Lexaevermorewoods (SPA), Historyday01
• No clear opinion on this - Skywatcher68, Adam4R4O (SPA)

As I have an involved opinion on this, I did not evaluate policy backing behind each stance (WP:PNSD), but IMHO it still does not support adding the text. So yes, I did see a clear consensus (which I'm happy to be corrected on, if it changes/someone else wants to confirm it) Soni (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty good run-down of the opinions at this point. I would say it is leaning toward not adding the text, but I'm not sure how SPAs factor in, when it comes to a formal closure. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• As for sexual orientation, I surprisingly cannot find a policy about that. But as before, I think primary sources are fine when noting it. So long as we're only noting down the bisexuality without getting into any other BLP issues, I think that'll be fine. Soni (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Great. As it turns out, I had already added the sources there, and one of those bots added the sources in for the sentence "Her bisexuality was previously confirmed in media reporting in July 2020". Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  As for her sexuality, she mentioned it in these panels:

  2020, March: The Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) - 4:30.

  2020, May: RWBY Live Stream GalaxyCon - 23:07

  2018, July: Montreal Comic Con - 5:20. It is mentioned by her coworker, Lindsay Jones ("Me and Arryn are bi").

  2013, June: RT Podcast Ep. 121 - 22:35. It is mentioned by Miles Luna, her ex.

  There are records that she has been openly bisexual since at least 2014 (via her old tumblr account @hazleapricot: screenshots 1 and 2 + more vaguely when she said she "is part of the LGBT community"). However, I have not found an article or interview from that time, but perhaps the video of the conventions will be enough, especially the one from C2E2 (2020). Editngwiki (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing those. Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Should also include Arryn Zech in this discussion, as it is the same topic/sources. The information has been disputed being included in Morley's article back when it first happened, it recently got added back in after Zech's page was created a few weeks ago. I added her into this discussion. And since we are here on noticeboard, while not on her page, Eliza Taylor's name keeps being added into the accusations, and she wasn't even named in Zech's statement. Some of those gossip sources inferred she might of been referring to her when she said "a girl", but BLP wise I don't think we should be including her name at all especially with lackluster sources. WikiVirusC 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I think the current compromise text (at the end of this discussion) I just added in works to clear up a lot of the issues with the previous text. This discussion is muddled by people like the OP who want to "balance" out the page by adding in subpar sources (like links to Instagram and YouTube), which are not acceptable in contentious issues like this. I would say that Eliza Taylor shouldn't be added to Zech's page. Of course, Taylor is on Morley's page, but shouldn't be connected to the accusations as current sources only speculate that Zech is referring to Taylor (who she doesn't mention directly), which isn't enough evidence to keep her there. I will say this whole discussion has been a learning experience... I suppose. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think the current text on the matter in both pages is fine. It's brief, to the point, and not too detailed about the nature of the claims or Taylor's may-have-may-have-not involvement, just says clearly that there was a relationship and accusations without getting into the weeds. I feel reasonably certain that Morley's fans are still going to attempt to force their narratives in both pages regardless of how impartial we are or how much we do or do not mention or if we mention anything at all, and I don't think we should omit the topic altogether, so I think it's best to just have this brief summary and leave it at that unless better sources arise. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I came up with new compromise text at the end of this discussion, which I believe addresses the issues people are having so far in this discussion, by not mentioning the accusations at all. Since there was, apparently, too much disagreement about the previous text, I see no reason to even try to defend it. It just seems like a waste of energy on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment@Discospinster, @–DMartin, @Skywatcher68, and @Editngwiki your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how you chose this list of users per WP:CANVAS? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing because it's because we left comments at Talk:Bob Morley.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of participants missing if that is the case. Should they be notified? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe everyone else I didn't mention in my previous comment is mentioned at the end of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I just chose those on the talk page discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not notifying everyone in the discussion is WP:VOTESTACKING Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I did not add those people to "stack" the vote, I just believed, incorrectly, that most of those in the talk page discussions were already here. It's as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really have any opinion here; I only stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes one day. I did ask Google about this just now and found at least one accusation that Zech has been lying; whether or not this has any bearing on recent edits, I don't know.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well this supports the case for the compromised text I note in another comment. Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As I stated on Talk:Bob Morley, I would be willing to reduce it to the following compromise text: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. I have since removed the following sentence, per the below discussion: Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored. If this text was chosen, it could avoid us delving into the accusations (as it doesn't mention them at all), and it may address some of the other comments on here. If accepted, similar text could then be added to Zech's page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If two people were dating, and the only coverage was rumors until after the relationship ended, is it really biographical detail necessary in an encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If all the page is saying is that they were in a relationship, I do not see that as controversial or violating ANY Misplaced Pages rules. Morley and Zech are notable figures, plain and simple. The least we can do is mention they were in a relationship, and then add warnings in hidden text telling people to add nothing else. Furthermore, adding something about the relationship would make it easier to push off the bad actors who are editing the pages of Morley and Zech more easily than getting into endless edit wars. So, in that sense, the compromised text would have further value. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why even mention the second sentence? Has Morley confirmed the relationship? How are these sites ascertaining there was one beyond looking at her postings? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose, but I only added the second sentence because it is another source (which mentioned they were rumored as being together). However, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to getting rid of the last sentence. It appears that Zech posted about this relationship a LOT (including photos of them together, from what I've seen), but since she deleted her Twitter (I noted about the archived tweets on the Wayback Machine at Talk:Arryn Zech#Relationship with Miles Luna), and likely similar posts on Instagram (which is notoriously hard to archive, from my experience, apart from using sites like Ghostarchive or Archive.is, as the Wayback Machine isn't always good at saving such posts), so there isn't as much evidence on her side of the relationship. I would guess that would be the same for Morley. I haven't done a deep dive through his Twitter or any other social media, but if I have to guess, I would think he did the same as Zech and deleted his photos/tweets which showed her. Historyday01 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  This all sounds incredibly gossipy and unencyclopedic. What is the point, and what am I supposed to learn about the subject by reading this? This just reads like the stuff of tabloids, not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Saying "Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019" (the compromise text) doesn't seem gossipy or anything like that. Honestly, it seems like the blandest text possible, devoid of any controversy, and I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it.Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I prefer @Soni's edit, and I believe the whole statement from Zech had many inconsistencies, and, at times, involved mind reading and super hearing. I don't think it's a reliable source, but I'm willing to compromise if it keeps it entirely on her page and not darkening others with accusations in which there's no legal resolution, since there seems to be no other resolution for @Historyday01. Lexaevermorewoods (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well, as I said in other comments recently on here, I'd be fine with keeping it removed from Morley's page (where it is currently not present, as it was removed near the beginning of this discussion), and keeping it on Zech's page (since she is the one who made the accusations), where it currently reads as follows:

  Zech's relationship with actor Bob Morley ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse. Previously, Morley's relationship with Zech had only been rumored. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I searched for interviews given by both during 2025-2019 and neither names the other. Sometimes they made comments about a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" without giving specifics or names. The only article in which Zech is named says that the relationship was merely rumored. I have not been able to find a source that lives up to the requirements of the encyclopedia.

  Bearing this in mind, I agree that bringing this issue up can give the article a "gossipy style" that we clearly want to avoid here. Editngwiki (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that is the one article I found earlier. Would it be ok to mention Zech's accusations on her page, but not Morley's? Because I would be completely fine with that compromise, and with leaving Zech out of Morley's page. Historyday01 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think it would be in the best interest of all of us to conclude this discussion relatively soon, either toward removing or keeping the content, at least in the next couple days (I'm not sure how long BLP discussions typically run). I think it would do a disservice to keep this discussion dragging on. As such, @Discospinster, @WikiDan61, @–DMartin, @TimeTravellingBunny, @Kizo2703, @Lexaevermorewoods, and @Isaidnoway your comments in this discussion would be appreciated. @Morbidthoughts, I believe that's everyone from Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech, but if I missed someone (that isn't already here), I apologize in advance for that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note that multiple accounts participating in this discussion have few to no edits outside this topic (and not many edits overall). If there will be someone evaluating consensus at the end of this, I'd recommend taking that into account. Soni (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's true. Users like Lexaevermorewoods, TimeTravellingBunny, and Kizo2703 are single-purpose accounts.Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from Zech's site too, cause it's nothing else but gossip. Loud and clear.

And, since all of THEIR proofs of the relationship on SM are either deleted (Morleys' acct) or Zech doesn't have Twitter acct anymore, it's just hearsay. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I am suspicious about your reasoning since you are a single-purpose account, as you admitted yourself on April 6. You have also made strange legal threats in the past as well. Also your argument is illogical since Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, which is still active, and Morley still has a Twitter account. So I wouldn't call it "hearsay". Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, was expecting this, but unfortunately for you, have I done something NOTRIGHT until now? Because I'm not the one who used questionable sources. I just sent screenshots of your texts. Did anything happened to anyone yet?

Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, but NO SINGLE POST they were in relationship. Same goes for Morley's Twitter account - no single post about them. Only rumors on third party accts. Sorry.

As of for me being a single-purpose account, yes, on this, my free time account. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But, since you cleaned up Morley's site, do as you wish, as long as you don't touch it ever again.

However, given that we concluded that its gossip we're talking about, it should be deleted everywhere. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, another strange threat from you, which is per usual, considering you ARE a single-purpose account, falling in line with what is stated at WP:SPA. Who is this "we" you are talking about? Again, your argument is strange as it implies that people never delete posts from their social media accounts, even though people regularly cull their feeds. In any case, I don't expect any rational argument from you on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Tamaz Somkhishvili

Hello - I've just come across Tamaz Somkhishvili while patrolling for vandalism and it appears to be a bit of a mess in terms of content disputes/POV. I don't believe I have the requisite knowledge to make a call one way or the other, and there appears to be very little discussion over the page, which was deleted once, and nominated again here. If someone more able to deal with this would be able to give it a look, I'd greatly appreciate it. Tollens (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens the discussion has already started. the page was under AfD recently and it was reviewed by the administrators profoundly. However, it came under bombardment by Undisclosed paid editors like AlexanderVolkov123 who put false sources. These sources, which include private attorneys' blogs, are not in compliance with Misplaced Pages's guidelines and contribute to a clear violation of WP:PROMO, as well as being an act of blatant vandalism and COI. 77.52.16.224 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where there is a discussion already. AfD is not this discussion (and administrators having seen the article is not really that relevant) - AfD concerns the deletion of the article rather than content concerns. In addition, I don't see any clear evidence of a COI anywhere, only assertions. From a quick scan of the article, most of the material added by the editor you mention at least appears factually accurate. Is there some reason to believe otherwise? To be perfectly honest, at first glance it seems the version of the article you promote has significant BLP issues in terms of untested accusations of criminal activity. Tollens (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My version of the text is neutral and complies with WP:NPOV. But my edits are removed from anonymous IP addresses, suggesting that there is an order to smear this person. Please put the article on the defence. AlexanderVolkov123 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As I can see, the anonimous claim about false sources is a not a truth. Big part of AlexanderVolkov123's sources are an direct texts of Ukrainian courts decisions. So, an attempt to replace them with links to Ukrainian yellow press, of the same quality as The Sun or worse, is a rather incorrect action.Caramoble (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles should not use tabloids as sources. But BLPs also should not use court decisions. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The page has been protected under WP:GS/RUSUKR - some uninvolved perspectives would still be appreciated. Tollens (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tollens Thanks for protecting the page, but the paid material denigrating a persona, added from an anonymous IP address, remains on the page. What's more, on the discussion page, I have been threatened with blocking from an anonymous IP address. I ask you to deal with the situation. As it stands now, the page does not conform to WP:NPOV. You said my version is more acceptable, but there are problems with sources. Here is a reputable source, a big biographical article about the person in the Georgian Forbes AlexanderVolkov123 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've gone more thoroughly into the sources and I'm fairly comfortable now with the current state of the article - the claims made in the article reference fairly high-profile allegations against a high-profile individual, so they're acceptable under WP:BLPCRIME. Please note that Forbes contributor articles are considered generally unreliable and cannot be used for claims about living persons as they are essentially self-published, see WP:FORBESCON. I notice also that you haven't responded in any way to the concerns raised about your potential conflict of interest - is there a reason for this? Tollens (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Mary Jordan

Article for Mary Jordan (filmmaker) has been created, written, and maintained by her husband, Eerik-Niiles Kross (user: Enkross). Violates BLP policy, full of lies/inaccurate info/unsubstantiated claims - should be deleted or at least heavily edited. The wiki of Eerik-Niiles Kross was created by user enkross as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1929 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a good WP:BLP, I'll say that much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Hany_Abu-Assad Place of birth

Nazareth is a city in the state of Israel. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. A person can relate to himself as he wishes, but a geographical place cannot be stated wrongly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The article was changed from "in the city of ]" to "in the city of ]", by an editor with few edits. I've changed it to "in the city of ]", I don't think it's necessary to have anything more. Any editor can change it without discussing it with me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If edit warring continues, please request ECP under WP:ARBPIA4. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sami_Al-Arian

https://en.wikipedia.org/Sami_Al-Arian#Kuwait_and_Egypt

I personally do not have a deep knowledge of the man's life, I came to the article by looking him up after listening to this podcast episode where is daughter is interviewed about how the US court system operated and the use of secret evidence and torture against her father. He was never convicted, but after a mistrial took a plea deal that the government did not, by a resonable definition, seem to honor but instead found another way to go after him via setting him up for contempt charges.

Given that his trial was even at the time widely condemned by many civil rights and human rights groups that the government used means like solitary confinement, secret evidence, and jailed his brother in law in an attempt to force him to sign a plea deal were he would testify against Al-Arian, I was pretty shocked at the state of the article which contained a lot of uncritical repeating of the US government allegations as fact as well as frankly racist language. I'm not super familiar with editing this site but I went and fixed things that seemed particularly egregious, such as the first line of the article referring to him as "An Islamist of unverified Palestinian origin" which seem entirely unsupported and inappropriate especially given that his life was deeply effected by such allegations by the government, and it seems frankly pretty gross to default to referring to anyone's ethnicity as "unverified."

Anyway, I'm hoping someone who better understands how to navigate the site can take a look at this because I think the article is not up to standards and I'm sure there's tons more stuff that needs to be fixed, and at least nowadays we're far enough removed from the early 2000's when referring to any Muslim activist as an "Islamist" is no longer quite as socially acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.42.46.6 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That was all done in this series of edits by Internationaleditor85, who I am about to notify of the ARBPIA and ARBBLP sanctions. Thanks for bringing this up. nableezy - 00:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Chris Tyson

Hello. I'm adding this new article to the BLP noticeboard because imo it may need a little extra care due to the controversy surrounding the subject. Also, there is currently an image of Tyson in the article that is pre-transition and I'm wondering if there is any policy/guideline surrounding that. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a good case to delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. All of the coverage is recent and about their transition and their relationship to the much more famous MrBeast. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The channel is notable but I'm not at all convinced that this individual is notable in their own right. Not everyone involved in a notable YouTube channel is notable individually, in the same way that appearing in a notable TV series doesn't automatically make an actor individually notable. In this case almost all the coverage I can find is linked to the channel, including that around their transitioning (which in any case, wouldn't of itself make them notable). Neiltonks (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Tyson (2nd nomination). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Mostly moot if the article is deleted, but I've removed the photos from the infobox per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Gender identity. IMO given the state of the article even if it is kept we shouldn't include it anywhere. Perhaps if the article eventually includes a length section on life before starting HRT. IMO we also shouldn't include it in other articles for the same reason. While Tyson might have appeared in various MrBeast videos, I'm not convinced this is significant enough to require such a photo especially since there's no indication they are going to stop appearing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My removal was quickly reverted but I didn't notice as I didn't check out Misplaced Pages. I have re-removed the photo and mention this discussion along with giving reasoning on the article talk page. I missed that the OP had specifically asked about photos, I linked to the relevant guideline but didn't quote the part. Under best practices number 4, it says Avoid using an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a transgender subject as a lead image. If no other photos are available, it is generally better to have no lead image at all. In general, avoid using pre-coming-out photos unless the subject's pre-transition appearance is especially well-known and notable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Bezalel Smotrich

I am not a fan of Bezalel Smotrich and his anti-gay comments. But User:Iskandar323 is way over the top. Over here He writes in the lead that:

He has called himself a "fascist homophobe"

However the context of this statement is from a leaked recording of a private conversation and it was a sarcastic remark. Haaretz has a paywall, but this is Times of Israel:

“I may be a far-right person, a homophobe, racist, fascist, but my word is my bond,” he says in an apparently sarcastic attempt to use his detractor’s words.

This is out of context to the extreme, this was a sarcastic remark and it is obvious from the recording of the private conversation that it was a sarcastic retort to the person he was speaking to. יהואש (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add those lines. They were already there, and I simply restored them after you removed them, which, as an non-ECP editor, you should not strictly be doing on a page flagged with WP:ARBPIA mandated ECP editing restrictions. But if you really want to get into it, he still admitted those things by himself. The Times of Israel only adds "apparently sarcastic" in terms of retrospective editorializing after the leak, so there seems to be some degree of skepticism over the sarcasm here, and this is now the second time he has admitted to being a "proud homophobe" after saying it in a high school no less, a deeply public forum. Fool me once. Anyone who refers to "the gays" pretty much wears their sentiments on their sleeves, bigoted private jokes aside. As for 'fascist', that has already entered scholarship in force, e.g. here: "The recent call by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to eliminate the village of Huwara is quite clearly a Fascist-style provocation by a messianic nationalist." Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing cats Category:Jewish fascistsCategory:Anti-Arabism in IsraelCategory:Far-right politicians in Israel, the latter two in particular (well sourced everywhere) was not OK. Not only not supposed to be editing this page to start with but in the case of the far right cat, a breach of 1R as well (it was only added on 16th by Iskandar) here and here

If you have a complaint about content, why not first raise it on the article talk page, give other editors a chance to comment first. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Placing Smotrich's LGBT comments under ARBPIA is probably not right, and Selfstudier created an edit notice barring edits on the page at 11:19, 18 April 2023, after this discussion was opened. To the substance of the argument here, the Category:Jewish fascists doesn't belong and the quote itself should be fixed and contextualized. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The talk page notice already was present. I have merely added the edit notice to match. The entire page is subject to restrictions and the editor has also been made aware at their talk page of the restrictions on the page. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Same comment as previously, discuss it on the article talk page first. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen

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.

My comment at WT:Deceased Wikipedians regarding Flyer22 Frozen was revdeled by Barkeep49. Was this proper? My comment was asking Alison if she would object to me reverting this edit because of the 2023 RS which she had seen about the editor who goes by Flyer22 Frozen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good God. Would you fucking drop it already? Seriously. This obsession of yours does not make you come off in a good way. Zaereth (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As I understand from off-wiki discussions, there is no consensus amongst ArbCom members as to whether Flyer is actually dead. That said, I'm not sure that this actually warrants doing anything in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

My question was for Alison, who skyped with Flyer years ago and commented on Wikipediocracy about the 2023 RS she has seen. Regardless of whether Arbcom feels it is their place to verify the information, there is currently a violation of WP:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Without wanting you to breach any relevant policies or guidelines, is there anything more you can tell us about the comment you made? Was it just the question to Alison, or did it include the link to the RS? If it included the link, does the RS contain any information that could be considered WP:OUTING?

Based on the information at hand, it's hard to tell if this is actually covered by RD2 or not. The deceased Wikipedian's entry for her said she died in January 2021, so there is a valid question about whether or not WP:BDP applies as two years has now passed. And if you simply asked something super generic like RS says this editor is not dead, can we remove them from the list? I struggle right now to see how correcting the deceased Wikipedian page has little to no project value and so subject to RD2. However, if the RS does assert that she's living, and a link to it was included in your comment, then an argument could be made that OUTING applies and it would therefore be subject to RD4/OS and possibly RD2. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

All of that said though, in addition to the ping from the initial comment, I'd suggest that maybe notifying Barkeep on his talk page of this discussion so that he can expand briefly on his reasons for revdelling would be in order here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not include a link to the RS because that would have been outing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll wait to hear what Barkeep says before commenting further, but if it wasn't outing related I struggle right now to see how RD2 applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The BLP violation, which of course applies in all places onwiki not just in articles, is that one way or another you are accusing a person who is alive (the subject of the unlinked news story) of faking their own death. Kolya's repeated attempts to "prove" this - and not for nothing I'm reasonably convinced - are itself disruptive. Kolya is not building encyclopedic content. Kolya is not stopping current or future disruption by proving this given the existence of current CU blocks for socking and the possibility of adding new editors to that case if they should arise. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Kolya's history on this issue aside, how would we square this with the verification guidance of DWG? You're correct in saying that it's not encyclopaedic content, but it is arguably project content. Kolya is probably not the best editor to have raised this issue (no offence intended), but there is nonetheless a valid issue here.

Generalising this even further, if there's convincing evidence that an editor (doesn't matter who) who was originally thought to be dead, but is not actually dead, is there actually any way to correct entries at WP:DECEASED? Because, issues between Kolya and Flyer22 aside, that is the circumstance we find ourselves in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Marcello Minenna

Marcello Minenna Marcello Minenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The content of the "Judicial controversies" section added to Marcello Minenna's article on the 6th of April (see diff https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marcello_Minenna&diff=prev&oldid=1148508654&diffmode=source) may cause unfair reputational damage to Marcello Minenna, as it violates wiki BLP guidelines and Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). Quoting some of WP’s BLP guidelines: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all”. Considering the sensitive subject matter of this section, links quoted as sources appear to be completely inadequate and unreliable, as they consist of minor newspapers with little circulation and no national relevance.

Let's not forget that "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" and tabloids are not reliable sources. Furthermore, these unreliable sources report, at most, rumors of ongoing investigations. Minenna is not under trial. He was never convicted. Quoting BLP policies: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, and arrests do not amount to a conviction", according to the general principle of Presumption in favor of privacy. It looks like this section's only purpose is to smear Minenna's reputation, as it appears to be created primarily to disparage the subject. Similar malicious and biased editing has led to page protection of the wp's Italian version of this article. I hope administrators will consider the removal of all clear BLP violations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Melissa_Bime

I am Melissa Bime. I run a comapny, and a malicious employee is writing stuff about me on here and trying to ruin my reputation because she got fired. How do i stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Bime (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that neither Bime nor the company concerned seem to meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, the simplest solution would probably be to delete the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Egads. That article is terrible. It reads like an advertisement that was written by yourself or someone with very close ties to you. You should seriously read WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. (I wouldn't wish one on my worst enemy.) Honestly, your best bet is to request deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. Since the article doesn't really demonstrate notability, we will often give special consideration to subjects who come and request such articles to be deleted. Honestly, that's the best way to avoid vandalism, revenge edits, poorly written articles, and other such problems. Aside from that, the first thing I recommend is reading our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and note that you shouldn't edit the page yourself. Instead, you should use the talk pages to request your changes. Complying with policy is not only the best way to get help from the community, but also to avoid any bad press. Remember, everything you do on Misplaced Pages is logged and stored in the history --forever-- and people from the news agencies just love to go through that stuff looking for a story. If it's a case of vandalism, you can report it here or at WP:ANI, and an admin will usually handle the matter as they deem appropriate. If the problem is egregious or persistent, they may block the offending user, or may even protect the article. You can request page protection at WP:RFPP, but with any of these options you will want to go into them with "clean hands", or you could find it WP:Boomeranging back at you. But I still say option 1 is your best bet for a long-term solution. I hope that helps and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hanna Cavinder

I have recently created Hanna Cavinder. She and her twin sister Haley Cavinder are jointly very prominent social media stars as the Cavindertwins on various social media platforms. However, they also have a lot of individual biographical content. Within Hanna's bio there are a lot of things that the twins do together and I am not sure if the article currently strikes the proper tone with regard to subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am no longer watching this page. Make sure to ping my user talk if you reply here with feedback for me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sung Deuk Hahm

I don't know What's the problem about Sung Deuk Hahm's article. Please tell me about the problem and why the Notice still opened.

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 서대문사나이 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you confused about the notice on the article's talk page? That doesn't indicate there is a problem with that article - it's a warning on most articles about living people, just there to let editors know about the policies in place for articles about living people. Do you have other questions about it? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Hughey

Unsubstantiated rumor and slander being made about this living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:B00:E040:4D07:489B:F9B6:F6F0 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed that per WP:BLPCRIME. That should not be added back unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law. Zaereth (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Kay Adams (sportscaster)

Hi. I work for Kay Adams (sportscaster), who is concerned about her real legal name being on Misplaced Pages. She uses the "Kay Adams" pseudonym (along with 24/7 security and restraining orders) to protect her from obsessed fans that routinely stalk/harass her, send her weapons, and/or become romantically obsessed with her. I believe she qualifies to have her legal name omitted under WP:BLPNAME :

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."

Her real name is sometimes published online by gossip rags, but it isn't "widely disseminated" or published in any scholarly works. She does "intentionally conceal" her real name. Omitting her real name would not cause a "significant loss of context" to readers, but would help protect Kay's safety.

I ask that editors consider whether Kay meets the criteria of WP:BLPNAME and, if so, omit her real name from the page. Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my request. Tucker.hart (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I will note that her name is currently sourced to TV Guide, which sounds like a good source... but it's a database page, not an article. As such, it is in no way an indicator that her name is of import or of interest, it's just information that they claim to have. As such, this looks like a reasonable request. (I am avoiding article edits at this time, so I won't do it myself... but it should have more consensus than just me here anyway.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tucker.hart Hi, and thanks for raising the question here the way you did. I checked the source in the article , and googled a bit. Based on that, your request and WP:BLPKIND, I'll WP:BOLDly remove it, then we'll see what happens.

TV Guide looks okay on the face of it per WP:RSP, but the discussions that led up to that summary talked about stuff like air dates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Btw, if you're interested in contributing a WP:LEADIMAGE for the WP-article, take one with your own camera, and upload it with the process that starts HERE. You can then tell me it's done, and I'll add it to the article. Well, unless I think it's bloody awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussions of a crime allegedly committed by Lauren Boebert's husband

Is it a violation of BLP to include a paragraph discussing a crime Lauren Boebert's husband is alleged to have committed. The back drop of this question is this disputed edit . Boebert's husband is reported to have exposed himself in front of two girls in 2004 (if he is the same age as Lauren Boebert he would have been about 18 at the time). Lauren's disputing of the facts of the crime was published by several news sources in 2022. The question is does the inclusion here violate BLPCRIME as the content is about Boebert's husband vs Lauren Boebert? The material is in a general section about her personal life and doesn't appear to support a larger narrative about Lauren. There is a discussion related to the content here but I think views outside of the subject area would be helpful. Springee (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lauren was under 18 at the time of the incident; her husband was 24. He isn't merely "accused"; he was convicted since he pled guilty. BLPCRIME addresses non-notable people merely accused of a crime. His criminal history has been mentioned in multiple RS discussions of Lauren Boebert; WP is not the entity making the connection. VQuakr (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, she is the one who brought this up as she wrote about it in her book. You can't write something in a book and expect people to not comment -- particularly if the book comes out three months before an election and makes incorrect statements. And "alleged" should be stricken.O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Salon dug up the dirt before Boebert's book was published. It appears she was trying to respond to the accusations. Springee (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, I think the issue here is that her husband (were they married at the time?) is the subject of this information yet he isn't a public figure and the article isn't about him. We have to balance his BLP needs against the WEIGHT of this content in the article. Remember that when dealing with real people we need to err on the side of do no harm . Springee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I doubt many of her voters read Salon. They are more likely to have read her book where she apparently made false statements about this. The mention in the article is about her false statements in her book shortly before her election. "When first you practice to deceive." And why haven't you removed "alleged"? If it were just alleged, you'd have better legs to stand on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If she disputes the facts then the question is moot because its not about her husband anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the source I just read (I had never heard of her five minutes ago, so some research was necessary), the couple were not married at the time. This doesn't seem particularly relevant however, since she was apparently present at the time of the offense, and in commenting about it herself she has made it relevant to our article about her. I will say that I don't think that we should include the word 'falsely'. She says he didn't actually do it, but we say that he pled guilty and was convicted; that's all factual, and it's probably all we need to say. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

since she was apparently present at the time of the offense: according to Insider that claim was made by the NY Post, which is GUNREL, especially for BLPs DFlhb (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Girth Summit that "falsely" should be omitted, but I don't think there is any doubt that she was present. Various sources (including those that lean left, those that lean right, and primary sources) report that Boebert was present. Newsweek: "She and Jayson Boebert were not yet married and the pair were out with friends and family at the time of the incident." The Independent: "Ms Boebert’s version of events, however, diverges from the timeline and accounts that were provided to police and omits relevant details – including that she was there and spoke to authorities after the 2004 incident." Washington Examiner: "Lauren Boebert, according to the county sheriff’s report, was recorded as a witness. But she did not mention being present for it in her book, in which she says the night of the episode began when Jayson Boebert 'decided to try to bond with my stepfather.' 'The two of them went to the Rifle bowling alley and got to chatting over drinks,' she writes, omitting the fact that she was, according to police, with them." -Location (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that Misplaced Pages shouldn't publish this. It can't be right to put Boebert's non-notable husband's non-notable crime into Misplaced Pages on the principle that 'it serves her right, because she wrote about it in her book'. This isn't about what serves her right, it's about not shaming her husband. He's a separate person. I quote WP:BLPNAME: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Is her husband's crime, or even her denial of it, "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of "? Surely not. Bishonen | tålk 17:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC).

"Is her husband's crime, or even her denial of it, "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of "?" of course it is, if she wasn't a political hot spot we would never even question it. Misplaced Pages is not censored, if it gets substantial coverage from WP:RS we cover it per WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

One thing in situations like this is the article is about Lauren Boebert, not her husband (who as far as I know is only notable due to being her husband). So details that are not about Lauren Boebert should be kept to a minimum. I don't mean that it should necessary be kept out of the article, but sentences such as "Jayson Boebert was arrested in 2004 for exposing his penis to two young women at a Colorado bowling alley." are undue, as they are about Jason Boebert not Lauren Boebert. Stating that he pleaded guilty to lewd exposure and public indecency is enough to then cover her denial of it. As to whether it's a notable enough detail to include at all it does seems like something a tabloid would report own, but it is something she has written about in her own memoirs so she seems to think it noteworthy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes the article is about Lauren Boebert, as is the coverage (people keep implying that these articles are about her husband but they aren't, they're about her). If it was just tabloids who reported on it we wouldn't be having this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

An entire paragraph in her personal life section with 5 other paragraph was undue WP:WEIGHT. It's not that significant a part of her life and was just one part that was mentioned in her book. If the charges against her husband aren't being mentioned in general anywhere, then her dispute of it isn't needed. If her book was notable to have it's own article then assuming the other parts that are covered in reliable sources were also covered, then it would make sense to include that bit as well. If this event had occurred while Boebert was a public figure/notable, then it probably would warrant a mention. As things are now, I don't feel it is needed in the article at all. WikiVirusC 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's DUE because independent RSs have discussed it in connection with Lauren Boebert. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Independent RS have discussed a lot in connection with her, we do not include everything single thing mentioned about her, let alone those mentioned about her husband. My comment about weight was the fact that way too much focus was given to this one fact in her personal life section compared to the relative scope in the grand scheme of her and the coverage of her. My response was to the version linked that was mentioned. If it was going to be included it could honestly be done in one sentence, something like ~"In her memoir Boebert claimed her husband didn't actually expose himself for an indecent exposure charged he pleaded guilty to in 04". Like I said I don't feel like it should be in article, but if it was this wouldn't be undue weight. The version disputed focused on the husband too much, wanted to say more detail then needed, decided to mention twice he pleaded guilty, and twice he went to jail for it. Once again the article is about her not him, we don't need background on him or the charge, "she disputed he committed the crime that he plead guilty to" focuses on her and what she said. WikiVirusC 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Boebert was present when a crime was committed (✓), the crime was committed by someone she accompanied to the venue (✓), she denied that any crime was committed (✓), she found the incident noteworthy enough to write about it (✓), she omitted key details about the incident when she wrote about it (✓), and reliable sources found all of this noteworthy enough to write about it (✓). We do not need to include every tidbit that reliable sources publish about her, but I think all of this meets the onus for inclusion and weight. -Location (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, at least Salon reported on the story in 2021, before her book came out in 2022. We shouldn't assume that she was the one to raise the issue. Springee (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why have you refused to strike the dishonest word "alleged" which should most certainly not belong in a section header? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the word penis which I thought was unnecessary, despite the fact WP is not censored. I do not agree that the article has an overly large section on her personal life and the past as there is not much to focus on in her present as nearly all of her bills never came out of committee, and the pair have had an unusually, let’s say, colorful past and present.

My point is that I think we have been very polite with a couple with an unusual history who have used much of that history as a part of their campaign. Indeed he appears to be a part of her campaign, campaigning together, speaking to their gun themed restaurant, Evangelical Christianity. But, we cannot whitewash their lives.

Now, explain to me why we have an article about the current president’s, son’s, ex-wife which is basically a hit piece on the son of the president? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The Buhle article is egregious; why in the world would we assume claims made in divorce proceedings are true? And if the "claims" aren't confirmed, why would they be noteworthy? DFlhb (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What's going on here? The claim that she was present during the incident is sourced to the New York Post. It cannot be alluded to in a BLP, and it isn't a valid argument for dueness. Second: the claim that she lied is WP:OR, since we cite no source that says it (and our article can't say falsely stated with the current sourcing either). According to her, her husband signed a plea deal, meaning that it never went to trial. I haven't seen any source contradict this. Expert sources are very clear that plea bargains don't prove guilt (for example, see this OUP chapter, or this amusing Routledge chapter). He pleaded guilty, and she said he was innocent. Those two facts are not contradictory.

On a separate note, I don't understand why we don't seem to mention Jayson's domestic violence against Lauren, which is obviously due, since it actually concerns her unlike this incident. Shameful all around. DFlhb (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Pleas in criminal court require allocution including admission of guilt. He went to jail. She also stated that she was present in her book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've now downloaded the book to check; I don't see it in there. And w/r/t plea deals, of course they involve a guilty plea, but that's immaterial to my argument. DFlhb (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Piling negativity on a politician due to partner problems is known as coatracking which should not occur at an anyone can edit encyclopedia. If Jason Boebert or Allegations regarding Jason Boebert are notable, start an article on them. Otherwise, don't coatrack. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Boebert's defense of her husband in her memoir is what stirred up the hullabaloo, so a much better option that those two would be My American Life which has been covered by reliable sources. -Location (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• First of all, there are plenty of reasons people plead guilty without actually being guilty of a crime. It happens literally all the time, prosecutors make a living on threatening long prison sentences if one goes to trial but probation or minimal prison time for pleading out. And somebody can make the math work in their head that it is not worth risking being found guilty for a crime they did not commit and getting more prison time than just pleading guilty. And thats a feature, not a bug of the American criminal justice system. And yes, you can be found guilty and not have committed the crime. Jesus, has nobody here heard of the Central Park jogger case, or the work of Innocence Project, or the reasons why George Ryan ended capital punishment in Illinois to think that guilty means did it the end? But what exactly does this have to do with the subject of our BLP? That she was there and wrote about it? Wtf cares, what are you saying about her? That she says her husband didnt commit a crime that he pleaded guilty to? Ok, and? This is indeed COATRACKING, and it is not relevant to any encyclopedic coverage of Boebart. This is not a list of all the things you want the voters in her district to know about before they head to the polls. Its still a BLP, and our BLP policy is meant to protect the people we dont like just as much as the people we do like. nableezy - 05:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  And it should also be removed until there is a consensus for it, not stay until there is a consensus against it, and it would be a lot better if Valjean reverted it out themselves in the meantime. nableezy - 05:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  User:Nableezy, I only reworked the existing content and it has since been revised and now removed. I believe it belongs. Lauren made this about herself by contradicting proven facts (that's known as lying). Lauren (who was 17) was there the whole time. Jayson (who was 24) offered to show his tattooed penis to three girls. After offering the bartender a view of his dick, the two "underage" (we don't know their exact ages) girls were approached by Jayson, who bragged that he had a tattoo on his penis, and without their permission, he showed it to them. They immediately complained to the owner, who tried to get Jayson and Lauren to leave, but they refused. Then the police were called. So "underage" is the best we can do. (This all reminds me of a joke about a cadaver in medical school. The medical students found a tattoo on the penis which quoted the gospel hymn "Love lifted me.") -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I meant this restoration, which from my check was the last revert to include. I think we have a problem in a number of articles that ONUS is being flipped on its head, and doubly so in BLPs that have WP:BLPRESTORE requirements too. Until there is a consensus for inclusion, it stays out. Not until there is a consensus for exclusion it stays in. nableezy - 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree about COATRACK; I put in the "middle-ground" version, so I'll revert it out (but keep the domestic violence stuff I added). The pro-dueness arguments were sloppy, by relying on her supposedly "lying". The fact that it was cited to Newsweek, Daily Beast (MEDREL), Current Affairs (opinionated), minor local outlets, and outlets with somewhat relaxed thresholds for newsworthiness (Insider and The Independent, which are reliable but not in the same class as NYT or WaPo) also constitutes quite weak dueness. DFlhb (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If this was just about her husband, I would agree it definitely does not belong. The fact she defended him in a book could be enough for some coverage but there would need to be significant sourcing establishing that her doing so is a significant part of her life story perhaps it is was a long-term contentious issue or something. This sourcing doesn't seem to be there, even the text that was removed just seems to mention the incident that that she defended him without establishing any significance of her doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

But it is just about Boebert's husband. The whole topic is about what Boebert's husband did. Boebert's husband is not a notable person. It is just one incident in the life of Boebert's husband and he is a living person and it is a repeat of his criminal record. Misplaced Pages does not exist to repeat scandalous facts about a living, non-notable person. On top of that, the article is not about Boebert's husband. It is off-topic and violates BLP. It should not be included because it violates BLP. -- LiwenAristodemos (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well no, the reason it has become controversial seems to be because of what she said in her book. As I said, I don't think there's evidence it's been significant enough for coverage at the moment. But it's easy to imagine a situation where it could be significant. For example if she loses her next election and it's widely accepted that what she said was a significant reason for why she lost then it's quite likely this is something we would need to cover. In fact, even if she did not defend him, even if she had criticised him it could still have became a significant issue widely cited as a key reason for why she loses or wins the next election.

A loosely similar example is Pedro Pascal. While Pascal's father is not notable, we cover his indictment because it's said to have a significant effect on his early life and career. Frankly although this supposedly appears in sources it's still not explained in our article so it's not an ideal situation, but at least this was the justification for keeping it. Note we had some discussion on precisely what to mention notably the claim that the reason his father moved was not because of the indictment isn't mentioned because it involves claims about another living person even if this effectively reflects negatively on Pascal's father demonstrating the complexity of such situations as they often involve tradeoffs between the harm to various living persons, sometimes even multiple living persons who are non notable.

(I mean even in this case, while the identities of the victims is probably difficult to find, if we were to cover it any defence we include from Boebert or her husband would affect the non-notable victims who are very likely living persons as well.)

Another loosely related example is Saida Muna Tasneem. Currently we mentioned the fact she was recalled, but not why as it involves claims about her husband. This may work here even if again it effectively involves a tradeoff about a possible harm to her reputation (as readers may assume she did something wrong personally) vs that of her non notable husband. But just like the Pascal example there are going to be examples where that does not work.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, Salon published an article about this incident before Boebert's book was published. Others might have as well. I would look at what she put in the book as responding to the media rather that being the first to publish the incident. Springee (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I would add this to the husband's bio if at all. This seems pretty minor stuff, unless more comes of it, which I doubt it will. --Malerooster (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: The topic of her husband's conviction is "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of (Boebert)". It should be included. Wes sideman (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wes sideman has restored the disputed content and claimed consensus. I don't see that consensus given the discussion here but I'm not interested in edit warring once my revert was overturned by Wes sideman. Springee (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see consensus, and I feel that the restoration is a violation of WP:BLP policies. I'm concerned here about WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NPF with the editor mentioned above potentially disregarding the policies set forth in WP:BLPRESTORE. Any uninvolved editor would probably agree that this could be a WP:DE situation. Could you self-revert @Wes sideman until there's been a RFC and proper consensus established? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issue. The information is factual. It's well-sourced. The arguments against including it are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I've perused the edit histories of a couple of editors against including this; they seem to have a mission to minimize negatively-tinged information from conservative figures' articles, even if they're sourced. So I don't see a compelling reason to remove it. A lot of good policy-based points have been made here in favor of inclusion. Wes sideman (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There are good-faith BLP objections, as demonstrated by this thread, and WP:BLPRESTORE is policy and states When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. There is no rush to include this, so there is no harm in waiting for consensus. Also, leave out the aspersions against other editors next time, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced claim that a subject died

I'm finding articles that are categorized as living people but have been edited to say that the subject died. One such example is at Daniel Doran (figure skater). How should articles like this be handled? It's entirely plausible that the subject died (most people do it sooner or later), but the risk of claiming that someone died when they didn't seems like a massive BLP problem. I tried to find a source confirming the death, but nothing came up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Doran example could be a hoax, as a very through search through newspapers.com with multiple parameters did not return anything about a death. Curbon7 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the claim for now, and I suppose that's what I'll do going forward if I'm unable to find a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be hoax, but there have been other examples where we've had reasons to think they are probably correct but there are no RS and some cases this remains the case even after months. IMO, we should expect this to be common with people of relatively low notability where the notability is largely in the past. (I did come across a non RS suggesting by 2014, the subject may have fallen on hard times.) Olympics participants is one area where it seems especially common, while it's to some extent worse with those who didn't win there's probably also an aspect of many of them being obscure enough that it doesn't make it here. Note that it makes no difference to what we should do, if there are no RS then we do not mention it. I bring this up in case any editors have personal reasons to think it's true to remind them it does not matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BDP, living persons are presumed alive unless and until reliable sources report their death (or presumed death). We can presume them dead when 115 years have passed since their birth, per the same policy. Claiming a person died is a contentious claim about a living person, and requires a source inline or to be removed immediately and without discussion; there is no grey area. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 10:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else feel the sudden urge to go look for articles on people who lived 2000+ years ago where we have no information about their death and add "presumed dead"? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Jack Teixeira and WP:DOB

Are widely-published charging documents sufficient to source a year of birth? e.g. We have multiple reliable sources identifying his age at or around the time of his arrest, e.g. , but I have not found non-WP:BLPPRIMARY RS sources that plainly state a year of birth. There has been discussion on the article Talk page that also relates to attempts to add a full date of birth based on a recent New York Times source, so there is also a question about whether this one source is sufficient to add a full date of birth. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

CT55555 and BLP policy

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Dover, CT55555 is arguing what I feel is an incorrect interpretation of the BLP policy. Based on some of their other article creations (Arrest of Jacob Gregoire, Casey Hatherly, Razia Muradi), it seems there is a pattern of creating Misplaced Pages articles about otherwise low-profile individuals based on one spurt of tabloid news coverage. Is this type of content in line with Misplaced Pages's BLP policy? Walt Yoder (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• That article, and the other three mentioned, are all textbook WP:BLP1E. Indeed, the latter one doesn't even appear to be notable at all. The other 3 should go to AfD. Clogging up Misplaced Pages with trivial local news stories that happen to get a brief burst of coverage outside their local area ("Hey look, the cops arrested a firefighter! That'll be good for the quirky news spot!") is not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated one of these for deletion, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Jacob Gregoire. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion. I agree that articles like this present WP:BLP issues, although it can sometimes be difficult to convince people of that at WP:AFD. WP:1E also tells us to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. In addition there's policies and guidelines to consider like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SENSATIONAL in relation to events. Tristario (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Oliver North

Oliver North was indicted, convicted, and sentenced on charges related to his role in the Iran–Contra affair, but the conviction was eventually overturned. His mugshot appears in both of those articles. I have no political dog in this one, but I am wondering how WP:BLPCRIME might apply and whether the image should stay or go. -Location (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME doesn't apply in this case. North falls under the exception, which is WP:PUBLICFIGURE. His case was far to widely publicized to consider him otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is actually a relevant passage in WP:BLP about this, WP:MUG: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited.

Perhaps others would disagree but I don't think there's much of an issue. It's not particularly out of context - he was convicted, it was just later overturned, and it's been well covered in reliable sources. What it does at least need though is a supporting citation, per the policy Tristario (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Robin Hunter-Clarke

User Richisups keeps adding potentially defamatory content - attempting to link toa convicted criminal. No relevance to the bio of the subject. Comments from others please. Also request made for wiki to review page as not a notable figure. Never held office above being a councillor. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiview2000 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite being a sock, OPs concerns about this biography were correct. It contained some WP:OR, inappropriate use of primary sources, and guilt by association. The article probably has further issues beyond what I've removed too. Tristario (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Klete Keller

A few days ago I WP:Boldly changed the lead of Klete Keller from convicted felon and former competitive swimmer to former competitive swimmer who is also a convicted participant of the January 6 United States Capitol attack because the article didn't have any source call him a convicted felon. WP:BLPLEAD clearly states that The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. As per my WP:Before and according to the sources provided in the article none of the sources call the subject a convicted felon so I found it is WP:OR and violating WP:BLPLEAD and WP:BLP. I have explained all of these on the talk page]. Irrespective of ongoing discussion Wes sideman is restoring his edits even though WP:ONUS  clearly states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This user has previously been blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish for violating his topic ban on abortion and has been advised by both HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) 1, and Deepfriedokra 2 for his edit behavior. But Misplaced Pages:REFUSINGTOGETIT, Wes Sideman continuing his pov push based on his WP:ILIKEIT arguments and I think this needs some attention. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• The article states that "On September 29, 2021, as part of a plea bargain, Keller pleaded "guilty" to a felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before congress." and states that he awaits sentencing. IMO that means that he is technically a "convicted felon" but I don't see the problem with your wording either. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is denying that he is not a felon. But his notability is based on being the wrestler/firmer wrestler. No source says otherwise. So the article should follow what WP:BLPLEAD says. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"his notability is based on being the wrestler/firmer wrestler" ?!?!? Where is the reliable source that says this? I don't see one. Wes sideman (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the article was created in 2007 I would say his notability was established before Jan 2021 . Springee (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You linked to a version of the article that has 1 reference, and if you click the source, that source doesn't even exist anymore. Also, reasons for notability can change, and have, drastically, in this case. Wes sideman (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I was pinged into this discussion, but I don't see my past interaction with Wes as having any bearing in the matter at hand. No one is perfect, least of all me, and, again, I don't see that interaction as relevant to this discussion. I have no opinion on this content dispute. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would question the wisdom of describing someone as a criminal in the opening sentence when they're notable for something other than their crimes but that can be worked out on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly go over the article's talk page, I've tried my best to discuss the issue on the talk page, and the edit history of Wes Sideman on that page clearly shows that there is no point in discussing the talk page, and I thought this would be a broader space to get the opinion of more editors including admins. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell when they say "I would question the wisdom of describing someone as a criminal in the opening sentence when they're notable for something other than their crimes". This does not apply in the Keller case; they are notable for their crime. You can count the number of reliable secondary sources that don't mention January 6th on one hand. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of sources available that deal with his crime and conviction. Wes sideman (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• That's generally where I fall on this too. Also noting that I unblocked fairly quickly after consultation with HJ Mitchell. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That all (in terms of the content) sounds right. Apart from in very limited cases I see little reason why we should be introducing people as "convicted felons" and "convicted criminals" as if that's their identity Tristario (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Keller's article predates Jan 6 so clearly this person was notable for something other than that. That they were a Jan 6 participant and plead guilty should be in the lead but not the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the state of the article and its one source prior to January 6th. Barely notable, and if not for the Olympic relay team medal, probably would have been a good candidate for deletion. Hundreds of sources since then that describe his crime and conviction. Your post here, frankly, completely ignores reality. How do you feel about the lead of R. Kelly? Wes sideman (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend splitting that lede sentence. Forcing both his profession (swimming) and the Jan 6 conviction is putting a square peg in a round hole. This is a case where the lede as it is right now, without the "convicted felon" part, still captures the short "who is this person" in a neutrally-toned way. Misplaced Pages is not here to write attack articles about people, even those with convictions, and there's a better way to present the same info without losing any of it that removes the attacking position that the current form takes. Masem (t) 12:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Swimming is not his profession, and it hasn't been his profession for a long time. Even when it was, he was barely notable for it and likely would never have met GNG if he hadn't picked up an Olympic team relay medal; ie, his article would've been deleted. Since January 2021, however, he is easily notable - for his conviction. The swimming career is a long-ago detail that barely got any coverage before Jan 6th. Wes sideman (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that we have many articles that introduce people as "convicted felons" if that is what they are most notable for. Even the R. Kelly article, which I have never edited, has "convicted felon" in the first sentence and I don't have a problem with that, even if Kelly is far more notable for being a musician than a convicted felon. In the Keller case, Keller is far more notable since January 6th than he was before. He was a swimmer that had scant coverage before that, and if it wasn't for the automatic-qualifier Olympic relay medal he won, I doubt he would've had an article, as he would not have met WP:GNG. Take a look at the article and its sourcing right before Jan. 6th. Since his conviction, the coverage of him is 100% about his felony. Wes sideman (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not really good. Unless the only thing the person has done that is discussed in depth is committed a crime, forcing the lede sentence to include "convicted felon" or any similar phrases alongside their professional aspects is just twisting the article to be treated as an attack article. Masem (t) 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That post merely expresses your own personal taste. Which has no particular status here. Wes Sideman is right -- Keller is now notable mainly for being a convicted felon (not for being a swimmer). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Batra notable people section

The entire section of Batra#Notable people lists a number of living people with descriptions with zero citations, including at least one claim about sexuality that was recently edited. Fermiboson (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution