Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Brian Kemp – Attributed statement from a Yale University Press book

There is a dispute on the Brian Kemp article over whether the body of the article should include attributed statements from Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy by Rick L. Hasen (Yale University Press, 2020):

• Election law expert Rick L. Hasen described Kemp as "perhaps the most incompetent state chief elections officer" in the 2018 election year, pointing to a number of actions that jeopardized Georgia's election security and made it harder for eligible Georgia voters to vote. Hasen writes that it was "hard to tell" which of Kemp's "actions were due to incompetence and which were attempted suppression."

These two sentences were lodged in a section of Kemp's article on accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression in Georgia's gubernatorial election, as well as jeopardized the security of the election by among other things exposing the personal voter data of millions. It's been removed by another editor on the basis that the text above is a BLP violation. For what it's worth, the book is peer-reviewed, the author is a law professor who is known for his expertise in election law, and the book covers Georgia's gubernatorial election at great length in the book (the statements are not just off-hand remarks) alongside other problematic elections (overseen by both Democrats and Republicans). I do not see why this is a BLP violation. It's an attributed statement from one of the highest-quality sources (a peer-reviewed monograph authored by a recognized expert in a top tier press). It's the kind of content that Wikipedia articles should have more of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article when exactly what how he is accused of suppressing voters is already described, therefore calling him "incompetent" two times in two sentences is unnecessary and the insult is just a BLP violation, because these claims of incompetence were not repeated in other reliable sources, and Hasen was not cited anywhere else for this quote. Two other political scientists were already cited in that paragraph, so adding a third for a contentious claim is not needed. Bill Williams 04:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds rather backward. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] the quote is cited literally no where else on google besides Wikipedia and his own book[2], so how is it notable for the article? Bill Williams 04:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think WEIGHT would have to come into play here. That one person said this doesn't mean much other than we can WP:V they said it. Is it due is quite another. How is this being used in the Wiki BLP? Is this material supporting a paragraph or is this included because it's a nice damning quote that is otherwise out of context? If it's due in context it would be better to summarize the intent rather than include the quote. If no other sources are quoting this then we shouldn't either. Springee (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given that it's an academic book by an expert, it seems worth citing in some fashion. There's room to tweak precisely what we say to get a concise summary of the book's main points about Kemp's actions (ie. we may not need to use that exact quote), but removing it entirely is too much. I'm seeing how the source itself can be considered undue. It's a peer-reviewed book, on the precise focus of the subsection, from an expert in the topic, discussing the topic of the article in that context at length, on a subject that many other sources plainly also consider broadly significant - if that is undue, what on earth would be due? It seems to me that the quote is what has people's hackles up, but the precise quote isn't really the point and can be reasonably paraphrased. The broad point that Kemp's competence has been questioned is certainly well-cited ([3][4]), and this is a reasonable source to paraphrase to cover that aspect - though you could also add additional sources to avoid the focus on one in particular, if you wanted. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"if that is undue, what on earth would be due" this is clearly undue because nobody has used this quote across the entirety of Google besides the author himself and Wikipedia[5][6], showing how it is not at all notable. All of those articles accusing Kemp of being "incompetent" are opinion pieces or petitions, and you can find opinion pieces or petitions insulting every politician in existence, but that does not mean we should insult them on Wikipedia. "The broad point that Kemp's competence has been questioned" is not something reliable sources state most of the time, only a few occassional references like this one author, or opinion pieces that have no reason to be in the article. Bill Williams 06:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two reasons an analysis can be WP:DUE: First, because it has wide secondary coverage; or second, because it is from a high-quality WP:RS written by an established expert and doesn't seem to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL or fringe. It isn't necessary for both to apply, especially since this is not a mere opinion source. Lots of politicians have people saying they're incompetent, surely; few of them have election law experts raising questions about their competence in a peer-reviewed work, and when that happens it's reasonable to give it at least a mention. Beyond that, as I said, we can paraphrase to avoid the quote if you don't feel the specific wording is noteworthy. But the book itself has reasonable amounts of secondary coverage for something so recent, eg [7] and there is substantial secondary non-opinion and high-quality coverage that the opinion that Kemp's handling of 2018 election security raises potential concerns about his competence is noteworthy, eg. [8][9][10][11], at least to the point where it's hard to argue that his opinion is so unusual or out-there as to be fringe. When a particular interpretation is widespread and has secondary coverage, it is reasonable to cite a high-quality source for it, with attribution; and this is a high-quality source. We're talking about a brief sentence or two in the body, not an entire paragraph - I think it's a hard push to argue that a source of this quality, saying something that many other sources have covered, is undue to mention at all. I can sympathize somewhat with your allergic reaction to such a sharply-worded quote; I do think that there is sometimes a problem with people pulling out the most "incisive" quotes from a source and using them for their sharpness rather than the precise significance of the words - see WP:QUOTES, which talks about the problem a bit. But the answer to that is to paraphrase the broadly-important points in a more neutral tone, not to try and remove the entire source (otherwise, what, is your argument that we can only use sources that have been quoted elsewhere, ever, fullstop?) Trying to entirely remove a reasonably high-quality source and the sentence or two summarizing it is an overreach, since at that point you can't just talk about the quote, you have to somehow argue that the entire source, and everything that Hasen has to say about Kemp's role in the election there, is useless, fringe-y, or undue. I'm not seeing any real argument for that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The quote adds nothing to the article besides calling Kemp incompetent, which is a personal attack that is not notable when the book is rarely cited elsewhere on the internet, and the direct quote of the personal attack from the book is repeated nowhere on the internet. How do readers benefit from this direct quote when two experts are already quoted on their opinion without ad hominem attacks, and the reasons for their accusations are already listed in the same paragraph? Bill Williams 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Attempts to exclude material published in peer-reviewed academic work are highly damaging to the encyclopedia. This is of course exactly the kind of material we should be using. The idea that it's a BLP violation is preposterous and has no basis in our policies. The comment just above mine [12], referring to "opinion pieces or petitions", shows how unhinged some of the arguments in this section are; in case you missed it, the material in question isn't "opinion pieces or petitions" but rather peer-reviewed academic work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I may not be an expert on BLP, but I am a living person who you just called "unhinged" without justification. Maybe address what I actually said instead of personally attacking me? What I stated was in response to Aquillion posting google searches[13][14] of opinion articles and petitions to show that other sources call Kemp incompetent. You personally attacked me for saying something perfectly accurate, because "in case you missed it", Aquillion literally linked "opinion pieces or petitions". That is irrelevant to the main point, which is relating to the article, and I said that the quote personally insults a living person with a direct quote that is not repeated anywhere on the entire internet[15][16], so how is it acceptable to use that insult in the article and how is it even notable at all? What does this add when two experts are already quoted on the issue in the paragraph without an ad hominem attack? Bill Williams 15:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The notion that Wikipedia cannot include direct quotations from academic publications unless the exact quotation has been covered on CNN or whatever is completely inane. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You have provided zero justification for adding a personal attack to the biography of a living person other than "this one writer said it one time". Because it has not been "covered on CNN or whatever" it is not notable in the slightest, and adds nothing to benefit the reader's understanding. There are literally thousands of sources that covered this, so why choose that one specific quote that was not repeated elsewhere? An actual description of Kemp's actions and two expert opinions is already provided, so the personal attack is just unnecessary. Bill Williams 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There are most definitely not thousands of academic publications on the Georgia 2018 gubernatorial election. The peer-reviewed book that you scrubbed from the page is possibly the single-most extensive treatment of the election. There is no personal attack in the source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

BLP is not about "insults". It is to prevent defamation. The content is well-sourced and on-topic. There is no defamation. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't an RSN question, of course this book is a reliable source. It is a WP:DUE question, which should be handled at the article's talk page (or WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN), not at RSN. Levivich 15:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  This is WP:BLPN. Do you mean this should be handled here, or elsewhere? Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ha, I'm an idiot with too many browser windows open :-) Levivich 16:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am arguing that this is a BLP violation because it is an UNDUE insult to Kemp, calling him "incompetent" two sentences in a row in a direct quote that is repeated nowhere else on the internet. Two expert opinions and a description of Kemp's actions are already given in the article, so adding another expert who simply insults him and actually casts doubt on the claims that Kemp suppressed voters by saying it could have just been "incompetence" is misleading to readers and not beneficial to anyone. Bill Williams 02:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a BLP violation to add a quote from the same book about Brenda Snipes, a Democratic politician who oversees elections in Broward County, to her article: "A retired educator and registered Democrat, Snipes was probably the most incompetent election administrator in a large jurisdiction in the United States... [Snipes] had a history of poor performance... she had improperly destroyed ballots, left measures off the ballot, delayed reporting voting results, and mixed up provisional ballots with regular ones."? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be unnecessary to call her incompetent like that, as a description of precisely what she did, and her "history of poor performance" is certainly preferable to personally insulting her by calling her "incompetent", which provides no benefit to readers. Bill Williams 02:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I see nothing close to a BLP violation in having an attributed statement sourced to a peer-reviewed publication by an expert on election law and management remarking on the competence of election management and/or possible voter suppression. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, in that, if it violates UNDUE then it's a violation of BLP. That doesn't necessarily mean BLPN is the best place to work it out. Here, we tend to specialize more in blatant BLP violation, whereas UNDUE is part of NPOV and the specifics are covered under that policy. BLP just says we need to adhere to that and the other policies. So in this case NPOVN may be the better place, where people specialize in that particular aspect of policy. (Not that I would turn anyone away, as I think anyone is welcome to bring their concerns here, but you might find it more helpful over there.)

That said, if you go there with the same rationale you're using here, you will likely be out of gas fast. First, calling someone incompetent is not always an insult. Sometime people really are incompetent ... at least most people are for certain things. For example, I have certain talents and abilities, but cooking isn't one of them. You could most certainly say I'm incompetent in the kitchen. I can talk lasers with Townes and gravity with Einstein, have always been a whiz in English, but am totally incompetent when it comes to higher math. (I think the big problem is most people versed in higher math are incompetent in explaining it in English.) Sometimes an adjective is just an adjective.

The bigger problem you are going to have is you should really get a good understanding of due weight before trying to argue that point. You're outta gas on RS. It's common and even a good thing to criticize politicians (on both sides of the aisle), so you're really outta gas on calling this any kind of slander or libel. That really leaves NPOV. You may very well be right, and it may be undue, but the problem is that due weight is not always so clear-cut, black and white. Weight is a grey area that really needs to be sorted out by a preponderance of reliable sources, and this is why it is often better discussed on the article's talk page, or at a place where they specialize in that policy. Are we just cherrypicking these quotes, or are we summarizing the source? Are we giving a disproportionate amount of space to them as opposed to everything else? These are question you should answer. I hope that helps, and good luck in your quest. Zaereth (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, and you are correct that it is a reliable source referring to her this way, and that incompetence can simply be an adjective to describe actions accurately without personally insulting someone. But in this case, reliably sources almost never call Kemp "incompetent", only opinion articles, and still not nearly as often as accurately describing his actions specifically, or generally accusing him of voter suppression, both of which are already in the article with two experts' opinions as well. And again, this precise quote is not repeated anywhere on the internet, and it does not benefit readers' understanding of the subject, since it casts doubts on claims of voter suppression by saying it may have just been Kemp's "incompetence" in one sentence after calling Kemp incompetent in another. Bill Williams 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And that is what makes it an NPOV issue. In both scientific theory and expository writing, the thing we call "truth" exists in two parts, called fact and opinion. Facts are observable and, therefore, recordable phenomena, and as such they are not bound by any rules of NPOV. But facts without theories to tie them all together are nothing, so we have to add in some opinions as well. But wherever there is an opinion, there is an opposing opinion, and NPOV is all about giving those opinions (theories, conclusions, etc...) their due weight and not a syllable more. In Wikipedia, we determine that by weighing the sources against one another and trying to apportion everything accordingly. That's not easy to do. I don't know where the answer lies. What I do know is, whether you're right or wrong, neither or both, or something else entirely, this is the path you need to explore. Zaereth (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah the idea this is a BLP issue is a non-starter. Accusations of voter suppression were widespread. This is one of the highest quality types of sources we have. So its certainly reliable, its relevant to the section in the article, and the suggestion a peer-reviewed piece written by an expert in the very thing its discussing is a BLP violation with multiple allegations out there? Utter nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The "utter nonsense" you are referring to is completely irrelevant to anything this discussion is about. I am referring to the quote calling Kemp "incompetent" twice in a row, which is an unnecessary personal attack that actually discredits voter suppression allegations by implying it was simply "incompetence". Multiple experts and a detailed description of voter suppression allegations are already in the article, while having this quote adds nothing, and this quote is repeated literally nowhere on the internet, as I have stated multiple times, and it does not benefit readers whatsoever. Bill Williams 15:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• A reasonable related question here is, taking for granted the view is DUE, are the specific quotes DUE? At least some editors seem to seek out quotes that appear to be, in my limited legalese, more prejudicial than probative. This is a case where the reasons why Hasen thinks Kemp did a bad job has more encyclopedic value than Hasen's possibly biased view that Kemp is 'the most incompetent' etc. Loading up any BLP with such value laden terms, even if they come from someone reported to be an expert, makes it look like the objective of the Wikipedia editors is to tell the readers they are supposed to hate the person rather than presenting the evidence that the person did a bad job. A consensus here that the Hasen's views have weight should not be seen as consensus that we should include the quotes as proposed. An impartial summary of the reasons would make for a better article. Springee (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a very valid concern, in my opinion. Quotes are great things, but too often they are taken out of context to imply a meaning otherwise not intended, and this isn't always done intentionally or consciously. It's just extremely easy to see something through our own rose-colored glasses and single it out. That's why I usually prefer to let the secondary sources single out the quotes, for the most part. For example, I think a few well-placed quotes can be helpful in a historical article, such as dogfighting. Most of the quotes I added to that article originally came from pilots who wrote books about their war experiences, but those wouldn't generally be considered reliable sources of their own accord, so rather than quote from such books myself, the quotes I found mostly came from reliable secondary-sources on the subject. I just let them pick out quotes they, as experts, deemed relevant ... with the exception of the Red Baron. (You can't have an article about dogfighting without a description of the Red Baron's most famous battle.) Since I haven't seen the source in question, I don't know if these are direct quotes from the source, or quotes from someone else that were then used by the source. I had assumed the latter, but maybe I'm wrong. But that leads to the question, are these cherrypicked or do they summarize the gist of what the source is saying? Zaereth (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rosa

• Christian Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 37.172.150.148 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽WHOIS⧼dot-separator⧽RDNS⧼dot-separator⧽RBLs⧼dot-separator⧽http⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log)

A Paris based IP user is edit warring to change the birthdate of Christian Rosa. Their Artnet profile says they were born in September 12, 1982 [17]. While their FBI indictment says they were 43 as of October 2021 [18], putting their birthdate as c. 1978. The IP is edit warring to solely include the 1978 date. Given that the sources conflict, shouldn't both be included? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's not widely covered in reliable secondary sources it should likely just be removed. We shouldn't be using the primary source for a DOB, and a single mention of birthday on an artnet profile isn't enough coverage to keep the birthdate in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems like the best option here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP is contiuing to edit war, this time simply adding is "a 43 year old" based on articles in Monopol Magazine https://www.monopol-magazin.de/der-fall-christian-rosa ArtNet https://news.artnet.com/art-world/christian-rosa-former-art-star-accused-selling-forged-pettibon-paintings-reportedly-arrested-portugal-2044403, which appear to be based on the age given in the FBI indictment. Given that his real DOB is not publicised in the sources I still rather we just not include a date at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The big problem with "43 year old" is not necessarily ambiguity, as a little amibguity is often unavoidable or even favorable. The bigger problem is that it is written in a present temporal-perspective (related to, but not to be confused with verb tense), meaning that it's written like a newspaper would write it. Newspapers can do that, and for them it's actually better to write from a present perspective, because news changes on a daily basis. But is someone actually going to monitor this article and change his age every year? When writing books or encyclopedia, it's better to write from a perfect or "timeless' perspective, as if "outside of time looking in". In other words, we should avoid adverbs like "today", or "yesterday" and it's always better to use dates than ages.

When it comes to DOBs, however, this is interesting but ultimately useless information when it comes to defining the subject. It's just statistical data, not much different from height or weight, and just like them, it's not really necessary info in most cases. It's trivia, in the sense that the story would read just the same without it. If the year is published in an RS, that would usually be acceptable, but for the full date we really need multiple RSs. If there is any question at all then it should probably just be removed altogether. In most cases we don't really lose anything by omitting the DOB, so erring on the side of caution is definitely the better choice. Zaereth (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Now at AN3, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:37.172.150.148 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: ). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP user, apparently socking under the username Beuys Joseph has now added a source addressing the contradiction, a comment by the staff of Austria's Der Standard made in the comments section of one of their articles about Rosa [19] the text is as follows: (in translation}

To explain, Rosa used the birth year of 82 ', which is why it was mentioned in numerous reports until recently (only last week in profile, for example). In fact, it is wrong. Whatever the reason why he made himself younger: 78' is his actual birth year ...

Is this a good enought source for BLP purposes? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No. The article says ""Bad boy" attitude - At the same time, Rosa, born in 1978, was staged as a shooting star on the Viennese scene with the support of business-minded curators and gallery owners. His "bad boy" attitude, which he brutally cultivated - sometimes to the chagrin of those affected - secured him an attention of a questionable nature. Money and fame were what drove him. No matter what the cost." The comments section was the author explaining why her article doesn't match other sources. The problem here is that, regardless of whether Der Standard is a reliable source or not (I don't know if they're news or more tabloid), this particular article is an op/ed column, so I would not use it as one. Have you asked the IP why it is so important to them? There has to be a reason that is very deeply personal to them, and more often than not simply confronting them with it is a way to give them pause for thought. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP/Beuys Joseph is the silent type. It's difficult to communicate with those. I agree with your assessment that a comment is probably not a good enough BLP source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood. It was just a suggestion, because, in my experience, most people have no clue what drives them, and when asked about it, they find themselves at a total loss, and suddenly it doesn't seem worth it anymore. At least, sometimes it works. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

General Bipin Rawat's caste

Bipin Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Question Can these sources presented on the talk page be used for this BLP content about General Bipin Rawat's caste? [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Details: (summary of discussion at Talk:Bipin_Rawat#Rawat's_caste)

General Bipin Rawat (RIP) recently died. Couple of users are adding controversial caste information, even though Rawat has (to my knowledge) not self identified his caste.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion
are applicable here. These two links above explain the higher bar needed for such information. These bars are not met.
Castes are part of Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups

Some one added caste information. After his death some tabloid sources picked them up from Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR. Arunib had removed this caste info, RS6784 had restored this into article without generating a consensus about sourcing. Among the 2 WP:TOI links in this diff Special:Diff/1059406602, the first one from 2016 does not even mention the caste information. The second WP:TOI link appears to be a mirror. Jagran and WP:TOI are not reliable sources. Ideally Military history books or the subject's biography should be referred. On top of all these points, these unreliable sources are presenting conflicting information. TimesofIndia (A wiki mirror in this case) says Garhwali Rajput. India.com says "Rawat Rajput". Bharattimes says "Chauhan Rajput". It is obvious that these unreliable sources are making speculations about rawat's caste .Rawat has not self identified with the Rajputs. Like many Indians, he might be against Caste system. Till a reliable source becomes available nothing should should be added. Until then Wikipedia should not take sides into this caste dispute among these newspapers.
The article is currently on the mainpage and such dubious information cannot be put into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The page is protected right now, but consensus must be obtained before inserting contentious matters like caste into the article per WP:BDP and WP:BLPRESTORE. Consensus can be obtained on the article talk page through an WP:RFC. I myself cannot evaluate the reliability of the sources you presented given my scant knowledge on Indian media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP still apply on Bipin Rawat as he died recently. I agree that these sources are insufficient for the addition of a 'caste' which has to comply with WP:BLPCAT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Junior Galette

This article has been plagued by problems for a long time, including COI editing; I just reverted one of those edits. Like so many BLPs, the article is problematic precisely because it is poor quality, somewhat odd considering that, well, it's football. I would like to ask one of you sports editors to take this article and source it, improve it, etc., if only to establish a kind of baseline that we can revert to if further disruption takes place. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sidney Cooke

• Sidney Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While obviously a criminal convicted of various offences including a single count of manslaughter, significant BLPCRIME issues, in particular calling him a serial killer and his guilt of a murder he has not been charged with. 2A00:23C6:883:8F00:144F:B3ED:81DA:8B6F (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicole Simone

Nicole Simone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article for Nicole Simone was created back in 2020 via AfC by a JustACodeMonkey who has clearly stated their COI as a friend of Simone's, see archived diffs of their talkpage. There appears to be an off-wiki dispute regarding animal cruelty allegations at a rescue charity, "Redemption Paws", that Simone runs, which have been discussed on a self-published blog https://redemptionflaws.wordpress.com/. Anonymous users are engaging in edit warring to try to add these allegations to the article cited to this blog. A brand new user NoSpamming, has created a COIN post as well as a malformed AfD request. Can people keep an eye on the situation? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea why this website continues to be brought up. I did not mention it and it's existence is of no relevance to the discussion of JustACodeMonkey's conflict of interest. In an interest in preserving the credibility of Wikipedia I think this conflict of interest, and what seems like obvious promotion as the reason this article has been created is something that needs to be addressed. I will be emailing more concrete evidence as to prove the conflict of interest to the appropriate address in order to preserve the privacy of JustACodeMonkey.

I do not appreciate your attack on my post as "malformed", I joined Wikipedia to address this conflict of interest concern which I believe is very valid, but this is the first time I have used this process. If you could refrain from attacks or judgement in this discussion I would appreciate it. I have stuck to the facts here and so should you. NoSpamming (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't an attempt to attack you, "malformed" was just an accurate technical description of the post. There is a very specific format for Articles for Deletion that should be followed (most advanced users have tools enabled to create this format automatically), but I can understand why a brand new user would not be aware of that. How did you become aware of Nicole Simone and the Conflict of Interest? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected and completed the AfD process for this person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your language I suppose. I tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page about this but JustACodeMonkey refused to engage, assumed I had something to do with the website in question (I don not), attacked me and he repeatedly deleted the discussion. This is what led me to Propose it for deletion and flag it for conflict of interest. I'm not sure I understand why this was approved in the first place if his conflict of interest was obviously stated then. If he has received payment from Nicole for his web services, even if he wasn't paid directly to create this article it really doesn't look good. I know for a fact that JustACodeMonkey also is responsible for creating her IMDB page. Why have rules against COI if it's actually just allowed?

I have a personal connection to Nicole which I would rather not disclose, I have no personal ill will against her but I have concerns about her suppression of criticism and using her marketing background (through Greg) to take advantage of Wikipedia for promotion. It just doesn't reflect reality of the notability of redemption paws vs the notability of Nicole and her self funded music and acting exploits. As I said on the talk page I think it would be much more appropriate to just have an article about Redemption Paws, although one not written by an associate of Nicole. NoSpamming (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt to AfD the article could be seen as a disruptive way to address the COI situation. Especially since you also have a COI. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

To NoSpamming: You seem to be a single-purpose account. Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

List of converts...

Some 'religious warriors' are indiscriminately adding names to lists like List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without even verifying the sources or self-admission as required by WP:BLPCAT. I have tried to fix a few in the past but always found it reverted without any valid explanations or consensus. --Bringtar (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming from you who just violated WP:BLPCAT by adding few entries on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism that fail WP:BLPCAT,[27][28] and using or misrepresenting unreliable source like Filmibeat?

I am taking the liberty of changing the title of this thread to invite a broader discussion.

I am sure that unlikely we would get enough editors to cleanup the frequent problems created by you or any other editors on these lists. I am now failing to see if these lists are encyclopedic at all because of the highly dubious criteria which are never set, and if we were to stick only WP:BLPCAT (for living people) and WP:V for both dead and alive, then still religious conversion seems to be a private issue and most of the people who have converted from one religion to another would avoid being explicit about it. But due to reports in mass media, people will still click on these lists to find the name or include the names they believe we have missed. I think it is best to get rid of all these lists per WP:LISTCRUFT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is a noticeboard and not your talkpage for ranting. Several editors are already dealing with your disruptive edits[29][30] etc. so if you do not have any postive contributions to make then you can spare us of your POV here. If you think my edis violates any Wikipedia Policy then open a talk page discussion on that article's talk page. --Bringtar (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it necessary to point out BLP violations committed by you especially when you are falsely accusing others of BLP violation right above? You don't understand the point of this noticeboard, just like you don't understand what is WP:V and WP:BLP. I see those "several editors" dealing with you though,[31][32] and telling you that you are wrong with your poor sourcing. I have already refuted each of your points there on talk pages.

Since the "several editors" you pointed out find the article to be problematic I have nominated it and other related lists for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of religious converts. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Why making a fool out of yourself, brother? Both the diffs you provided against me are part of engaing me in the discussion and this is how this community works and not by 'trolling'[33][34]. And FYI, I have not made any BLP violations. Both my entries to List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism are well sourced and self-admission required by BLPCAT so please make sure you check the sources or at least discuss with the concerned editor. --Bringtar (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Halas McCaskey

There is an endless edit war going on over at Virginia Halas McCaskey with no admin intervention. Additionally, this page continues to receive vandalism on an almost weekly basis. Can someone please step in? --Jkaharper (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting the edit war over the infobox and have warned both users for 3RR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Tombs and History Reclaimed

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I have had a respectful exchange at Talk:Robert Tombs about the second paragraph of the History Reclaimed section.

Tombs is the editor of History Reclaimed, a website created by a "group of anti-woke scholars" including Nigel Biggar, Zareer Masani, and Andrew Roberts, among others. The website describes itself as "an independent and non-partisan academic organisation ... composed of historians ... dedicated to historical research to expand knowledge and understanding about the fundamental changes surrounding our country."

Reception has been mixed, with right-wing tabloids such as the Daily Express supporting this retaliation by those academics against the perceived wokeism of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist movements. University professor of history Alan Lester commented that while activists may get details wrong, they get the bigger picture right, and Reclaiming History "believe themselves to be marginalised and gagged", despite including at least one CBE. Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University, wrote that it "purports to defend the positive legacies of colonialism whilst ignoring the contributions to civilisation made by European nations other than Britain."

References

Everything is properly attributed and written by two university professors of history. It is not coatracky because Tombs is the main figure behind the website as editor, and if we are going to have a section about it and include the POV of the website, we should also include its reception and the views of Lester and Solares, who gives secondary coverage for Lester and the Daily Express. They should be removed,1 however, if they are self-published because they cannot be used in BLPs, even if written by experts, per WP:SPS.

Notes

1. They have already been removed, and I did not edit war about it and simply took it to the talk page. Davide King (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Davide King. I'm fine acknowledging that Tombs is a member of History Reclaimed but adding an entire paragraph on the reception of a topic thats tangentially related to the subject seems like a pretty standard case of COATRACK to me. This is especially true considering the fact that the 3 sources include 1) the WP:DAILYEXPRESS 2) A blog on a university site (While Lester may be a subject-matter expert, WP:BLPSPS still applies), and 3) A single, passing mention of Tombs on something called North East Bylines.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to your for you response and respectful tone. Just to make one thing clear, I am not not actually using the Daily Express as source but Solares did mention it and summarized the website's reception as mixed. I added a direct reference to Lester for context and verification for the quote but all of that is supported by Solares, so I think the self-published claim no longer stands. It may mention Tombs directly only once, like the other scholars, but I think it is still clearly relevant if we are going to discuss briefly Tombs' project. I think it would be better if we could get thoughts from other users, or admins, which is why I took it here. Davide King (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is going to posit or comment on this? I do not doubt that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d may well be right, and their arguments are good and can certainly respect them, but it would be good to hear more analysis, thoughts, and achieve some consensus. Davide King (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Jason Binn

Jason Binn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello I tried making a BOLD edit by removing the following lines on Binn's page but it got replaced by User:Hipal

Binn's ex-girlfriend Amy Dorris says that they attended the U.S. Open in 1997 with Donald Trump, who Binn had described as his best friend. At the event she alleges that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.

From my understanding, I believe the lines are funny. 1. Both dudes attended a U.S Open event as claimed by the ex-girl. This has nothing to do with Binn's page. 2. Donald Trump is being accused of assaulting Binn's ex-girlfriend. The sexual assault is a mere allegation that is not proven. It's against WP:CRIME. If at all it must be allowed, it should be on Donald Trump's page not on Binn's.

I believe the entire lines shouldn't be on that page. I strongly believe the entire content ought to be removed. It makes no sense. This is biography of a Living person.

I stand to be corrected. Pls take a look. ThanksIlsecondoordine (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

charles gasparino

Charlie Gasparino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

citing a dna report should not be in the bio describing ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.169.49 (talk)

Image question

Just noted what appears to be black & white, hand-drawn digital caricatures that have been added to the infoboxes of several BLPs. For example, see,

• Tess Asplund -

• Cathleen Synge Morawetz.jpg

  Cathleen Synge Morawetz

• Maura Tombelli.jpg

  Maura Tombelli

• Anis Hidayah

I don't recall seeing these types of images used like this before. I'm not particularly familiar with image policy, so I'm just seeking feedback. Any editors that are versed in image use, and of course BLPs, if they could take a look at these articles and post some insight, it would be appreciated. They're all from the same account on Commons. I posted an ANI there similar to this one, and of course notified them of the ANI there. They don't appear to have an account here (on en.wiki), but I will add a note of this report to the Commons ANI report. Thanks - wolf 07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Celinea33, who added these images to articles here.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jeff G, these images were drawn by independant artist to illustrate articles lacking an illustration. They have been advised about the copyright issues and have published their original work with a creative commons license. @Ohocelot: is a french contributor. I cannot remember if he speaks English. @Alacoolwiki: and @Rosiestep and Anthere:. Nattes à chat (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As long as the images are not based directly on any copyrighted photographs, this can be suitable replacements, but editors offering them should make sure with other editors that the image is a fair and not unflattering representation of the BLP (I don't have any comment to that for these examples though initially they don't seem to be unflattering). That is of course assuming that these were released under a free license themselves. --Masem (t) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jeff G, yes, it is part of the project Les sans images, on a voluntary basis. The drawing technique is very much used in the press and on publications in general. It is a way for illustrators to contribute without writing. --Alacoolwiki (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Having just checked all of the above against pictures of the subjects, they are certainly not BLP violations for being unflattering - they are rather good likenesses compared to say the more common 'caricature' which exaggerates features for comic effect. The Tess Asplund one is particularly useful to illustrate the subject as it shows her in the pose for which she is recognised, and we couldnt use any of the actual photos of her doing that. So I dont personally have any issues with this style of picture where no free picture is available. However Cathleen Morawetz for example has been dead for quite a few years, and by our implementation of NFCC we could use a non-free photo (as no free equiv could be created and one hasnt been sourced by now) and there is probably one somewhere that is suitable. I would say if this project is to go ahead, to first limit it to subjects who are alive with no image, but identify those who are dead who we want an image for and pass it on to someone to do the requisite checking. I say this only because it would be more efficient (and less likely to cause bad feeling) for the artists to spend their creative time on something that may not be immediately replaced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Pinging @Jeff G., much has already been said by my fellows from les sans pagEs. I would just like to add to the last comment from Pinging @Only in death that the pictures are made from the point of view of the French-speaking wikipedia, where no fair use is in place, that's why the artist are covering both living and dead women. I have added the illustrations to the English speaking wikipedia pages (when it was not made automatically by wikidata-linked infobox), when I have seen there was no illustration. Of course if you can find available photos, we would understand if you prefer to use photos instead of drawings. --Celinea33 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks Celinea33, that makes more sense. I was worried they were being done specifically for ENWP and that the hard work would be in vain (due to NFCC), as long as everyone involved in the creation is aware that on ENWP deceased subjects are likely to be replaced (at some future time) then I have no objections from a BLP standpoint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I am satisfied from the responses above that this is the best way to illustrate articles here and on French Wikipedia for those individuals (until free photos can supplant the drawings). What do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Libracles gallicus.JPG

An artist's rendition of Libralces gallicus

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about user-generated pics, from glass atomic-structures that are more understandable in a two-dimensional drawing, even though not perfectly accurate, than they would be if drawn more-accurately in three dimensions, to pictures of train engines. Or even pictures of prehistoric animals which can only be reconstructed out of fossil records, a good understanding of animal anatomy, and a lot of imagination, like those made by our very own Mr. Fink. (I thought the pic to the right was a great one for the moose article, just to give the reader something to visualize.) I would say that in all cases, as long as the drawings check out, are not drawn for humor or exaggeration, and give the reader a decent visualization, then they are fine. If nothing else, good placeholders until something better comes along. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I just seem to recall an editor going on a tear awhile back removing numerous infoboxes pictures (drawn/painted, etc) from the bio's of Popes, from I believe the pre-Renaissance era, because of some policy issue. While this isn't a BLP issue, I wondered if the same image-policy might apply. Again, I'm just seeking feedback. Thank for the replies - wolf 17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that particular case, but I could foresee some issues arising in cases where such a person is long dead and especially if no portraits were ever made of them at the time. As an analogy, unlike Captain Cook, Christopher Columbus never had his picture painted during his lifetime, so no one really knows what he looks like. Portraits of him were done long after his death, but those are strictly the product of the painters' imagination with no basis in fact. I could see the same problems arising from drawings of popes from 1000 years ago, but then again I'm not familiar with the case in question. Like most things on Wikipedia, these often need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, where we have real photos to compare with, I don't see any problem beyond the fact that a real pic of the highest quality would be preferable. Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Rob Monster

Rob Monster is going to be a hard article to get right, as people understandably have strong feelings about Mr Monster. It's not a good article for a BLP I would say, so I started vetting the refs. The first I vetted was a Huffpost article, since it was used 19 times. I noted that:

1. At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, for reporting on political issues, Huffpost is tagged as "File:Achtung-orange.svg No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable..."
2. And it's biased and has poor reporting standards. The first chart Google gives me has Huffpost (and its owner, Buzzfeed) as straddling the line between "skews liberal" and "hyper-partisan liberal"; for quality, the chart has them then in the "Unfair interpretations of the news" quadrant. There are other charts, look at them if you like.
3. And I mean after all the Huffpost article is titled The Bible-Thumping Tech CEO Who’s Proud Of Keeping Neo-Nazis Online. Which is certainly spin, as Bible-quoting -- sorry, thumping -- isn't a key part of Monster's game I think, nor is neo-Nazism in particular something he's proud of (he certainly didn't say it) as opposed hosting any and all right-wing (far-right if you prefer) sites like gun nuts etc. The body of the Huffpost article follows suit. It's an egregious hatchet job.

That's the first ref vetted, and of course I took it out and all fraught material solely ref'd by that (while explaining on the talk page), as BLP requires prompt action (dif). But there's been some opposition there, and my edit was rolled back, and the article's under discretionary sanctions, which I think means 1RR, so I've fouled out. There are other refs to be vetted so let's get to work. Advice, comments, etc.? Herostratus (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Note your points 1 and 2 contradict each other, given that the "first chart Google gives me" is the Ad Fontes Media Media Bias Chart, which is, itself, listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (3rd entry from the top) as "generally unreliable" - in other words, strictly worse than Huffington Post. So you're not really helping your case there. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As for point 3, "Bible-Thumping", let's see. CNN says "Rob Monster -- an outspoken born-again Christian". Washington Post says "Monster repeatedly broke out into prayer, asking for God to dispel “demons,” “evil spirits” and “agents of Satan” in the chatroom. He urged listeners to delete the stolen data, explaining that his team had “cursed” the files during a “courts of heaven” prayer session.". If not for those articles, yes, HuffPost would certainly seem to be an egregious hatchet job. But given those articles, it seems to be pretty much in the mainstream. So to speak.

Finally, the article doesn't say he's proud of neo-Nazism, it says he's proud of keeping them online. That's a key difference to those of us who are old enough to remember a little thing called National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie and a little group called the ACLU (I've met you, Hero, so I humbly propose you may be old enough to remember this, as I am), which assigned two Jewish lawyers to prosecute and win said case for the Neo-Nazis. Were the lawyers proud of the Neo-Nazis? Heck no. Sorry, let me rephrase. Hell no. But they were quite proud of letting them march. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Right now I'm only concerned with the Huffpost article. I don't want to vet more if my edits are going to get rolled back. Next comes Vice and so forth. The ref's have been much improved and probably most of the article can be reffed to proper sources. I'm going one at a time, here.

"Bible-thumping" is a pejorative -- you can't use it, except with "[person with considerable standing] called him a 'bible-thumper'" (you have to have an exact quote) and even that is one person's opinion and is nasty, so I wouldn't recommend it, and let the reader decide for herself if he's a bible thumper.

He's proud of hosting sites banned from normal web hosters generally. They're all real right-wing and includes Nazis, but I don't think he cares about Nazis any more than any of the right-wing sites he hosts so why single that out except to inflame. AFAIK he's never mentioned Nazis at all. We want to be really careful extrapolating what the guy is proud of. There is a libertarian angle to what he's doing (I do have an opinion on whether or and that's just a cover, but so).

The ACLU has nothing to do with anything. This is not a political question it is a BLP question; everyone has a right to a fair trail, and to conservative treatment in the world's greatest encyclopedia. As I've said (and I think as a personal opinion this is not a BLP violation): I hate the guy. Let's leave the politics out of it. Herostratus (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As news outlets go, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being TMZ and 10 being the NY Times, I would rate Huffington Post as a 2, bordering on 3; better than tabloids but worse than highly-partisan news-outlets like MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. They write some pretty interesting stories from time to time, and many of them newsworthy, but they tend to do so --more often than not-- with quite of bit of persuasive writing mixed in. I mean, for a good example, see the headline you posted above. The same information could easily be given in a more neutral tone, but that's not what Huffington Post really strives for. It sells copies but makes it hard to take them too seriously. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't call him a Bible-Thumper in our voice, but we can, with care and selectively, use the HuffPost article as a source. That's not the same thing as slavishly quoting every word of the article. --GRuban (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As you say, most of it is sourced to other sources as well, and in fact, totally noncontroversial material was also tagged as CN in this drive to totally remove Huff post from the article (and it seems these kinds of statements are the only ones solely sourced to the Huff post). Nor do we say (as far as I can see) him " a Bible-Thumper".Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular case, but in a general sense, I think it's helpful to try the shoe on the other foot. Just imagine, if you will, if Rush Limbaugh created his own "news" outlet (the Limbaugh Times), with all the grace and editorial oversight that Rush Limbaugh can provide. Would we consider that a reliable source for contentious claims in a BLP? If other, better sources give the same info, then why bother with low quality sources? Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Most likely not, so again I ask what contentious information if being solely sources to the Huff post?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

While we're here, can someone weigh in on Herostratus' opinion ([35], [36]) that we should remove citations to the Huffington Post article that are supporting non-contentious statements (date of birth, etc.), and either leave them uncited or with {{citation needed}} templates, because the title of the article shouldn't appear in the references? I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that instructs us not to use references that would otherwise be usable for non-contentious statements of fact because the title is objectionable to one editor, or that leaving the content in place and uncited is somehow preferable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ignore me, this is what I get for going through my watchlist one page at a time. I see their whole edit was undone, and so the missing citations I'm mentioning have been restored. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to answer your question anyhow, if you don't mind, I think Hero answered that above: "File:Achtung-orange.svg No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. I think for BLP purposes we should strive for better, but for general or non-contentious info where BLP policy isn't as much of a concern, this is something to try to work out at RSN. It'd be nice to get the community to reach a consensus one way or another, but right now it looks to be in limbo, with a big "caution - handle with care" sign attached.

Typically, the way a newspaper would handle questionable sources is to simply say, "According to the Huffington Post...". That keeps their asses covered, but too much of that and we start to sound like a newspaper ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Apparently thugs are threatening User:GorillaWarfare, a major editor on the article. Considering Mr Monster's clients, that's not surprising. That's all that matters right now. Mr Monster is indeed a ________, so who cares about him and his stupid article. I'm out, maybe the article should be put under special oversight or something. I no longer care what's in the article, it's not important, you guys figure it out or just close the thread. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thugs? That sounds pretty ominous. Not to mention highly concerning. I've always had great respect for GW and very much value her opinions, and if you need a body guard, let me know. I've had to deal with thugs before, and while I don't know much about gorilla warfare, when it comes to Viking warfare, why, that's what Zaereth's do best. But seriously (and this is something I usually only have an opportunity to say to people who get so stressed they seem on the verge of a breakdown), nothing on Wikipedia is worth your health and happiness. Zaereth (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I'm writing here instead of editing the article, which I really want to do.

Matt Sanchez died on September 11, 2018.

I remained in touch with him after my Wikimedia days and had a few conversations over the years. I met him in person one time when I was visiting Southern California. As controversial a character that he was, he was an incredibly likeable individual.

His sister and I knew of each other because we were both in Berkeley and associated with theological schools. She got in touch with me after Matt died and invited me to the celebration of life, held in San Jose the following month, which I was sadly unable to attend.

I don't know what to do in an instance like this. There was no obituary or notice in the news when Matt died. He was mostly off the grid in his last couple years. When I met him in person he was driving for Uber and wasn't exactly living at the top of his game.

Nobody covered his death, not the porn media, not Fox News, not anyone who he was previously associated with. So I have no sources I can add. Just my personal attestation that he is, in fact, dead.

I don't know if we have any precedents for this sort of situation but if someone may guide me, please help

Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This a troubling issue with no easy answers. We've previously had this issue with Justin Berry (see this RSN discussion) who apparently disappeared in Mexico in 2018 and who has been reportedly declared dead, but there's no reliable sources covering it at all, which leaves us in limbo, Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the sister interested in correcting the article? I would argue that if she publishes a web page with details about him and his death, that is clearly from her as his sister, it would be a sufficiently reliable source for the purpose, per WP:IAR if nothing else. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If Sanchez's sister is interesting in correcting the article, I'd suggest that she contact [email protected] with her request. If they can verify her identity, then that should (in my view at least) be sufficient to justify including the fact that Sanchez is dead. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We're supposed to get together for coffee. I'll pose the question to her at that point. I'm not sure if the accuracy of his Wikipedia article is of major concern to her, however, as much as it is to me, a rather inactive Wikipedian. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 02:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

These are some interesting solutions. There are a lot of people who never get an obituary in the news, for whatever reason. Perhaps they're shy, or just very private, or their family never gave it a moment's thought in their time of grief. Thus, more and more Wikipedia articles are bound to end up with dead subjects and no way to verify it ... that is, until they are at least 120. As always, I think we need some extremely reliable sources before we start declaring people dead, because we also have to look at the harm that can happen if we're wrong, or the victims of a hoax ourselves. Personally, I think it would be more upsetting to find out I'm dead on Wikipedia before it actually happens than to simply have an article that hasn't acknowledged my death for lack of good sources. I think a direct request from the family where someone can truly verify their identity is a possible option. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We do need published sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy, there aren't many of those. Making a direct request can't be enough to include information, we need to be able to cite a published source than our readers can then check. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I know, and I'm right with you there. The problem with going from their own website or facebook page is those can also be easily faked, and there's no way of really knowing if they're telling the truth or just out for a little revenge or something. A combination of the two, however... I don't know enough about computers to really make an informed assessment. It doesn't negate the fact that the ideas you both presented are interesting and maybe worth developing more. Whatever the case, I think we have to be extremely careful, because having an article that simply hasn't acknowledged a person's death doesn't seem like such a big deal, but declaring someone dead before their time could be downright traumatic. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me is that, many people may not even realize that obituaries are not automatic. Newspapers don't have a reporter on staff who investigates every death. Unless you're really famous, it generally up to the family to write and submit their own obits on behalf of their dearly departed. I'm not aware of any time limit on that. I'm sure a paper would be happy to publish it as long as several months after the event, if not more, as long as the given dates are correct. If it is important to the family, that would be my suggestion. (Our subjects often forget that the best way to update their articles is through reliable sources, which is always an option for them.) Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Winston Sterzel

I came across this article and already made some minor changes for the purpose of impartial tone(WP:IMPARTIAL). Since he is a quite well-known opinion-based critic about China in Youtube, I have the impression that this article might be too one-sided. That's why I am asking more people to review these pieces. The problem I have spotted is that biography relied heavily on interviews, which might not be reliable. And those media outlets who cited him mostly are from the countries that might have conflict of interest with China (VOA and some Taiwanese news etcs). Also, the section "Career after leaving China" needs more references.

Either way, I am neutral and probably wont take part in editing this article anytime soon. Someone97816 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Khushi Dubey

• Khushi Dubey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1)Profile picture is not there. Full birth date is not written(24th april , 2000).

2)My new regional films have not been added:

    1)Munna Bhai (with Pradeep Pandey Chintu)
     2) Didiya Ke Dewar Dil Le Gail

3)Incomplete information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.239.119 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessing a free picture of Dubey is outside the scope of this noticeboard.

Removing the birth date since not even the day is sourced.

What's the source for the new films? We need reliable sources to verify the information against. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave Scotti

Dave Scotti now known as Davy Garlo. See Screen Actors Guild, YouTube, Webpage, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJinx (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@DinoJinx I don't know what the WP:COMMONNAME is in this case, you may be right. However, getting the article inline with WP:BLP is IMO more urgent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Judge Donna Scott Davenport

This is newly created. While the person has coverage, I am concerned that the article is maybe presenting a very negative spin and is almost only on Rutherford County, Tennessee, juvenile jail controversy. I do not know enough about this myself to fix it. Pikavoom (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has been deleted as an attack page. Neiltonks (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sedona Prince

In August, an anonymous editor added information sourced from what appears to be a fake news website naming the romantic partner of Prince. I am concerned this is a violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE in the case of the supposed romantic partner; thus I recommend that revisions between the addition of the info and the removal be revdel'd. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Soheil Beiraghi

Hi. Many weeks has passed since Draft:Soheil Beiraghi's article has created, but no one reviewed it yet. Could one of the admins do me a favor and take a look at it? Thank you. Kabootaremesi (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart

On the Kristen Stewart article there's been repeated controversy about whether or not to include statements of her mother's heritage. At least two users contest adding this (one believes the cited ancestry is negligible and another believes information about the subject's mother should not be placed on the page.) The source of this is a YouTube copyright violation as seen in the diff here.

Personally I am of the view that controversial information about Jules Stewart should not crowd up Kristen's page. I'm hesitant to remove the information myself due to inexperience and possibly inciting more arguments. Should this page be further protected after the violating video is removed? Cinematic Maniac (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The source is unacceptable and the reinstatement was improper if they are arguing that talking about family is WP:ABOUTSELF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ben Francis

77.96.159.195 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽WHOIS)

An anonymous user has been repeatedly restoring (most recent diff linked) a "controversy" section consisting solely of a mention of drug use by the subject, as cited to dubious sources. I and at least two other users have been reverting this editor on the grounds of WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)