Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
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. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Bryan Freedman

I'm reaching out for assistance regarding an ongoing edit war and potential BLP violation on Bryan Freedman. Despite clear resolution on the talk page there's been persistent reverting and re-adding of contentious content.

Here is a specific diff highlighting the issue: BLP violation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianthe (talk • contribs)

Dragan Šolak (businessman)

Dragan Šolak (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this edit request about this article's Money laundering investigations section. The name of the section is misleading, as it could imply Šolak was involved in money laundering investigations, which he was not. This section is not about Dragan Šolak directly but rather a media company owned by him and its reporting into Slovenian government misconduct. Disclosure: I am employed by United Group and Dragan Šolak, which is why I am seeking review by others. AlexforUnited (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look, and I agree with you. If the info provided is correct, then it appears the subject was alleging harassment by the authorities, and the head of those authorities was later arrested for doing some illegal investigations. Do I have that right? (The section is a little hard to read, like the syntax of the translations was a bit off or something, so I had to read it a few times to be sure what it said.)

The section title does indirectly imply some wrongdoing on the subject's part, so it makes sense to change it to a more neutral title. But what? I don't know. What would you suggest would be a better title? Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thank you for the response! You are correct in your reading of this section.

In my original request I thought it best to remove this section in its entirety rather than rename it. This is because the information itself does not seem appropriate for a biography about Šolak because it is about a business he owns as a minority shareholder, that owns the media that broke the story about the investigation. Also because he is not the main target or focus but one of many in this alleged corruption scandal. To put it simply, the misconduct is not about Šolak.

Please let me know if I can provide further clarity. AlexforUnited (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nambaryn Enkhbayar

• Nambaryn Enkhbayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits on this page are repeatedly violating BLP policies. The last sentence in the introductory paragraph, "Due to his corruption scandal he is regarded as the godfather of corruption in Mongolian politics by the public media" is repeatedly inserted and is poorly sourced as well as potentially libelous.

Source 1 for the aformentioned sentence is an article titled "Enkhbayar is not the ONLY godfather of corruption in Mongolia" yet the contents of the article itself fail to provide any tangible and fact-based evidence for the claim. In fact, the article's contents do not discuss Enkhbayar at all, until in the first sentence of the last paragraph which simply repeats the title. This is misleading and biased.

Source 2 is a translated article from an original Russian newsite that discusses Enkhbayar's political career (albeit titled towards more allegedly controversial parts), but does not claim that he is the godfather of corruption. The source is also unreliable given it's a foreign news agency with no reputable and presence in Mongolia.

Both sources seem to be cherry-picked in an attempt to provide a biased and/or misleading narrative and detracts from objective information. The page includes a section "Conviction of Corruption" which discusses in detail the relevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.42.196.255 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hrm. Looking at one of the sources, it flat-out says, " N. Enkhbayar was given the nickname 'Godfather of Corruption' because of such actions."[1] The Business New Europe article does not immediately seem to be unreliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean looking at that one particular source (i.e., singular). The other source is highly misleading (as I have explained in my initial post) which should already indicate it is a possible attempt to sway objectivity. I don't think an obscure Russian newssite should be a source to make such a sweeping statement about a living individual in another country. If the same was reported by the largest Mongolian media outlets (24tsag.mn; shuurhai.mn; gogo.mn; or official, state-funded broadcaster of Mongolia MNB), then this claim might have some credence. Again, I have visited this page periodically and this particular sentence was never there until about last month which conveniently coincides with the upcoming parliamentary elections in June (if that helps to understand the context). 38.42.196.255 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Nationality of Miriam Margolyes

We have reached a fairly amicable impasse on Miriam Margolyes's talk page regarding her nationality. As a result, we have compromised with the description "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an actress holding both British and Australian citizenship". Prior to that the fist sentence read "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an English and Australian actress". Extra input from editors who have experience with resolving nationality would be helpful. The discussion is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes#Nationality_redux and a prior discussion in which I was talking to myself is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes#Nationality. The issue seems to arise regularly on Miriam's bio for some reason. The reference I have used is the Arnold Schwarzenegger example under "Nationality examples" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context. Regarding "English" as a nationality there is a footnote from the above policy stating "There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and whether the subject has a preferred nationality by which they identify". Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps more Peter Lorre than Arnold Schwarzenegger. No political confusion of an "Austrian-American" order. But yes, same result, use the conjunction. Chronological order around the and is best, unless dual-citizenship born (maybe subject's preference, nation of birth, nation relating most to notability, per consensus). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You could always drop nationality / citizenship from the first sentence, does it have to be shoehorned into the first sentence of every BLP? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed

As the subject of the information, I believe that certain details disclosed about me on Wikipedia infringe upon my privacy rights and may pose a risk to my personal safety. Furthermore, the information provided may be outdated, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the subject's notability. I respectfully request a discussion regarding the deletion or revision of this information to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy, neutrality, and respect for individuals' privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion ultimately starts and ends with "Got any third-party, non-routine, independent-of-you news/scholarly stories that discuss you at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial processes, including fact-checking?" The only way to get the information changed - especially if it's sourced - is to provide good sources to support those edits. We aren't otherwise going to change the article just because the subject tells us to, other than to remove unsourced content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page, I believe the subject has asked for a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know how significant the head of the Dept of Health is in Abu Dhabi. It looks like a bureaucrat position in a country that is smaller than many states in the United States. The problematic information he is referring to is a Voice of America report that references some Azerbaijani report. Given that it is a BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE accusation it needs more than one reliable source, and I'm not sure VOA, the propaganda mouthpiece of the United States is one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the content about the Azerbaijan hunting incident because the implication of criminal misconduct does not seem to be backed up by reliable sources and the matter appears to have been resolved promptly by someone paying a small fine. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The four sockpuppets claiming variously to represent and to be the subject have been blocked. Meanwhile, the AfD for this subject could use some WP:SNOW from an uninvolved admin or non-admin with credible permissions/experience. I'd do it, but I !voted. Thanks and cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wayans Family

The article includes personal information about a group of people from a family, some of whom are famous, with barely any source citrd supporting that information. This is especially problematic since some the people listed are minors. I’m very suspicious that not all of the information is even accurate. I already edit the article to remove a pair of siblings who allegedly were born just four months apart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a WP:BLPNAME problem with the unnotable members. I looked around for other famous families and found the Barrymore family which is in the same state. Unclear why these articles shouldn't be deleted. Wikipedia isn't ancestry.com. Compare the state of these articles to the The Osmonds, who were notable as a group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed all the non-notables from the Wayans family. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I support removing the not-yet-notable people from the article, but would oppose deleting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 on this one. Families can indeed be notable by having enough notable members. Notable members get included. Non-notable members may merit a single mention in the main member's article as WP:WEIGHT permits. Family articles should just exclude them. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made similar modifications to the Barrymore family article including removing the family tree since I haven't figured out how to make individual edits without breaking the tree. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Those family trees are a nightmare to edit. There's a tool at User:Daduxing/familytree.js which makes it somewhat easier Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Prime Minister or not

There's an ongoing discussion going on talk page with editors Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång calling me a Wikipedia:Advocacy editor without me having done any thing to be called that and I consider it offensive. I have tried to edit base on Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Censorship and I made sure I followed the rules guiding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on the Lead of the article on whether Simon Ekpa is a Prime Minister or not.

If you check the history of the discussion, you would notice how it all started. They were the ones that started the talk discussion but later deviated. I as an editor after a while saw the topic and decided to contribute but they ended up biting me. I edited based on information found on Finnish Wikipedia and Finnish Newspaper that rightly called Ekpa the "Prime Minister" but ended up being bitten by them and their intentions is probably to scare me away from contributing for them continue with their libelous editing by putting "Self-declared" Prime Minister on the Lead. It will be a pleasure to go ahead and provide evidences of them calling me WP:ADVOCACY editor without prior evidence. It's painful! I am by this bringing to your attention the Libelous content found on the Lead. Thanks Fugabus (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see nothing libellous in the lede. Biafra is not an independent state. It has no independent government. It holds no independent elections. Neither Ekpa calling himself a 'prime minister' nor his own supporters describing him thus makes him one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, related discussion: User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Attention_please. As I stated in my OP at Talk:Simon_Ekpa#Calling_Ekpa_Prime_Minister_in_wiki-voice, I pretty much agree with ATG, but as I also stated further down in that thread, I can live with the current version "He is the self-declared prime minister of a government-in-exile, the Biafra Republic Government in Exile (BRGIE), which was founded in 2023." if I must. Somewhat surprisingly, at least according to WP, the bar to being a government-in-exile is saying you are a government-in-exile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ping to @Reading Beans, since they're mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There has been accusations here of impartiality by @Fugabus. My view is that Fugabus miss-translates some key finnish vocabulary, another examples is here about the use of the term lawyer, when finnish sources don't support the term. Fugabus also repetedly claim they have translated finnish terms, but never provide evidence for their work, while when I check the Yle, Kuvalehti sources myself the sources actually say something different. The finnish source material such as Yle and Kuvalehti never treat Ekpa as an prime minister, but rather that the term is controversial pointing this out by the fact that he calls himself prime minister such as here. Despite these things being made clear, Fugabus often cites wiki rules and has even thrown around that some of these Finnish sources having been clickbait. Which is not true, Yle has for several years been the most trusted and popular news source in the Finnish language. Yle even did a reportage in the territory in question where they interviewed people there.

This leads me to suspect that Fugabus is the biased one, based on above, it seems like they employ selective translating or confirmation bias. Accuracy should be maintained. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @AndyTheGrump and ping to all editors.

May I say you may be breft of the rights of government-in-exile per your submission.

Kindly read Government-in-exile#Activities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-in-exile#Activities) for clear understanding of this very dispute.

They have rights to hold elections or amend or revise its own constitution under international law. Read also past and present Exile governments. Ojukwu was their first president and later fled to Exile with his government. Please, first familiarize yourself with the topic before contributing. Read the Finnish Wikipedia. which I failed to properly wikilink in the above submission from me. One of the template tag on Simon Ekpa article page clearly stated that editors can help translate the corresponding Finnish Wikipedia to the English one and I seek to apply it judiciously.

For @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the Exile government is headquartered the US according to report. What makes you feel they are not a government-in-exile and that they are just claiming to be?

That Finnish Wikipedia evaluated him being a "Prime Minof Biafra in exile ister" is highly interesting to note for every editor on the English Wikipedia.

Familiarize with government-in-exile and their activities as we reach a conclusive consensus here.

.

Sincerely,

Fugabus (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Per your source "The Biafra Republic Government in Exile says it has opened an administrative office in Maryland Baltimore, USA." The org/Ekpa says that. It has all the value of WP:ABOUTSELF. And I just said above, that at least according to WP, anything that says it is a gie, is a gie. That's why I can live with the current WP-version as I said above, since, at least according to WP, it's technically correct regarding gie [insert quote from Futurama]. And here we see the interesting effect of the name Ekpa choose for his org: every time a source mentions it by name, it sort of "affirms" it is what it says it is. Possibly rather clever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The kuvalehti source actually covers this, their 'finance minister' lives there. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

[2] "A two-story house from the suburbs of Maryland in the United States has been purchased as the actual central office. The Minister of Finance of the Refugee Board lives there." per GT? I'll take your word for it. The org has a US-office. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, but not ... 'of the refugee board' but 'of the government of exile', the word for refugee, asylum seeker and exile is the same in finnish :D Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That was what I assumed, and why we need people like you to watch how GT is used on WP. I used GT on a Romanian source for an article about a dog, and was told that the dog used to be a chicken. It was fairly clear chicken meant puppy in context, but things can be trickier than that. Like the Swedish word "val" can mean election, choice or whale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The word used to mean what 'ed' or 'svära ed' means today, or what finniah 'vala' means ;). Though this is probably getting off topic now haha Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest @Kennet.mattfolk should stay neutral on this dispute resolution and allow uninvolved editors except Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång to contribute as you were never pinged and you never called me WP:ADVOCACY editor per the main dispute submission. Meanwhile I have replied to your unfounded accusations here on your talk as I don't wish to deviate from the ongoing discussion like you just did and other editors should take not of it. Fugabus (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fugabus

Ok, again, accusations, your 'reply' here weren't about the topic at hand, even there your wrongly cited information from finnish wiki in your attempt, only looking at the lead and not body. Now here, your telling me to frack off, this doesn't concern me, even though I keep telling you, your getting finnish language things wrong. Thus you 'translating' the meaning of prime minister without actually checking what the source states about the term, hence you seem to employ confirmation bias. Which I also showed in my original post in this dispute above. You show no evidence of my bias, you just level the accusations, when confronted you try to distract me away (like you posted on my talk page, to go read govt in exile) or directly telling me to leave now.

Now you just went and copy pasted the stuff that you originally posted at my talk page.. spamming pings to people to several talk pages but with the same post. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Fugabus, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this noticeboard. Along, apparently with multiple core Wikipedia policies. What Wikipedia's article has to say on the subject of governments in exile has no bearing whatsoever on whether the disputed content in the Ekpa biography is libellous or not. That depends solely on what independent published sources directly discussing Ekpa have to say on him. And we don't cite Finnish Wikipedia as a source, either, read WP:RS. And no, you don't get to decide who comments here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please, @Kennet.mattfolk I offended you and I apologize by pasting that mess on your talk page. It was a technical error from my end. Not intentional! Per your submission that the Finance minister lives in the US, Here's another secondary source coverage of their Chief of Staff.

Fugabus (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This source may be more reliable than the previous. People's daily

Sincerely,

Fugabus (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Um what's the purpose of that source? Clearly what amounts to a press release by the Biafra Republic is not reliable for anything but their views. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely the purpose is obvious. It's to expose the "irresponsible and rascality" nature of the "Biafra Republic's" enemies. Wonderful. I do love it when Wikipedia exposes a bit of rascality.DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne@DeCausa If you're interested, dispute continues at Talk:Simon_Ekpa#Editwar_on_WP:LEAD_"self-declared"_again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no further comment rather than the one submitted by Kenneth and Grab. I want only add that Biafra does not, cannot and have not conducted any election nor any activity done by an independent or semi independent country. If they do, then, Fugabus should provide a reliable source stating so. Best, Reading Beans 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Babu Singh Kushwaha

I'd be grateful if uninvolved editors with a familiarity of Indian news sources would be willing to take a look at recent editing at Babu Singh Kushwaha. There has been a spate of edit warring involving sockpuppetry there recently; the article is now protected, but the existing article makes some fairly major claims about the subject being responsible for some killings, and all based on a single source (the Indian Express). A second source is cited, but it doesn't support the assertion about the killings. WP:RSP has the Indian Express as generally reliable, so the content is probably legit, but I had to change the wording a bit (from 'he was alleged to have killed' to 'he was alleged to have been responsible for the killings') to make it align with the source, and I'd like more eyes on it. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Aeschliman

The subject of this article is persistently being misrepresented by 174.208.235.142 as a "Teacher, Innkeeper and B&B owner", without any valid supporting citations. 174.208.235.142 adds statements about Aeschliman's alleged occupation and about how he inherited certain buildings, again without providing evidence.

The obvious purpose is to mischaracterise Aeschliman. In fact, as all the evidence shows, the subject of the article is an eminent, well-known university professor, writer, scholar and literary critic.

The subject's biography section has also been deleted by 174.208.235.142 without good reason.

Moreover, 174.208.235.142 has gratuitously attached warnings to the article about a "major contributor" having a "close connection" with the subject, and that some of the article's sources may not be reliable. No evidence of this has been provided on the article's "Talk" page. There is a fair range of contributors to the article; its citations are numerous and, as far as one can tell, legitimate.

There is no evidence of serious, bona fide editing by 174.208.235.142. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this is a case of vandalism by 174.208.235.142, seeking to ridicule Aeschliman, possibly for personal or ideological reasons.

Please take measures to prevent this recurrent behaviour by 174.208.235.142.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamara Santerra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Scintillating edit history there. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove for more. 'S all from me for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The following account appears to be sock-puppets and should be added to the investigation:

A. Roderick-Grove

Coriakin the Wise

Tamara Santerra  

Lexical Paws

WoollyBear

Chuzzlewit23

Tiltonalum

There could be more. 174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Tamara Santerra (who left the above comment but didn't sign it) is almost certainly the biographical subject and a Sockpuppet account. The notability of Michael D. Aeschliman is questionable. Many references go to blank pages or dead links and appear to be almost entirely authored by sock-puppet accounts (several of which have already been cited for COI issues) and connected contributors listed on the subject's talk page. The sources either don't cite the subject or don't say what's claimed in the article. The subject appears to have authored a few introductions to obscure and unknown works by other authors, for which there are no reliable sources. In terms of the subject's work as an innkeeper (which might be notable), there are references that are easy to find online.[3] [4] [5] 174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If you've found blank refs, first consult an internet archive website or two. If no good archive, or if the archived version is clearly not a WP:RS, then remove if they fail WP:V. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Masayoshi Son

I have flagged the article on Masayoshi Son because it does not appear to offer a NPOV. My concern is that statements in the summary section and in the section on the Vision Fund are unbalanced and potentially libelous, as they overwhelmingly contain negative opinions on the subject's character. These editorialized, sometimes hyperbolic characterizations are restated verbatim to paint an overall negative picture of his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmlandsavannahpuck (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Uzair Shah

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

---

The article about Uzair Shah consists of two sentences but four photographs. I suggest to delete it, poor quality.--Crosji (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! WP:Articles for deletion is where you want to be. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The new discussion is here. Closing... JFHJr (㊟) 04:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Snezhana Abarzhi

Despite repeated requests not to do that, Snezhana Abarzhi continues to push claims of scientific priority in her article, through a proxy editor (an employee of the American Physical Society), sourced only to her own publications; see recent edits. The subject is notable but the recent edits are I think promotional and not good. I wish to disengage with this subject despite creating the article as she has been antagonistic by email and I have weak evidence that she has engaged in off-wiki harassment of me. Perhaps more eyes on the article would help? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced Wikipedian like most of the others who answer questions here but I am a scientist and from my vantage this page now reads more like a CV than a Wikipedia page other than the top level description. The "Selected publications" section should be removed IMO. Nnev66 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The main point of concern I have here is the lead section. Otherwise this looks like a fairly standard article on a contemporary researcher with a modest amount of citations and recognitions (which perhaps speaks to the poor quality of many other articles...). @Nnev66, the Selected publications are fairly standard - maybe it would be worthwhile to keep those that have been cited more and cut out the rest, but selected or influential publications are always helpful for articles like these to give readers an idea of what kind of specific research someone has published. This article has very little visibility but it did draw some attention to the absurd list of "influential people" on outline of fluid dynamics. Reconrabbit 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment that an editor paid by the APS probably falls under WP:PAID. I don't see any disclosure. The Selected Pubs does look overlong to me (though I agree a short section should be in the paper); it also looks like it might be skewed towards recent papers. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article Snezhana Abarzhi is weak on independent sources. There are papers by her, articles based on what she's said, and sources with no discussion of her. Maproom (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene Biography says she is far right. If you click on the highlighted term far right you get the wiki reference that shows a picture of people holding Nazi flags and Confederate flags. There is no evidence of any kind that Marjorie Taylor Greene is, or was at any time, a supporter of Nazism or the Confederacy. This is misleading to the point of being libelous and has no place in a work intended to be a factual on-line encyclopedia. Simply change the term far right with the word conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus gold key (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We have a large number of sources identifying Marjorie Taylor Greene as far right. The far-right politics article itself offers a range of far right groups, of which confederate fans and Nazis are only a portion. Her support for such things as the White genocide theory makes the descriptor seem not unreasonable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I just say that this probably wins the prize for most unnecessarily long topic header of the day. But, no, Marjorie Taylor Greene is definitely a far-right politician according to reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I reduced the header for practical navigation reasons; it was the same material as the body text. Robot fighters are not known for their subtlety. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• You seem to be complaining that the article Far-right politics has some example imagery that you don't like, rather than providing a sound argument that MTG isn't far-right. The sources bear out that she is far right, by her own admission. Her article doesn't say she supported Nazism or the Confederacy directly. I don't see a problem with her article, as even she calls herself far right. You can always go to the article on Far-right politics and start a discussion about removing the image with the flags, but I doubt it would reach consensus, as the sources seem to support the idea that Confederate-ism and Nazism are clearly examples of, and common ones at that. In short, I don't see a valid reason for this report to be on this particular administrative board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I am thinking. She's not even mentioned in the far-right article. OP's beef is with the WL itself. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This article seems no different than others, but maybe the general phenomenon is worth a thread here. jp×g🗯️ 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, another editor has a very similar concern, on this page right now. Try searching for "jackoffs" and pick up the torch there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not another editor. That's the same editor. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I was winking discreetly at "I must confess I've forgotten which articles specifically" ...WINK! JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, let me wink at the BADSITE: I figured it would be blindingly obvious, from the context, that this was one of several, and that I remembered noticing this same thing on a couple other articles some months ago.

I did not mention this politician by name in the other section, because I am not really interested in this politician specifically, or her article, or what it says in the lead, and especially not interested in chimpanzee shitflinging over whether I am sufficiently explicit in saying that I don't support her, et cetera.

I was more interested in getting people's opinions on the general issue of the potential for wikilinks to make implications that plain text does not, and whether this is something that falls under the purview of Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons, using hypothetical examples. jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

But is this really a systemic issue that needs policy change, or a rare thing that can be handled on a case by case basis? All we can do is apply WP:NPOV in each instance. I don't see how any blanket rule is going to change that. If there is a question to be asked, it would be: Does the lead image in the far-right politics page factually and neutrally represent the topic, and I don't see why that discussion can't happen on that talk page first. If you call yourself "far right" and some "bad" people are called "far right" by the sources, and we cover each topic neutrally, then we have done our job. I'm not sure a hypothetical discussion is helpful when we already have real examples. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the other photographs on the Far-right politics page - would it do any harm to move the Charlottesville photograph down to the United States section and replace it with the photograph of G. H. W. Bush shaking hands with Pinochet? Daveosaurus (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean there's few far-right figures from the second half of the 20th century more notable than Pinochet. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, these are decisions to be made on that article talk page, not BLPN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Giulia Jones

• Giulia Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm looking for opinions on recent edits at this article. Am I out of touch with current standards or are the edits by LocalCbrHero1988 (talk · contribs) undue attacks? Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree the additions were probably inappropriate. One does not cite a BLP article to facebook, for one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(same person as the 2804:.. IPv6s who edited that article) The facebook-cited sentence was already in the article, they didn't add that. Their additions were <these> – 143.208.236.229 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As Johnuniq knows, there was even worse stuff from the same editor at Peter Cain (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [6]. And generally, we should expect some nonsense for ACT politicians given the 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election will be happening sometime in the next few months so might be good for editors to keep an eye on their articles. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cynthia Moss

The Wikipedia page for Cynthia J. Moss incorrectly shows my photo (Cynthia F. Moss), which should be replaced with a photo of Cynthia J. Moss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4A86:CFC0:99CF:381E:4420:F706 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I have removed the image from Cynthia Moss as it's clearly incorrect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein is applicable to this situation, and is somewhat humorous. Wikipedia editors need to be very careful to avoid inflating different people who share the same or similar names. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Anton Kikaš

As a casual wikipedia user i came across this article: Anton Kikaš. From my non-expert perspective, this article appears to be in violation of BPL (but will defer to this group who may know better). I've added comments to the talk page (section "Required Factual Corrections") about some factual correction and have made one obvious correction to the article myself.

Looking at the original talk comments by creator I wonder:

• whether this article should exist in the first place considering how poorly it is researched. Right now it does not serve as an accurate representation of what happened and is quite inaccurate.
• if there is a valid reason for it to exist, I question the label "Known for Arms smuggling" and other references throughout the article without supporting citations. Original author made conclusions regarding embargo based on a general sentence in a book which I corrected. Considering this is a BPL topic I'd like to bring to your attention that content as is may be libelous.

Sharing this information here so that a competent editor may consider the issue and address in accordance with wikipedia's practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.188.131.251 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin Nowak

Martin Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute at Martin Nowak over his widely reported relation with Jeffrey Epstein. Over the last year, all of the previous content on their relationship was steadily removed from the wikipage.

I recently restored it, and someone is removing it again, claiming BLP violations. I think the material is well sourced, easily verifiable, and appropriate for inclusion. It would be good to have extra viewpoints. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if someone knowledgeable on BLP policy would comment on the talk page, the content remover seems to be awaiting direct feedback. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The question may be, does that belong in the lede of the article, or in the body? Is the association so strong that the lede is diminished by it being moved to the body? I'm not sure, but at first glance, it seems including some of the material (but not in a stand alone header) would make sense. Based on his own book, I can see why referencing Epstein *might* make sense, but it is still a consensus issue. Getting consensus in the body is easier than the lead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The present depiction of the association between Nowak and Epstein is biased and contains several factual inaccuracies. These deviations from neutrality and accuracy are in clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. Given that the article is a BLP, it is concerning that the page has been protected while such content remains uncorrected. There is a particular worry that a significant portion of the information related to Epstein was contributed by individuals harboring personal grievances against Nowak, further violating Wikipedia's standards for BLPs.

I suggest that the sentences in the body of the article are revised to provide a factually true and unbiased discussion, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

The following sentences written on the page now are false:

1) "...as a punishment for having provided an office, keycard, and passcode, and for allowing Epstein free and unlimited access to the university's campus ten years after his conviction for sex crimes"

The Harvard report only mentions a keycard. Nowak was not blamed for "providing an office" as this was known and approved by the university. No passcode is ever discussed. PED was not on university campus. Thus Epstein never had "free and unlimited access to the university campus".

Nowak was hired as a full professor, not a security guard. Therefore, he had no authority to provide “unlimited access to the university campus” to anyone, even less so since his institute was not on university grounds. This is clear in the report.

2) "The PED was funded with a total nine million dollars from the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, [15]" - this sentence is false, as the Harvard report says the university received 6.5 million in 2003 for the support of PED"

3) "In 2020, the university placed Nowak on paid academic leave for violation of campus policies including professional conduct and campus access" - this sentence is misleading - the three specific charges against Nowak are discussed in the following source: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/14/lessig-epstein-at-harvard/. This article is not cited anywhere in the page, although it provides important information favorable to Nowak.

Important information from the Harvard report which should be included in the discussion:

- In 2013 Harvard development office invites Epstein to come to campus to attend the kick-off of the University Capital campaign.

- In 2017 FAS Development office asks Nowak to reach out to Epstein to request more funding. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The following points from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/14/lessig-epstein-at-harvard/ are currently not discussed at all, yet they offer a more nuanced picture of the case that the current version of the page would like to portray:

- Lessig argues that framing Nowak's association with Epstein as a punishable offense is absurd, given that numerous other individuals from Harvard, including those more famous and prominent, had also associated with Epstein. Nowak's alleged offenses, according to Lessig, are not offenses at all.

- Lessig highlights a charge of "profound negligence" in misrepresenting the source of PED's matching funds to the Templeton Foundation. However, Nowak's emails with the foundation show that the precise wording used to report his funding was requested by the foundation itself, indicating no misrepresentation.

- Lessig points out that Harvard was aware from the outset that Epstein treated PED as a second office, even as early as 2006. Despite this, no objections were raised about Epstein's access to PED offices, with Nowak even stating that Summers walked with Epstein as he secured access using his own keycard. The subsequent disciplinary action against Nowak for providing Epstein with a different keycard after a university-wide security protocol change appears inconsistent.

- Nowak faces disciplinary action because the center allowed Epstein's biography to be featured on PED's webpage after a request from Epstein's publicist. Lessig argues that including benefactor stories on center webpages is common practice, and Nowak shouldn't be held accountable for failing to recognize the misuse of the harvard.edu domain, especially considering Harvard's previous interactions with Epstein. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

As for including Epstein in the lead of Nowak’s article: as I pointed out in the Talk page, Nowak had a Wikipedia page long before the Epstein affair. This is because he is famous first and foremost for his scientific contributions, as evidenced by his many many publications in prestigious journals and awards.

The association with Epstein should be under ‘Controversies’ and described as to provide a balanced (and factually accurate!) overview of the source on the subject. The insistence of some individuals on placing it prominently in the initial sentences of the article is perplexing, and I fail to see how this does not violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Especially, since I have pointed out that some of the information regarding the association with Epstein lacks proper support or is contradicted by the sources cited. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing specifics! It would have been helpful if you had done so earlier instead of simply alleging my bias. To go in order through your comments, starting with the claims of factual errors on the wikipage:

1. You are incorrect; a passcode is mentioned three times in the report - you can use ctrl+f to find it. It is also mentioned in the Svrluga secondary source.

   Perhaps you are right that office and research space for university faculty, researchers, and students is not properly "university campus," I've edited it.

   See below for comment on Epstein's office space.

2. The numbers of 6.5, 9, and 30 million have been variously reported. It is probably better to just say "a large sum of money" or similar. I've edited it.
3. See this ref for citation. That article by Lessig is explicitly an op-ed; maybe it can be used for some things but I think it is very arguably not a reliable source.

It's not quite right that "In 2017 FAS Development office asks Nowak to reach out to Epstein to request more funding"; they asked him to reach out to Epstein to request help arranging funding from others. This seems like a small detail, I don't see why it should be included. And the 2013 invitation (pg 13 of report) seems completely unrelated to Nowak.

As for Lessig's op-ed:

• I don't think Lessig's opinion on whether what Nowak did was bad is relevant.
• Nowak's alleged misrepresentation of funds to Templeton isn't presently mentioned on the wikipage, so this seems to be irrelevant. Regardless, unfortunately Lessig's op-ed seems to be the only available source on Nowak's emails.
• "Harvard was aware from the outset" of office space refers only to a particular time point of 2006, which was both before Epstein's first conviction and contemporaneous with his time as an official Visiting Fellow at the university. There is no indication that their awareness continued through the next 13 years, and all reports except for an implicit claim by Lessig are to the contrary. Even Nowak's own claim (pg 20 of the report) is that Epstein's office was a general visitor office only informally used by Epstein; if so, how could it be recognized by the university?

As for the different keycard, see pages 19-20 of report: "PED's CAO thus, with Professor Nowak on notice, circumvented Harvard's efforts to tighten its security procedures and permitted Epstein to continue to have unfettered access to PED's offices."

• The matter with the webpage isn't presently covered on the wikipage. Regardless, I again don't think that Lessig's opinion is very relevant.

Overall, I think you are relying excessively on the opinion and perspective of Lessig's op-ed. To the small extent to which it's in contradiction to the present content on the wikipage (namely on university awareness of office space), I think it isn't admissible as a reliable source. But it would be fine to add a sentence along the lines of "According to Lawrence Lessig, Nowak served as a scapegoat for Epstein's more extensive interactions with the university." with citation to this article in The Nation. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect in saying the Lessig's discussion of the three accusations are not relevant. The Harvard report blames Nowak for exactly those three violations; see point 4 of page 26 of the report. Lessig dismantles each one of them.

You are incorrect in saying that it is irrelevant that 1. Harvard invited Epstein in 2013 to their fund raising campaign and that 2. Harvard asked Nowak in 2017 to ask Epstein (or Black) for donations. Since Nowak is blamed for maintaining connection with Epstein, these two points are relevant for unbiased readers to form an opinion.

The exact quotes from the report are: "In 2013, the development office invited Epstein to come to campus to attend the kick-off of the University’s Capital Campaign."

"And as recently as February 2017, an FAS development office staffer asked Professor Nowak to “reach out to [the Blacks or Epstein] again soon” to seek further support."

You are correct that a "passcode" is mentioned in the report. I am sorry I have overlooked this before. I do not contest "passcode".

All Epstein material should be moved into a paragraph of the biography that gives a fair picture of Nowak's involvement. There should be a separate section entitled "Controversy over Epstein" which should discuss the material that speaks for or against Nowak.

It is against Wikipedia rules to use the Epstein material in the lead or career section of the Biography, because this has the only intention of damaging the reputation of a living person, which appears to be your primary motivation. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:3596:644B:BBBF:8C7 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that Lessig (or anyone else) 'dismantled' the accusations? The closest I am aware of is the Nation article I linked above, which reasonably says (in addition to other paragraphs on Nowak):

The one person Harvard sanctioned in the whole affair was Martin Nowak, for giving Epstein unlimited access to the Harvard campus and for allowing him to use the PED website to burnish his image despite being aware of Epstein’s status as a registered sex offender. Nowak’s program was shut down and his teaching activities severely curtailed.

One faculty member who went public with his disgust with the report was Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School. In a column in the Crimson, he denounced the university for making Nowak a “scapegoat.” “Airbrushed from the history,” he wrote, “are the many Harvard luminaries who participated in and encouraged the ongoing relationship with Epstein after 2008.” The most notable of them, Lessig told me, was Summers. He “was at the center of everything around Epstein,” and omitting him from the report was like putting on “Hamlet without the prince.”

Key facts such as whether the university was aware of Epstein's office are stated to be true by Lessig without presented evidence (perhaps based on a misreading of the report), and, crucially, as far as I know are not supported by any other sources. The other issues (misrepresentation of funds to Templeton and website activity) are, again, not even present on the wikipage presently. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct the Nation Article is useful and should be cited. In fact, the Nation Article supports Lessig's point that Nowak was scapegoated.

The Harvard Report, which is attached to the website lists the three specific charges that were used to blame Nowak. Therefore Lessig's article is relevant, because Lessig discusses the three charges in detail and points out how "thin" they are.

May I suggest a consensus? What about moving the Epstein material into a single chapter of the biography entitled "Controversy over Epstein". We could collaborate to write that chapter, which should cite the Nation Article and the Lessig Article. 193.55.218.34 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The article in The Nation only suggests that others at the university also deserve scrutiny; it doesn't suggest that Nowak was unfairly accused of anything. I don't think Lessig's article credibly discusses the charges in and of itself; more importantly, as I asked above, are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that Lessig (or anyone else) 'dismantled' the accusations?

It doesn't seem likely that you and I will agree on this. We may have to wait for others to join the discussion, but we might have to wait a few days. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Creating an account, since I am travelling...

Concerning your statements:

"it doesn't suggest that Nowak was unfairly accused of anything"

I never claimed that.

"I don't think Lessig's article credibly discusses the charges in and of itself""..."perhaps based on a misreading of the report" ???

It is not up to you to decide whether what Lessig wrote is based on a misreading of the report. Or your opinion on whether Lessig is credible or not. He wrote what he wrote, and it was published in a reliable source. This claim is interpretation, which is not beyond the scope of your role as a Wiki editor.

Lessig’s article is another source for the role of Nowak in Harvard’s entaglement with Jeffrey Epstein. It presents a nuance of the accusations cited in other sources. Again, your personal views about Lessig’s reliability are completely irrelevant. The wikipage needs to fairly present all published points of view.

Fine waiting for others to join this discussion, although as I said, I do want to reach a consensus, so long as it fairly represents the different opinions on this subject. I hope that this discussion will attract some traffic in the coming days. Sim(e)Xavi (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Asking for the third time: are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that the accusations against Nowak are 'thin', exaggerated, or false? Op-eds don't go through the same fact-checking process as regular newspaper articles, which I believe makes it important for us to scrutinize supposed facts in Lessig's op-ed – such as that the university was aware of Epstein's office, which I do believe is based on a misreading of the report. Other claims, such as about Templeton emails, seem to be reported in the op-ed for the first and only time, and I don't think it can possibly be used as a reliable source for those claims. The problem is that the op-ed doesn't just give opinion and perspective on available facts; on this issue it's based on facts which don't seem to appear anywhere else. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks that make people look like jackoffs

I've seen a few people bring this sort of thing up over the last while -- I must confess I've forgotten which articles specifically, but it's happened enough times that I will just speak of it in a general sense.

What do we all think about the following phenomenon? Note that each individual step of this is compliant with all relevant policies.

1. Joe Smith is a politician/historian/commentator/pundit/activist/etc. This is cited to reliable sources.
2. Joe Smith is described, in the Wikipedia article, as "neo-purplist" or "far-mauve" or "forward-wing" or whatever. These labels are cited to reliable sources, which really do call him that thing.
3. The terms are wikilinked to their respective articles.
4. The articles about the terms ("neo-purplists" or "far-mauveism" or "up-wing politics") describe, broadly, the overall nature and activities of these ideologies and movements.

Again -- each of these steps is policy-compliant. However, they combine to produce a somewhat nasty result:

• Anybody who mouses over the word "up-wing politics" on Joe Smith's article gets a popup with a photo of up-wingers setting a pergola on fire.
• Anybody who decides to figure out what "neo-purplism" refers to will follow that link and read that neo-purplists believe in the transubstantiation of the Holy Pentinity etc etc.

This seems, to me, like the wikilinks cause our article to make (or at least heavily imply) all sorts of claims about Joe Smith that aren't supported by the sources. For all we know, Joe Smith is the bastion of the neo-purplist assembly's anti-Pentinitarian column, and he's the founder of the Up-Winger Pergola Respecters' Caucus.

Basically, our articles are written to describe central examples of a thing, rather than peripheral examples. To illustrate what I mean: Jesus of Nazareth, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Martin Luther were all outlaws (i.e. they all did things that were illegal, and were proscribed by the law as a result). But an article about outlaws, I hope you will agree, does not accurately convey information about what kind of guy Martin Luther was.

Is there anything we can do about this? To a first approximation, the most obvious thing would just be to avoid linking to labels like these in the leads of articles, although I'm not sure that this is the most effective strat. jp×g🗯️ 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, not anyone who mouses over -- I don't know whether it's a matter of platform or settings, but when I mouse over a wikilink, I don't get any picture in my pop-up, just the name of the page being linked to. And if such pictures are truly judged to be the problem, then I would prefer to eliminate pictures from pop-ups than to eliminate wikilinks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like a visual preview feature. Safari has it on iOS (iPhone default). Other browsers may make it available by just hovering the mouse. Disabling the preview option would impact lots more than just a mouse hover. I use the iOS visual preview feature a lot for articles that I'm not sure if I want to bother opening. It's a time-saver. JFHJr (㊟) 22:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion on the MOS:BIO page related to terms like "convicted felon" that I think is related here. In my opinion while there may be labels that are well supported by sources, we should never use those labels out of context, and instead to make sure we explain why said labels apply (briefly in the lede, expanded in the body). For example it should be sufficient to just say a politician is far right in the lede without any support (as to the point above, the far right page implies violence), but instead should be stated that the politician is characterized as far right for supporting segregation, anti immigrant, anti abortion, and pro gun rights (for example) as a quick summary in the lede. That way the reader should not necessary have to check the wiki link, and even if they do the short context gives them ideas what to read on that page. — Masem (t) 20:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We have good guidance at WP:LABEL. It would be nice if editors adhered to it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Two further thoughts:

1. We should consider the guidance at WP:NONDEF. It is written for categories, but since terms in the lead serve to define the subject, we should ensure they really are defining terms. It’s not enough that several sources call a subject neo-purplist, they should be commonly and consistently labelled as such.

2. Some terms serving as condemnatory labels have been so politically useful as weapons that their wielders have sought to creep the definition wider and wider so as to capture more rhetorical ground. The result is that the terms become less and less meaningful. Our article on far-right tells us that all you need to be far-right is to hold “aspects of … reactionary views”, which covers a vast spectrum. Terms like this are semantically dead, worn out from overuse, which is a shame because they used to mean something. When everybody is far-right, nobody is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is more important to be accurate than to be nice. If reliable sources predominantly describe X as Y, then so should we. Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you Masem. An article should be written like wikilinks didn't exist. It's so frustrating when you come across a word, and all you want to know is what it means, yet no article you come across will give a straight answer without clicking more links. You just fall down the rabbit hole never to return, and never to learn anything. That's especially a problem in technical and scientific articles. Any article should be able to define its own subject without disrupting the cohesion or flow, and without needing to click on a link to find out what the hell its talking about.

The same is true with a bio. Masem's way defines the term with context, whereas relying on the link is really giving the reader no information at all, unless they decide to click on the link. We didn't have anything like that back in the day, so that's one of those new problems introduced by technology. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I would appreciate if you read the post before responding to it. Nowhere did I come even remotely close to proposing or claiming that labels in BLPs should be removed -- literally the only issue I have raised is whether they should be wikilinked (i.e. the section title is "wikilinks that make people look like jackoffs", not "words that make people look like jackoffs"). jp×g🗯️ 03:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Never said labels should be removed. If the label is absolutely called for by reliable sources as an oft-way to describe the person, and the body goes into significant detail with sourcing about that, then its likely appropriate for the lede. Just that is needs to be given context, and not simply laid bare with nothing else around it. That typically means how to write the lede appropriately but certainly not eliminating labels that belong in the lede. Masem (t) 03:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if you're replying to me, Masem, but if so, neither did I. My point is similar to one I made just moments earlier at the Kelvin article, where the definition was basically, "A temperature scale based on absolute zero" followed by a lot of very technical jargon. What if the reader doesn't know what absolute zero is? Poof, we've lost them down the rabbit hole. And if they have to click another link to find out what that means, they may never find their way back. Terminology and jargon are very useful if properly used, but there's no reason we can't give a brief explanation of the term right there in mid-sentence, or, alternatively, make the definition of the term evident through context. The latter is basically what you did in your comment above, which works beautifully, especially since "far right" is a term that has no clear-cut meaning, thus context is everything. I'm not advocating eliminating all labels from the lede, nor even eliminating wikilinks, but in that wikilinks should not be used as a crutch to avoid a little hard work. The lede, and hell, even the entire article, but especially the lede should be readable --in it's entirety-- to the general reader without ever having to click on a link. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There was just previously a discussion about MTG along this line. The discussion is still visible and live on this page. How would you apply your position to that example? De-wl "right-wing" because the target is overbroad and presents undue weight by its mere linking? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but a concrete example of applying your ideas would be helpful to me. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a "position" and I do not really care about the specific politician in question, who seems like some kind of unremarkable whackadoodle.

I figured I would open a thread and see what people thought about the general thing, because I remember a similar complaint being made a while ago (about a different person, and -- if this helps calm everybody's indigestion -- I believe they were a lefty).

Maybe it is just unavoidable, or it's not that big of a deal, or maybe somebody has a clever idea that avoids the issue altogether (suppressing the page image in the popup may be such a clever idea). jp×g🗯️ 03:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's unavoidable. What's sad is far-left politics lacks any images at all to get angry over previews. The mouseover > the Mao'sover. Perhaps someone should just add a few blood pressure raising images near the lede there for balance. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't really help with the central issue, but I added |class=notpageimage to the lede image at far-right politics, which should (in theory) hide it from the WP:PAGEPREVIEWS popup. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It hasn't immediately worked. Maybe it takes time? If any technically able admin is able to provide a fix, I can provide screenshots from 4 operating systems with different browsers, by email. If someone is savvy enough to fix preview displays, they might not need them though. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this won't change the WP:POPUPS preview, only the mw:Page Previews that are shown by default. WP:POPUPS is used by "power users" who have some understanding about how the Wikipedia sausage is made, and anyway the image is tiny, so I don't think it's a problem. Are you still seeing the preview image while logged out? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No difference logged in or out. On the mobile preview, the image is actually quite clear, centered. The desktop preview on mobile, and my actual desktop both show the image off-center and only partially visible. I'm amenable to considering this a non-issue at BLPN and let any sausage-savvy admins who care to take this up have at it. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Clyde Drexler Gramatical Error

Clyde Drexler

Potential error in the opening section of Drexler's biography. Cites Drexler as a varsity baseball player as a sophomore, with an additional clause attached explaining he tried out for varsity yet missed the cut. This, to me, is misleading as it practically contradicts what was explained within the same sentence. I would edit it myself, but I don't have access to the referenced text and do not want to mislead readers by correcting a grammatical error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeppiK (talk • contribs) 20:40 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the article, in the "early years" section at the top of his page: "As a sophomore, he made the varsity baseball team, and tried out for the basketball team but failed to make the cut."

There's no issue here. The sentence talks about two different sports: it says that he was on the varsity baseball team, but not the basketball team. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear when he made his high school varsity basketball debut or if he only played for them his senior year. I should try to look this up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Naseem Hamed

No solutions either at EWN or ANI, so my next avenue is to bring this dispute here because it concerns BLP and RS.

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the relevant BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO. If Hamed is to be labelled as British-Yemeni, then by the same logic G Hannelius should be American-Swedish, Rishi Sunak should be British-Indian, and Humza Yousaf should be Scottish-Pakistani. We know it just doesn't work like that on WP.

User has brought up entertainment sites as sources – [7], [8] – but the inclusion of those fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as there are numerous RS of actual boxing expertise which correctly label him as solely British: "Few British boxers", "first British fighter", "British boxing legend", "British fighter's career", "most successful British boxer of all time", "British boxing prince", "the Brit".

I don't believe DR is necessary because rather than a content dispute, this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines as it relates to BLP. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

From memory, these disputes have traditionally been resolved through discussion or RFC on the talk page. MOS:ETHNICITY does control the discussion, but neither version would be BLP violations. Is he a Yemeni citizen? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

He appears to have been born a citizen of Yemen (unofficial translation for reader convenience. It adheres well to the original Arabic, IMO). In cases like this, where nationality actually is incident parents' nationality, it's important to reflect reliable sources' terming, as well as the subject's own (if any can be found). Neutrally, he's a British citizen of Yemeni parentage. Including parentage in the lede is unusual. His ethnicity is unstated (Yemen is multi-ethnic). JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the subject clearly prefers both nationalities, per non-self-serving Instagram imagery. See the article talk page for details. JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Variety is not a reliable source for BLPs and should be removed. I'd do it, but the page is locked for now. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reminded of the case of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Laufey (singer). MOS:ETHNICITY does suggest it should be British etc in such cases, but I do wonder whether we should really go against most sources and the subject's apparent preferences. That said, I'm not sure whether this is the case for Naseem Hamed. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then there is also the Rina Sawayama example which showed how convoluted this is.[9][10] RSes continue to call her British even though she did not hold UK citizenship. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources can indeed say/repeat errors. That's not the only factor in separating them from sources that just are not reliable. Editorial oversight, independence, and the like are just as important. And your point is a good topic for WP:RSN. But at BLPN we get to weigh how important article content is, biographically speaking. And we get to remove WP:UNDUE text for being factually incorrect or presented without accurate context, regardless of whether the source is reliable. The source can be reliable while editorial consensus casts doubt on any particular prose as undue. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I find it questionable to say it's an error. I mean some of the sources may very well incorrectly think she's a UK citizen which would be an error. But in the case of Rina Sawayama, it's such a big deal, that it seems clear many sources continue to call her British despite being fully aware she is not a citizen. Heck I'm sure you can find sources that said something like "A hashtag in support of British singer Rina Sawayama who is ineligible for the BRIT award as she is not a citizen" or otherwise called her British while saying she was not a citizen in the exact same article. In which case the only way you can say the source was confused about her citizenship is if you can think their editors and writers are so crap they didn't notice they were talking about her not being a citizen which frankly is nonsense. The source was clearly aware that she wasn't a citizen and made the conscious choice to call her British despite that. I mean the whole point of the #SawayamaIsBritish hashtag is surely because most of these people are aware that she's not a citizen, otherwise the hashtag would have been something like #StopBeingRacist (since if she was a UK citizen but still excluded from the BRIT Awards for not being British, the exclusion would have a much different vibe). I don't see why we as editors get to accuse sources of errors just because we disagree with their definition of nationality or in particular, "Britishness". Even if we want to use a different definition on Wikipedia, that doesn't make other definitions "errors" but simply other definitions that seem perfectly reasonable in the wider spectrum of how you define nationality, or "Britishness" in particular. (And of course we know complicated British can be since some people reject that label despite being UK citizens and only UK citizens in terms of places with independent statehood. These people may instead call themselves Scottish etc. Some people will insist they must be called British despite this but it's fairly common that sources will again consciously support their decision to reject that label and not label them as such.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO, the case of Shamima Begum presents a bright line for disregarding the views of the subject on this matter: a citable juridical or administrative decision that denies said nationality. Then they're only X-born, for example. Otherwise, the views and statements of subjects about their own nationality or ethnicity should take top order. Reliable sources help, but WP:BLPSPS are non-self-serving in matters of such basic nature. It's in the same bucket with birthdays. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarise, does self-identification via social media always trump secondary sources—even if numerous—or is it case by case? In the case of Hamed, we have two unreliable sources in the form of entertainment publications with no expertise in the subject's field (boxing), plus him self-identifying as British-Yemeni on social media. That stands in contrast to the seven secondary sources I provided above which label him solely as British, all of which can be considered reliable as it relates to boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Case by case, mostly. What's important for the reader to understand the subject? There's a big difference between citizenship, nationality, and ethnicity. Sometimes they overlap, but there are significant distinctions. A citizen is part of a particular country. A national belongs to a particular nation, which is different from the country. For example, I have friends who are American citizens, but their nationality is Inupiaq or Athabaskan. Those nations are within the US, but separate from it. Ethnicity is more related to family lineage or where your DNA came from. The US is both my nation and country, yet my ancestors came from Britain, but the only ethnic British are the Britons (today called the Welsh). My ethnicity is actually Viking, who partly colonized Britain. Ethnicity itself seems like an unnecessary thing for the lede is most instances, unless there's some reason for it to be mentioned that early on. Nationality is similar, albeit maybe a little higher on the list of things that may be necessary. Citizenship is the really important thing, as in, where is this person from? But that differs from person to person so it has to be on a case by case basis. In this particular case, what benefit for the reader does one choice provide over the other? Or why is one worse than the other? Zaereth (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Case by case in every case. Find how a subject's own statements square with RS, and make an editorial decision. They're not always mutually exclusive even if they say different nationalities (eg, additional ones, only one, or only the most relevant). JFHJr (㊟) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How, then, does this tally up with MOS:ETHNICITY, specifically: "... country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident" and "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." I maintain he is notable primarily for his boxing career contested almost entirely in the UK, and not his Yemeni heritage. It absolutely has its place in Early life, but should not in the lead any more than Stipe Miocic should be labelled as American-Croatian. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That is true of the lede. The wider BLP discussion has been regarding how to factually state his nationality at all. But for the lede, yes, what you just referred to is correct. JFHJr (㊟) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

One problem is that people tend to conflate the nation with the state (see Nationalism), and the policy doesn't get that deep into the distinctions. The country or state is the land controlled by a particular government. A nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." A great example is Palestine and Israel. Two nations in one state. What the policy is saying as that the most important thing we can tell the reader is where the hell on Earth is Waldo. Whether he's Irish or not is a far lesser concern... in his case at least. For Martin Luther King Jr., ethnicity is an important factor because it's very much central to understanding him and his struggle. For my Alaska Native friends, nationality is far more important to understanding their subsistence lifestyles, but nationality and ethnicity overlap greatly in their case whereas in my case they don't. (As a nation, the US is united only by common language and territory, not religion or ethnicity.) So the real conundrum is trying to answer the question of how it helps or hurts the reader's understanding, because both are reliably sourced. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My problem with the current (locked) edition of the lead persists because of the hyphenation in particular. To call him British-Yemeni in WP's voice indicates to the reader that he is a citizen of both, even though "Including parentage in the lede is unusual" per User:JFHJr. Granted, we're going case by case, but is this case really that much of an outlier that we break with WP convention? Again, I bring up my seven RS provided above, which overwhelmingly describe him as British. His Yemeni heritage obviously need not be diminished, which is what Early life is for—just not the lead. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

He should be described as "British" only, per MOS:ETHNICITY. GiantSnowman 14:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If he was born in the United Kingdom & has lived 'only' in the United Kingdom. Then, use "British". Otherwise, we'd be saying he lives in Yemen. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Elliott Broidy

I changed the opening lead sentence from "Elliott B. Broidy... is a disgraced former American lobbyist..." to "Elliott B. Broidy... is an American former lobbyist..." to comply with (my understanding of) WP:BLP. Editor @Mereutza: reverted that change with the edit summary "revert UPE". I manually reverted to the neutral language opening again. FWIW, I'm not a UPE, but even if I was, this POV and disparaging description in a BLP is not appropriate. I'd like a few eyes on this, because in my mind "disgraced" is completely POV. --164.64.118.99 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to lead a BLP with a loaded POV term like "disgraced". It's also inappropriate to accuse someone of UPE without some evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps this is a pattern. Yesterday they removed 5,735 bytes from Yodo1 with the summary "UPE". Perhaps they are unaware of what UPE means? --164.64.118.99 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. It appears that the content that was removed from Yodo1 was put there by a confirmed sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjutt. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I mention that there is a risk of a UPE, recently the editor Loksmythe tried to remove the same information as the IP address, so the editor was identified as a Sockpuppet. I worry that there is a campaign trying to remove well referenced information in many articles [11],[12],[13],[14] where Broidy is mentioned as being disgraced. Mereutza (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Describing a living person as "disgraced" in wikivoice, especially in the lead sentence, is almost never going to be appropriate. As it is the lead already discusses his convictions for corruption and bribery, his affair, and his admission to acting as an unregistered foreign agent. There is absolutely no need to describe him as "disgraced" in wikivoice: readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Elshamy

May I submit a piece of information about this individual? He resigned from CNN because of anti-Semitic tweets. https://nypost.com/2019/07/26/cnn-photo-editor-resigns-after-anti-semitic-tweets-unearthed/ I am simply making a report. I leave it to the editors whether they want to add this to Mohammed Elshamy's page. Garyfreedman1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfreedman1 (talk • contribs) 15:46 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably not with that source, see WP:NYPOST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Our page on Mohammed Elshamy makes no mention of CNN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Barry Trachtenberg

I am wondering why there is a page for this person. The only thing listed is that he ac history professor at wake forest and once testified to congress. Many other professors at this school are far more accomplished (more important scholars, government service, multiple patents) and to not have a Wikipedia page. In what way is this an important person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.197.172 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. It sounds like you're looking for Articles for Deletion. We don't delete things here. Please also see our general notability guidelines as well as WP:SCHOLAR, which apply to academics and the like. JFHJr (㊟) 21:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As for why other professors, possibly more accomplished, do not have Wikipedia biographies. that is because nobody has yet volunteered to write those articles. You could be the one. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry I put this in the wrong place. 104.138.197.172 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

No harm done, so don't feel sorry. I hope you will take up Cullen's suggestion and help expand Wikipedia. Helps to register an account whether authoring or going to AfD. Here's a helpful link (if the link reading hasn't already been too much!): WP:WHYREGISTER. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Simon_Ekpa#Nationalist_or_Separatist_in_Wiki-voice

Somewhat confused discussion about calling a living person separatist, nationalist, or both. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Does any RS say "nationalist"? If so, does the implicit "nation" exist in a way that enjoys international recognition? If not, the subject is a separatist, as RS appear to state currently. The TP comment and line of reasoning only predecessors were separatist, considering the separation a fait accompli and subsequent activists "nationalist", either refers some wonderful unshared RS, or reflects a heaping spoonful of original research. JFHJr (㊟) 17:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! I intended this post as a WP:APPNOTE, hoping for people to join the existing discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I'll port my comment. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Swayman - article states he owns the Toronto Maple Leafs. That information is false.

Jeremy Swayman - article states he owns the Toronto Maple Leafs. That information is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D5C:D200:2DC4:8447:9179:BA1 (talk)

Fixed thank you. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Petty sports nonsense, reverted. Thank you for calling it out. Ravensfire (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Tim Peck

I was reading up about Call 9 and then thought it/the founder, Tim Peck, should have their/his own article. Then I started reading up about Tim Peck and see he's running for Congress. So the optics about creating the page now may appear dubious and possibly unfair to the other candidates. What do other people think? Does he warrant his own article? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Either he passes WP:GNG or he doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thats what I thought. Wasn't sure if people felt the same. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is kind of a core principle. If they are notable, you can write an article on them, with the only exceptions being if it is a BLP and the existence of the article causes significant hardship to that individual, AND they are borderline notable. (Those are really rare cases.) Otherwise, it isn't their fault if they are notable and opponents are not, or that other people haven't written articles on the opponents. Again, this assume they have more than a couple of WP:RS that are actually significant coverage, and they pass WP:GNG, and the article is written in a neutral manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Dennis! MaskedSinger (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Lakshmi Tatma

In 2005, a girl (Lakshmi Tatma) was born with an extremely rare deformity (a full extra set of arms and legs), and later underwent an extremely complicated surgery to correct it. This is all well and fine (and seems to be obviously GNG-passing) -- but is it really condign for the article to use her full real name? The section on the surgery contains many details which are, surely, of genuine medical interest, but nonetheless they are very specific details about her internal organs. I will admit we lack a "Pelvises of Living Persons" policy, but it seems a little personal to have this under her full name.

It seems to me like it may be better, morally speaking, to have this article at some title like "Lakshmi T." or similar. Should I just move it, or is there a reason not to? jp×g🗯️ 07:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

An example of what I mean: As of February 2008, a later operation was planned to bring her legs closer together. Another operation may be needed to rebuild her pelvic floor muscles. Now, I am not a doctor, but it seems to me the pelvic floor muscles are connected to the *. I am imagining this is me for a second, and I think I would be quite unhappy about the musculoskeletal structure of my * being in my Wikipedia article. jp×g🗯️ 07:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The level of detail in the article seems excessive, in particular the numbered steps in the operation. I don't think we need a blow by blow description of every procedure in an article that is supposed to summarize the notability of the individual. This isn't even about the "pelvis" concerns, it's more about excessive detail that dominates the prose of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources, including those we would normally consider the most reliable, give her full name. She is widely reported on under her full name. Trying to anonymise her on Wikipedia as "Lakshmi T." strikes me as closing the barn door after the horse has bolted somewhat, especially given we will presumably want to keep a redirect from her full name because that is the name people searching for the article are going to use.

From an ethical point of view rather than one of strict Wikipedia policy, I would consider it more important to ensure that the article is written with care and sensitivity than to worry about the inclusion of her name. (On a brief search, it seems as though there is at least some scholarship on the ethical and social aspects of this case which the current article doesn't address at all.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do WP:MEDRS consistently name her? Her notability is due to her medical uniqueness and the procedures she had to undergo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Operation Trojan Shield

Not sure about this, but as I have a COI anyway I thought it would be better to raise it here. At Operation Trojan Shield in the "see also" section we have a link to courtlistener.com, which lists details regarding cases of a small number of people accused through Operation Trojan Shield. It is only US cases, of which there were comparatively few, but it has the names of the accused in those cases. I don't know about where we sit with linking to court records, especially where the cases themselves are not discussed, although either way it shouldn't really be under "see also". I raised it on talk here. Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the court docs from the article per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Such sources should be removed on sight, regardless of any COI. Zaereth (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

John Bartlett (racing driver)

I have multiple concerns about this article. There appears to be COI editing going on (I have dropped the IP editor a line, but had no response). There is certainly POV editing going on, for example, attempts to minimise/excuse his conviction for fraud (e.g. "At the start of this now very complex Trial for any jury to comprehend").

The article is absolutely stuffed with WP:FANCRUFT (probably a decade since I last used that term) and as a result it makes it very hard to assess if the bloke even passes WP:N I've done some light Googling, best I can find is a couple of passing mentions that Leslie Phillips narrated the audio version of his book, and a mention in a BBC article on prison overcrowding that "former racing driver John Bartlett" was in a particular prison. Of the 60 odd references currently in the article, none really seem to stand up to WP:V.

I'd appreciate someone taking a look. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, it seems that someone has access to Bartlett's personal medical records and has uploaded them to the web and linked to them in our article. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted all the recent changes, back to how the article stood before the changes of the last month.[15] As well as medical records there were court documents being used as references, while other links were to apparent copyrighted infringements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Helpful, thanks --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

He published them himself. They're on his website. NuIotaChi (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts about whether this individual is notable? I'm considering AfD. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Of the three sources currently in the article, none check out. Source 1 gives a 404 error. 2 doesn't mention him at all, and doesn't look like a good source even if it did. 3 is something about diving and also doesn't mention him, and that as well doesn't look like a reliable source for anything either. A cursory google search didn't turn up much either. Looks like a prime candidate for AFD to me. Zaereth (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Source one looks like a database and even when the link worked I am doubtful that it would have contained in-depth coverage. Source three is the website of the diving school that our article claims Bartlett is the managing director of; if it supported that claim it would clearly not be independent. If there's WP:GNG-supporting sources online, I am unable to find them amid all of the stuff about other John Bartletts. Agreed that notability seems questionable here Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Since he apparently raced in the '80s and early '90s, I'd imagine that if any sources exist they're likely pre-internet, which are valid sources, but don't count unless someone actually goes to the library to find them, and that's not any of our burden. Lacking any reliable, secondary sources, I'd say go ahead and nominate it. Zaereth (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Melinda Marx

• Melinda Marx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The existing article of Melinda Marx first appearing on the program, "You bet your life" that was hosted by her father, Groucho Marx when she was 8 years of age is incorrect. Melinda first appeared on this program in 1953 when she was 6 and appeared a second time a few months later Her second appearance in 1953 featured her singing the song with her father called, "I hear singing". The contestants on the program were: Mrs Bernadine Lodge, Doctor Wyn York, Mr Raymond Heron, Laura Hammersley. This episode of "You bet your life" can be viewed on YouTube. The link for viewing is: You bet your life 1953, Moviecraft Inc. viewed via Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.24.204 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not able to corroborate it from the episodes I found on YouTube, and it's not available on Hulu currently. We'd need a more specific link to check the episode. —C.Fred (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael Meldman

Hi - I'm looking for help updating the Michael Meldman article. Mr. Meldman is now the Founder and Chairman (not CEO) as Brett White was appointed CEO in early 2022. Also the article repeatedly refers to "Casamigos tequila" but the company name is "Casamigos Tequila" (upper case "T"). Finally, based on the IRS 990 forms the Discovery Land Foundation has contributed over $30 Million since 2007, which may be material to that section of the article.

Disclosure - I am a paid contractor for the Discovery Land Company, and would greatly appreciate any help in getting the article updated. If there is another forum or format that would work better, please let me know.

Khalil Kain

Khalil Kain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor persists in restoring unsourced content about date of birth and personal life in Khalil Kain after I have removed it, citing the lack of adequate sourcing. Today my talk page contained the following message:

Please stop removing edits being made from Khalil’s family. There has been repeated information incorrectly released from his Wiki page for years. You clearly do not know him personally. It’s just annoying at this point.

I replied to that message (pointing out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability), but I wonder if anyone here might have any thoughts on how to impress on this editor the need for providing sources.Eddie Blick (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the recent edits on this seems to be by IP, I put a warning at [16]. If it continues by that IP, ask to have it blocked. If it continues by other IP:s or accounts, ask for page protection. Or perhaps some of this can be sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

[17] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)