Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 29 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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)

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 wikipedia 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, wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

  I found the method to close the discussion (Marking a closed discussion).

  Unless someone has something else to contribute, I guess we can proceed. Editngwiki (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that to close a discussion, we need an uninvolved editor, so no one here that has commented so far. Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 27 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)

• Comment for closer: When closing this, if it is decided to not include these accusations of abuse in either article, could you note whether we should use the sources "The 100' Star Bob Morley Accused of Abusive Behavior" & "'The 100's' Bob Morley accused of abuse" even if we are removing the abuse allegations. I tried to remove them from page because of redundancy of her bisexuality being "confirmed" by media, but it was put back in with an explanation(on my usertalk page) that more media reporting is needed to confirm her bisexuality. I don't see the point of having a content/BLP discussion on my talk page, so I have asked for it to be done here on this noticeboard or on Arryn's talk page. For reference the linked article don't really report on her bisexuality so much as just quote her statement of Morley's alleged reaction to her bisexuality. Editngwiki (talk · contribs), brought up several examples of her bisexualities earlier in this discussion, but Historyday01 (talk · contribs) says it's better to use media reporting. There are examples of Zech stating it herself such as in the one Youtube Video. I say the quote that is already in article describer herself as "a bisexual" was enough, and if we need more(which I don't think we do) the youtube clip of her saying she is bisexual could be a second reference. I don't have an issue of mentioning her bisexuality, but I don't see point of removing the abuse allegation, but putting in multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title, when it is completely unnecessary. WikiVirusC 16:53, 29 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)

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)

• The issue is her husband is not a public figure (he's not even notable for his own page). Any discussion of him at Lauren Boebert would need to be particularly relevant to Boebert herself. Now, if it wasn't for Boebert opining in her book that she didn't think he was guilty, it would be full-stop don't include the material. But, once she starts opining it starts becoming relevant to her biography. Also, some have suggested a BLPCRIME issue, and I reject those arguments since he's been adjudicated guilty. Interesting issue we got here. Firstly, if this needs to be included it should be kept as short as humanly possible. Ultimately, this has been covered in reliable sources in the context of Boebert, so a brief mention is likely warranted. Commenting on the sub-issue of BLPRESTORE, the material shouldn't be included until there is a consensus for it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:07, 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)

• Do sources state that he is presumed dead? Or is there just no information one way or the other. If it is the latter, then Misplaced Pages can also be silent on the matter. --Jayron32 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  So far no-one has come up with any sources suggesting that he is dead, may be dead, or is thought to be dead. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:42, 27 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)

Well, no - he won individual bronze Olympic medals as well, and easily meets GNG - but I wouldn't disagree that this is not what he's notable for now. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree, because if he weren't an Olympic medalist there wouldn't be nearly as much coverage about the January 6th plea deal. If he had never won medals there wouldn't be an article on him, and the January 6th coverage wouldn't be enough to make him notable. I think what this demonstrates is that he's very notable as a swimmer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but I was just pointing out that he easily met GNG long before he became a Trump loon. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 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)

No, the conviction is noteworthy because he's a notable swimmer. If he were not a medalist he'd just be another person who would never qualify for an article, and the only reason his involvement with January 6th was widely reported was because he was a notable swimmer. Just look at all of the sources used in the article, it's all centered around his being an Olympic athlete. The story about his being there was even broken by a swimming site, which reported that people involved in swimming recognized him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The other side of that is what's important - he received very little coverage as a swimmer, and 99% of all of the available reliable secondary sourcing on him was published after Jan 6th, 2021. His arrest and conviction is clearly the most notable part of his bio now; whether an editor likes that fact or not has little bearing on reality. John du Pont is another good example of this phenomenon - he was probably notable just for being a billionaire, a philanthropist, for being the founder of the Delaware Museum of Nature & Science, for buying the British Guiana 1c magenta - but check his lead sentence. Wes sideman (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a horrible opening sentence. I don't have the time to go around trying to fix that in every article where it pops up, though. See David Duke and Talk:David Duke#RFC for "convicted felon" phrase in opening sentence for how this often turns out when it goes to an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it? Seems to me that du Pont is most notable for his murder conviction. It's what the vast majority of the coverage of him discusses. David Duke, on the other hand, has been covered for many things other than his conviction - and his most notable trait, white supremacist, is mentioned first, as it should be. Wes sideman (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No policy requires that the lede sentence include all notable features of a person. WP:FIRSTBIO (on the MOS) warns against inclusion of non-career-type language, even if that's what they are most notable for. In terms of writing, it is more neutral and dispassionate to explain what their career aspects were, and then to describe their conviction which may have come from that career (eg Harvey Weinstein's crimes are straight out of being an entertainment executive). You give context for why the crime exists. In the case here, the swimming career and the crime are two distinct, unrelated things, so its still necessary to establish the context of what the crime was for and unrelated to the swimming career. Masem (t) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The only reason why his arrest and conviction are widely reported by the media is he is notable as the swimmer and that's exactly why he already had a standalone article before the 2021 incident. Even if we take the consideration of your argument that the 99% coverage of the subject received after the 2021 incident is related to his conviction identifying him as the former swimmer. In accordance and adherence with WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE you need to take the totality of his life not just a single recent event. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The version of the lead that's up now DOES "take the totality of his life not just a single recent event" (sic). The thing that got him the most coverage, in his entire life, is the first thing mentioned. The thing that got him the 2nd-most coverage is the 2nd thing mentioned. The remainder of the lead is a chronologically-ordered expansion on the details of these things and a summary of all the things in the body. For the record, I didn't just write that lead unilaterally. It was the result of a discussion and collaboration by several editors. The current effort to whitewash it, led by yourself, has no basis in policy, no matter how many wikilinks you throw into the discussion. Wes sideman (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true that he would not be getting special coverage had he not been a medalist. Had he merely been an Olympian but finished out of the medals, for example, that point would still make him stand out among the people charged. (It would also qualify him for an article under WP:NSPORT, so I'm splitting hairs a bit.) But we do have an article on the "QAnon Shaman", who was another Jan 6 participant who drew extra attention, so the combination of participation and media focus is sufficient for a notability of its own. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think it's clear the current lead doesn't have consensus. I would suggest rolling back to the previous lead here Springee (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Per comment below I mistakenly linked to the diff where the lead was changed from the stable version. The Jan 30th lead is the one I would propose moving back to. Springee (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The version you linked to is exactly where the lead is right now, and the one that was stable before a handful of editors with a history of white-washing conservative figures' articles descended on it. That's fine with me. Wes sideman (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I liked to when the lead was changed. The version it was being changed from (Jan 30th). Also, accusing editors of "white-washing" is a failure to assume good faith. Please do not do that on this noticeboard. Springee (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you're talking about this version, which was a quick change made to a stable version by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Needless to say, bad example to pick. Wes sideman (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of the politics of the person in question or the editors involved, I have a hard time when any article describes a person as "is" or "was" something other than their profession or similar. Other characterizations should generally be expressed in terms of acts committed, not states of being. --Jayron32 12:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fine to have this opinion, but it isn't policy-based. MOS:FIRSTBIO states that the first sentence should state "the main reason the person is notable" (his conviction). Plenty of articles describe their subject as "american+convicted"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 convicted felon or convicted murderer or something similar. In any case, Keller is no longer a swimmer, hasn't been a swimmer for a while, and was barely notable as a swimmer even when he was a swimmer. His profession now? I have no idea. There are no reliable sources that tell us what he does for a living, at the moment. Wes sideman (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"In recent years, he dived into a real estate career " --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your arguments are WP:OR and based on WP:ILIKEIT. No sources are indicating that the subject's notability is based on his conviction. Or else you have to provide sources that prove your arguments. You have already added one source to prove your arguments on the article but even the title of the source that you added mentions him as the Former Olympic gold medalist Klete Keller pleads guilty to a felony charge related to Capitol riot. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict what Jayron32 said. You can describe what someone is notable for without using an expression like "This person is a convicted felon" - which doesn't even describe what they're actually notable for. Keller is notable for being a former olympic athlete that took part in the January 6 Capitol attack, not specifically for being a "convicted felon", which is something that applies to countless people and is very unspecific. Tristario (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this ^. Springee (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayron here. And no, I'm not going to to give a wikilawyering, policy-based argument, but am going to touch on the spirit behind the policy which created it in the first place. Call it "the deeper magic from before the dawn of time".

The goal here is to build an encyclopedia, am I right? If you look at other encyclopedias, going all the way back to the beginning with Pliny the Elder, they all have one thing in common. They're well written.

Writing itself is something that developed over thousands of years, and much of the great philosophies about it have their roots as far back as ancient Persia, Arabia, and Greece. Unlike the Egyptians, who went out of their way to make their writing as ambiguous as possible, with their use of pictorial hieroglyphics in a phonetic language to their wide and varied range of euphemisms, the Arabs and Greeks were studying how to convey language clearly and with greater ease. There's a certain order in which information needs to be given for it to be easily understandable --especially to those newcomers who have never heard of the subject before and have no clue what a "Klete Keller" is. This is universal, meaning it's true regardless of what language you speak. Pliny understood this, which is what makes his writing so good.

Misplaced Pages is different, because it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's not written by trained, professional writers. As a result, it's full of crappy articles that range from college textbook to stream of consciousness. People get too focused on their own feelings and personal biases about what they think should go first that they completely ignore what the reader needs in order to build context.

I don't know why people put such emphasis on getting stuff in the first sentence. That's backwards thinking. The first sentence is not the thing that people remember. It's just a starting point that gives the very basic context needed for the reader to understand the second sentence, and so on. This is called cohesion, because it all ties together, leading the reader down a nice little pathway. If everything is coherent it flows with little resistance. That flow is vitally important, because it sweeps the reader along the pathway you created and leads them to the point of it all, which is not the first sentence but the last, be it the last of the paragraph, the section, or the article. That's where the point is and that's the part that the reader will remember. It's not the journey, in this case, it's the destination.

Modern science backs this up, because we can only hold a small amount of information in our working memory at a time, and anything new added pushes the current out. Thus, we never remember the pathway, but it's always the last thing we read that get's passed on to short-term memory.

Writing is hard work, and there is a heck of a lot more to it that simply jotting stuff down willy nilly. The Earth may seem flat when you're standing right on top of it, but if you step back and get a better perspective then the bigger picture becomes apparent. Similarly, writing may seem easy, but Zinsser's law says "Easy writing makes for hard reading", and that's what most people who participate in these types of discussions don't seem to realize. If the goal is to get some point across (which it is; don't kid yourself), then wouldn't it be better to make it a well-written point? Why make it hard to read and follow? A crappy article whispers while a good article speaks volumes. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Key on this idea is that our P&G around Ledesma is the assumption that the lede can be standalone from the body, but whether standalone or considered with the body, ab average reader will review the entire lede at one time. Meaning there is no rush to push info into the lede sentence. We don't want to bury the lede, but stating a person is convicted in the 3rd or 4th sentence is far from that. Masem (t) 22:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

After seeing this discussion here, I went to the article. Two words: Bill. Cosby. Although the crime was different, the same thing happened on his page. Back and forth war editing about the very first sentence: ... and convicted sex offender, felon, etc. Yes, I understand since then his sentence has been vacated and now, it doesn't even read as such; but this BLP is no different. It is suffering from WP:RECENT. WP constantly reminds editors that it is not a newspaper, but there seems to be such a hurried need to get the current happenings out there as quickly as possible. Not to take the matter lightly or any editor's work in jest, but I literally laughed out loud when I read: "convicted participant". I tried to look up the term. I could not find it. The current lede is so sparse as it is. The BLP isn't notable for very much. Let the first sentence state what he was first notable for, and then (as with the Cosby article) state what he is notable for second with the next paragraph that explains it. Let the lede "read" as a summary of the article, no need to state: "former competitive swimmer who is also a convicted participant." (I'm still wrestling with the - seemingly - invented term: "convicted participant". When the May 10 sentencing occurs, he's going to be a convicted felon.) At some point, when the "recent"-ism wears off, like Cosby, having the first sentence read as it does now, this will not only sound out-dated, but ridiculous. Maineartists (talk) 01:11, 28 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)

Rahul Jain (singer) and BLPCRIME

• Rahul Jain (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed this article because of a report filed at WP:AIV against an IP who kept removing the rape allegations in the article. I have cleaned up the article somewhat, including the rape allegations, but I don't think the allegations should be in the article as Jain hasn't been convicted of either allegation (as far as I know). It's been a long time since I got involved in the interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME, but I don't think Jain qualifies as a "public figure". However, IIRC, except in very clear cases, many editors disagreed as to the dividing line between a person sufficiently notable for an article and a "public figure". I've left in the allegations for now, but I'm tempted to remove them pending a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what the quality of the sources are, so I can't speak to if the allegations are due, but I believe that they are a public figure because they've chosen to perform publicly for a living and were on the cast of (what I think is) a reality show. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This brings back my frustration with BLPCRIME. It seemed like there were almost no article subjects who were not public figures. Based on your interpretation, pretty much all actors would be public figures, no matter how small potatoes they are. And, not that I know much or ever watch reality shows, pretty much anyone can be on a reality show. At the last audition I attended, they had a questionnaire intended to cull out auditionees with just one question: Are you human (answering no did not automatically disqualify you). I'll go back and hide my overly protective BLP head in the sand.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There are indeed few article subjects that are not public figures. Exceptions would be people like George Floyd or Rodney King who are notable because of things that happened to them without their consent.

However, there are tons of people who are mentioned in passing in articles who are still absolutely covered by WP:BLP even though we don't have a separate article on them. (In fact, I'd argue that the main purpose of that clause in WP:BLPCRIME is for the case when we have an article on a notable crime for which the perpetrator is not known for certain.) Loki (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of articles on people who were not public figures where blpcrime came into play. Academics who are notable due to being cited are an easy example. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that too often people use these words, such as "controversy" or "public figure", without really knowing what they mean. Instead, people tend to make up their own definitions for these words primarily based on what they want to put in an article. "Public figure" has a very specific definition --a legal definition. The law makes special exceptions for media outlets (Misplaced Pages included) when writing about public figures, acknowledging that they don't have the same expectations of privacy that a non-public figure has. It's not always the case that people choose to be in the spotlight, and in fact choice is not at all a part of that definition. For example, Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau, or Oliver North up there. These people never sought celebrity status but they achieved it just the same. Likewise, most people seeking fame, including actors, never reach celebrity status no matter how hard they try for it. I think a lot of these problems would be solved if we simply quit making up our own definitions for words and use reliable sources for definitions instead. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a couple days, but it could use some eyes from people who familiar with Indian media to check if the sourcing is good for contentious BLP content. There are a lot of other sources over a decent span of time, so it looks like a mention is likely WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation-needed template

There is a discussion at Talk:Alain-Sol Sznitman about whether it is ever appropriate to add {{pronunciation needed}} in a BLP. --St.nerol (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only thing the discussion there is about. Bigger and more relevant for this noticeboard are:

• Is it ever appropriate to add a purported pronunciation to a BLP based on no sources at all, or based on a recording of someone else saying their name?
• Does the fact that an editor found the pronunciation non-obvious enough to tag this imply that the pronunciation is "likely to be challenged" (because it has been challenged) and therefore requires a source?
• When there are no published sources to be found listing a pronunciation to the name of a living person, is it appropriate to add a template so that the first thing readers see about the person is an encouragement to add the pronunciation, leading either to a permanent cleanup banner on a BLP or someone taking the template as encouragement to add unsourced material to a BLP?

My position is that, based on these principles, {{pronunciation needed}} is never appropriate for a BLP. A request for pronunciation can be made on the article talk instead. As the {{pronunciation needed}} documentation explicitly recommends: If the textual pronunciation is cannot be found or is not verifiable, {{Pronunciation requested audio}} can be posted on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Article about James McArdle (actor)

I think there is a mistake in the article, under the heading "Personal Life". One had here on 18.04. added that James McArdle is openly gay and refers here to a newspaper article from 2017, but it is about a film (Man in orange shirt) in which James only plays a gay character -> source 12. It is not mentioned anywhere that James is really gay in his personal life. The author who provided the basis for this film is the one who openly deals with his homosexuality. Could you please check the point? 79.224.66.104 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

79, afaict, you're right and I removed it. Thanks for noticing! If you're interested in editing yourself, WP:TUTORIAL can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

A BLP concern raised on Reddit

A couple days ago, I happened upon a post on Reddit that was submitted by our very own Shadow of the Starlit Sky, an up-and-coming editor who has made nearly 1,500 contributions since joining last month. There weren't too many responses to the post, but there was one comment that caught my attention because it alleges something of serious concern.

A Redditor who goes by the name "Paraperire" attests that her biographical article, as well as that of her husband, both contain factual inaccuracies. According to her, we claim that she had "co-written" all of the songs on her first album when she was the sole songwriter, that her husband is married to a "Belgian or Austrian woman", and that songs she's written for other artists are misattributed to different people. She says that she has attempted to contact Misplaced Pages about this issue with proof of her identity, but to no avail—she received no response, and every change she tried to make was undone shortly thereafter. I asked her to explain the means through which she attempted to contact Misplaced Pages, and who she was specifically trying to reach, but her answer did not clarify any of this. I then sent her a private message on Reddit letting her know that I'd like to look into this for her, asking who she is and which articles are affected; she didn't reply.

Even though I don't know the specifics of her case, this is something that I feel needs to be addressed. I'm not really sure what to do, or who I should refer her to, so I'm bringing it here for additional input. I'm also going to let her know about this thread so that she can have a chance to comment if she chooses. Kurtis 19:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Without knowing which article we're talking about, there is nothing we can do. In general, we don't interview subjects or take their firsthand accounts as "proof". We rely on secondary sources like newspapers and magazines to provide information, trusting in them to get things right. Now, without seeing the article in question, there is no way to determine if this is sourced information, something someone added without sources, or just straight-up vandalism. The latter is usually easy to fix, but if the sources got the info wrong then the subject will need to take it up with them. I can't access reddit from my location, so unfortunately, without a specific article to go look at, these broad generalizations are all I can give you. The best way the subject can help is to go to the talk page and provide sources with the correct info, and request that others make the changes for them. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's partly what I explained over at Reddit—I told her that we strive for factual accuracy, and that we attempt to achieve this through citing sources, but that this can occasionally (albeit rarely) result in us amplifying widely-circulated falsehoods despite our best efforts. However, it slipped my mind to suggest that she take it up on the article's talk page, which I'm aware is what we generally advise BLP article subjects do in cases such as this. Kurtis 20:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Simply posting on the talk pages only works when someone is watching them. It's better to make a formal edit request. You could send them the links to these help pages:

• WP:Conflict of interest
• WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• WP:Request for edit
• WP:Simple conflict of interest edit request

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If they won't identify which article is supposedly inaccurate, I'm not sure what we can do. I mean I guess conceivably someone could check every article in Category:20th-century women singers and Category:21st-century women singers to try and find one which matches her claims, but that's not exactly practical! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto @Kurtis @Zaereth Just found the post on my Reddit AMA right now and read it. As of right now I am unsure what to do (just like you three) because I'm not sure about what specific article this supposed act of BLPVIO is occurring on. I need more information so I can investigate deeper into this before making any conclusions. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I don't think anyone is expecting you to investigate this—I just left a notice on your talk page because it was an issue raised over at your Reddit post. :) Kurtis 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kurtis Ok, understood! I'll still keep an eye on this discussion though. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 20:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is that we're not the NY Times or Rolling Stone with the credentials and prestige those names invoke. As an encyclopedia anyone can edit, people often find it more than a tad creepy when Misplaced Pages comes to investigate them. If this person isn't giving their real name or responding to messages, you can bet there's a reason for that, so I wouldn't push it. If they want to contact us, they will.

At this point, we don't even know if this is all even for real. (On the internet, nobody knows you're not really Harrison Ford.) There are email channels they can use if they want to keep their identity private, but those are not really the best for things of this nature, because at the end of the day we can't really take the subject's word for it. On the surface, it seems like the subject would be the ultimate source of info, but in reality, as it turns out, people are actually rather biased when it comes to themselves, and the one person we tend to know the least is ourselves. (If you don't believe that just watch any episode of Judge Judy or Dr. Phil and see how self-unaware their guests usually are.) For example, there may be more than one side to the story, such as others who claim to have written the songs.

That's just advice in case this person ever comes here to read this but doesn't want to comment. Their best bet is to find sources and bring them to the talk page. If the sources themselves are wrong, then they should contact the sources and ask them to run a retraction. (Any good RS will want to correct their mistakes... in small print somehere on the back page. But it still counts!) If sources don't exist, then they can always hire a PR agent. Beyond that this discussion is pretty well moot because we have nothing to discuss. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Their reply at reddit indicates that they seemingly don't want to pursue the matter further due to a disagreement with the process.

In the few articles I have ever ran across where the actual subject of the article has had an issue with unsourced and/or damaging edits containing false info about them, it was almost instantly removed when pointed out on BLPN, so I find that the process works as a casual observer.

@Kurtis I do give you credit, though, on trying to help the person in question.

Awshort (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I did what I could. The ball is now in their court. Kurtis 07:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to act on this without any specifics as to what the article in question is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Those who complain off-Misplaced Pages about errors in one of our 6.6 million English language articles, but refuse to identify the specific article, are wasting their own time, and ours. Or, they are trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• An update: Paraperire responded to my messages on Reddit. She has read this discussion as it stood a couple hours ago. I can basically confirm that she isn't interested in pursuing the matter any further. If she or her husband ever do decide that they want their articles corrected, they now know where they can raise the issue. Kurtis 07:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Zahid Chauhan

There are constant changes from an IP address which adds in only positive updates but removes any that may potentially be seen as negative, even when they are properly sourced and referenced. It seems as though they are trying to run the page as promotion rather than keeping it factual and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHeathen7 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Alan Joyce (executive)

The article Alan Joyce (executive) ended up on my watchlist some time ago when I was doing some category maintenance (I remove religion cats from Irish BLPs where WP:BLPCAT isn't met), but it's only today I noticed an earlier major addition by a SPA account, Qansafe. It's bordering on libelous, I think, and weakly referenced for what it's claiming. I'm going to edit now, to remove some of the material and to address the POV headings that have been added. A subsequent edit by Don Alfonso de Colombo also merits attention. Other eyes welcome. Bastun 20:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Steve Kirby (musician)

Requesting assistance from experts to answer the recent talk page message for this article. Chubbles (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD It seems you have a good understanding of the policies around WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV. I don't see an issue with your proposed edits; however, I haven't looked too closely at the sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC

At War in Donbas (2014–2022) there are allegations of serious crimes raised against several living persons without providing a single source. As per the header I don't copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard (see diff). Could someone with knowledge of this policy please explain why WP:BLPRS doesn't apply in this case or perform an extended confirmed WP:BLPREMOVE of the respective paragraph? Thank you. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Jack Teixeira and WP:BLPPRIMARY

Today I removed various information on Jack Teixeira which was qualified with "according to prosecutors in a memo", in other words based on court filings. All of the RS available for this info cite the prosecution memo. WP:BLPPRIMARY reads as follows:

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. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

The consensus at Talk:Jack Teixeira#April 28 removal is that this doesn't prevent us from citing reliable sources to rely on court documents. This isn't in line with the policy, so I'm bringing it up here. RAN1 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the policy. We're an encyclopedia, which means we're a tertiary source, which literally means "three times removed". We get our info from secondary sources. For us to take info directly from a primary source, such as court documents, we would be doing the work of secondary sources, and that's not what we do. We research. We don't investigate. The secondary sources we use do investigate, however. They get their info from the primary sources, and quite often this includes court documents. That's how info gets from the primary sources to us. As long as they are not providing copies of those documents (which a good RS won't) once secondary sources report it it's fair game for us, keeping NPOV in mind. Otherwise, we'd never know what happened in the court room. Zaereth (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is probably why the article on Teixeira fails WP:BLP1E because all we know about him is a result of the document leak and subsequent investigation. Having the standalone about the person invites this type of nonsense and doesn't show encyclopedic foresight. Masem (t) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There was an AfD discussion in which the nominator invoked WP:BLP1E. Result: "The BLP1E has particular force here, but I conclude there is a rough consensus that the article should be kept." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I read the AFD comments, and that discussion is a strong example of how WP editors have come to want to finger point blame and any other type of malfeasance on BLP or other groups, simply because RSes go there. Misplaced Pages is meant to be even more neutral and respectful of BLP than most RSes including seminal works like the NYTimes and BBC. We need a massive sea change in how editors view such topics. Masem (t) 15:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You will know then that there were arguments that the criteria that "each of three conditions" for not covering an article were not met, as well as those arguing otherwise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be helpful to clarify how a subject may not be WP:LOWPROFILE due to extensive coverage per WP:BLP1E but can still otherwise be not well-known per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE for WP:BLPCRIME content. This article seems to be an example of how this can apply, because the available biographical information is being produced post-event and now through criminal court proceedings. The AfD closer also stated "There is a strong undercurrent to merge the article, and this discussion can continue on the appropriate pages", so we can continue to discuss whether or not to maintain a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the arguments about him being a "public figure" were too feelz-based, and so loose that they could apply to anyone, making WP:BLPCRIME useless. Merge is warranted. DFlhb (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the section denies the use of court documents to support assertions about living people. My arguments for that would be they aren't reliable sources and relating info from them (even cited from secondary sources) makes Misplaced Pages more of a secondary source than a tertiary one. RAN1 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP can never be a secondary source - that's why WP:NOR exists to block us from going there. And with regards to court documents, since we don't have a conviction yet, all info on the documents cannot be treated as factual, as we presume innocence before guilt. Masem (t) 23:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the policy says we're not supposed to use court documents. Secondary sources can and do all the time. Anytime there is a case being reported, you can bet that the newspapers got some of their info from court docs. They may even sit in the court room and take notes. Normally sources don't tell us where they got their info, but just because in this case they did, that's still not a reason to remove it per BLPPRIMARY, so that's a losing argument. That said, I was responding to your specific question and the talk page discussion, without having looked at the article. I agree with Masem that the whole thing should probably be deleted per BLP1E and BLPCRIME, or at the very least be moved to an article about the event and not disguised as a pseudobiography about the person. At first glance I also see several other good arguments for removing the specific info in question, but BLPPRIMARY isn't one of them. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between "clued in from court doc, fact-checked" and "according to court doc". The way the article presents the material, it sure looks like it's using a primary source because the secondary sources aren't providing any real discussion there. RAN1 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought about this more, including the issue of creating a pseudobiography based on what is derived from the criminal court proceedings, and particularly information presented by the prosecution. From my view, this content raises BLPCRIME issues, for someone who is otherwise not well-known, and includes contentious BLPCRIME information from when he was in high school. So with BLPCRIME and WP:BLPBALANCE in mind, I condensed content, removed various details, and moved content to the Arrest and prosecution section, pending further discussion about a serious encyclopedic need for inclusion of additional detail. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution