Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive322

Accidentally deleted section from List of Columbia University alumni and attendees

This is regarding the List_of_Columbia_University_alumni_and_attendees#Activists article. I added Mabel Ping-Hua Lee to the section under Activists, but in so doing I somehow made the entire Activists section disappear. I can still see it when I click on "Edit," but it isn't visible to the public anymore. Can you help? SarahPinho (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Sarah Pinho

It was the parameters on the links, the (usually unnecessary) bits after the question mark. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ibrahim Miri

The article included unsourced claims about crimes, including human trafficking. There are other unsourced claims but those are definitely potentially libelous so I have removed them. There are possibly other issues with the article, but I am new and don't really know BLP rules well. I'm going to post on the talk page there as well, that it needs a better level of citations. All sources are in German, so ideally someone with a better level of fluency than I do should check those (I can understand basic written German with effort)

Cheers Xurizuri (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Running a google translate, a lot of the citations do not mention him specifically just his gang, but at least one does.[1] I'm questioning whether this meets WP:DUE or whether there should be a standalone article about him outside of Miri-Clan. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I found some other articles on him specifically: [2] [3] are on his deportation and asylum requests; [4] is a summary of his immigration/deportation miri family; [5] is an English article that covers his deportation and his crimes. I still question whether this is a reasonable article, but WP:CSP does state to be careful about removing articles about non-English subjects. Also bc these sources are all from german/euro outlets I don't have any idea of their reliability, anyone have any familiarity with Merkur, NDR, Kreiszeitung, or DW? Xurizuri (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Adele Yoshioka

This article on the 1960s TV and film actress (e.g., in Magnum Force) and management and activist in recent decades was deleted twice without proper discussion or proper process. It has been replaced with Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment.

How is this possible? Isn't the standard protocol to involve prior notice and discussion?Dogru144 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Maria Bartilomo

This is totally inflammatory. This needs to be removed. Falsehood and conspiracy theories have been debunked. Wikipedia is totally on the left and not neutral.

In 2013, she joined the two Fox channels.[2] During Trump's presidency, she moved considerably rightward and became a cheerleader for the Trump administration, as she gave Trump frequent softball interviews and amplified Trump administration falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.84.233 (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that there are two sources (Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post) being used to support the statement being presented so we need more info on what the problems is. Is the argument that they are bad sources, good sources that are being misused, or that other reliable sources disputing what the sentence says are being ignored. I would note for the record that according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources both of the sources being used are considered generally reliable.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Pierre Estève

The article reads like an ad for Pierre Esteve, not like a wikipedia article, is full of personal experiences etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.232.34.197 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dylan Taylor (executive)

I would appreciate it if one or two BLP-knowledgeable editors would take a look at this article. I'm aware of what this person/business executive is doing in the space industry through the space holding company—Voyager Space Holdings (which redirects to his BLP page); and that company is notable in that industry—but it seems to me that the entire BLP for Taylor has a bit of a flavor of a CV or advert. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like the work of paid editing or other conflict of interest. All the primary sources and associated content should be considered for removal. Same with press releases and public relations pieces. The references need fleshing out so that editors can review them easier. Refs from highly-specialized publishers should be given a careful review. Notablity is unclear in all the mess. --Hipal (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope someone who knows a lot more about BLPs then me will go over there and tag a bunch of the questionable stuff. This makes it much easier for mere editors (not BLP experts) to help eliminate fluff and advert stuff in another month or two if it is not improved. N2e (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Southern

Last week the article on Lauren southern made the claim that Southern had been accused of being a White Nationalist and Alt-Right, the page now claims she is in fact a White Nationalist despite adding no new sources, and in fact deleting her rejection of the label.

Under Wikipedia guidelines "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported."

Gareth1893 made the edits to meet these guidelines today. Yet GorillaWarfare reversed Gareth1893's adjustment and removed the Sothern's rejection of the label White Nationalist despite it having a well trusted source (The Atlantic) and being a mandatory inclusion under the guidelines. Gareth1893 was then given a warning of ban from editing the page by BaconDrum if he attempted again.

Making the claim that Southern is indeed a white nationalist while she rejects this and very few media sources accuse her of the label is defamatory. It also violates due weight to include this yet not include the labels conservative, right wing, far-right or even alt-light, which are named in far more media sources associated with the subject.

Many of the details on this page violate Wikipedia policies either by commission or omission. The neutrality policy is violated in several ways. Mainly, there are details included more prominently than they should or perhaps included when they shouldn't be included at all. Other times vital details are excluded that would provide balance to the article.

Policies on verifiability are violated on several occasions. Claims are made that are not backed by the cited sources, or any sources that can be found on the page. Sources are also used not discussing the subject whatsoever for the sole purpose of incorporating negative material, which constitutes prohibited "original research" under your sites policies.

Page users such as Grayfell are obsessively editing the page to ensure it maintains a negative slant.

The entire page is very problematic and does not meet the guidelines for living persons pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E476:1E00:85D8:928:3EE6:28D (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Lauren Southern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion on the article talk page, including an RfC. It probably doesn't matter at all that she rejects properly referenced descriptions of her. At a glance, the content appears to be well-referenced. Maybe there are problems, but without clear and specific concerns, they are difficult to see. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The current intro sentence should be changed as it fails IMPARTIAL per the discussions here [[6]]. Starting off the very first sentence with subjective, negative descriptions of a BLP subject is something that shouldn't be allowed. Those are also descriptors that should not be in Wiki-Voice. To repeat what Masem has said many times, we need to start by saying what the subject is then how others describe them. Springee (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure that this would apply to "conspiracy theorist" for this particular bio, however, because this is what she's most known for. The rest can certainly be relegated to later in the lead. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if she is best known for promoting conspiracy theories, we shouldn't be using value-laden labels in factual Wikivoice and lede off as soon. She can be described as "an activist known for promoting conspiracy theories" rather than "a conspiracy theorist" to be more impartial and neutral in tone. But obviously not to whitewash that facet away. --Masem (t) 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Springee, in this case, I'm not sure it does fail IMPARTIAL. In fact, I'm sure it doesn't. Mentioning that she promotes conspiracy theories is, in fact, impartial and NPOV. Regardless, the idea of not including a description-- that might also be seen as a characterization-- [but one that's shared amongst numerous reliable sources] has been consistently rejected by the vast majority of the community in the two dozen or so extensive discussions I've seen about this over the past year. That there's agreement to remove such descriptors amongst a tiny minority, who insist on it mostly in the realm of far-right politics (but don't apply it consistently elsewhere), is not persuasive. Your own proposals of "in the body, but not in the lead" for *any* controversy that the subjects are [primarily] known for (but not remotely a characterization, and thus exactly the sort of thing that should be in the lead), have been unanimously rejected by almost everyone. I mean no offense, but this is beating a dead horse at this point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

SA, your comments must be in reply to some other edit as I neither suggested leaving things out not said anything about body vs lead content. I don't believe I have ever said controversial material should only be in the body and certainly didn't here. I don't mind that we disagree but I do mind that you seem to have invented my position. Springee (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You're correct, Springee. I was confusing your edits with that another editor, Bus Stop. I'm not sure why. You have my sincere apologies. Despite the case of mistaken attribution in that regard, I still maintain that the position regularly adopted by Masem (and that you seem to agreeing with here) has still been overwhelmingly rejected by a majority of the community when it's perennially brought up, and has likewise been discussed ad nauseum. Aside from the majority of those engaging in his points in those discussions generally rejecting the crux of the argument, most of the other editors who don't directly engage usually voice a viewpoint at diametrically at odds with it. I don't see anything wrong with attribution in most cases, but in the case of Southern, she's primarily known as a conspiracy theorist, along with voicing sympathy for the alt-right identitarian movement. It's actually almost wholly what makes her notable, and the sources aren't shy about expressing what she's known for, or characterizing her as such. In the case of where I said the majority of editors express a view contrary to Masem's position, this is what I meant: most editors seem to be okay with the long-established practice that, for example, a person known for the discussion and proliferation of conspiracy theories is directly called a "conspiracy theorist", in wiki-voice, if that's a consistent characterization in RS. Rather than using something more 'weasel-y' such as "sources consider". And while the example brought up in the Village Pump discussion is a bit different and subject to more nuance, I disagree with Masem (and I suspect most would) that calling a subject something which the subject actually is (whether a conspiracy theorist, a propaganda film, or whatever) is inherently a value-laden label, just because there's some vague and indefinable negative association with those terms in popular culture. It does, indeed, "water it down" when we cram in a "sources say" or "some describe it/them as" when there's general agreement amongst reliable sources (and rooted in common sense). For example, if 'so-and-so person' is primarily known for--- or even solely notable because of--- their promotion of white nationalism, then they're a white nationalist. And it's okay to say so. We don't need to say "some experts consider so-and-so to promote white nationalist views". The argument actually becomes a bit silly when you break it down to its most basic components, and replace the subject with a fictitious "so-and-so". If reliable sources often call a spade a spade, and even some of our most reliable sources characterize the subject, in all actuality, as a spade... Then so should we. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm phone editing for a bit so sorry if this reply is short. Thanks for your comment. We all make mistakes but not everyone is willing to admit their errors. I don't think Masem and I are a minor few arguing for a more neutral presentation. Certainly the discussion I highlighted showed a good bit of support. I'm not editing the article but I've started my position on it. Springee (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Laura Coombs

Laura_Coombs_(designer)

The sources provided on the biography page do not establish notability of a designer

Reference 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 only offers only a few words about the designer

Reference 5 repeats itself— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks144 (talk • contribs)

That may be so, but that's no reason to remove correct categories. Vexations (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and AFD'd the article due her questionable notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

James_B._Harris#Lolita_rumor

Apparently there is a new rumor that the producer of the film Lolita slept with the 14-year-old actress playing the character of Lolita. Can someone take a look at this for BLP concerns? -- GreenC 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just removed that section. I've never heard of Air Mail, the only source used in that section [7]. I don't know if it's reliable or not, they claim to have some experienced editors from established publications, but they don't actually say who they are, and in general their About Us doesn't inspire a lot of confidence [8]. In any case, I think to make accusations like this against living people, we'd need much stronger sourcing than a single article in a recently established weekly newsletter. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, airmail.news is not a newsletter which connotes self-published, more like a New Yorker style online-only magazine, the writers are known professional journalists, academics and book authors, it has editorial oversight, and is $10/month not cheap. The issue I saw was the accusation came from a friend ie. a rumor, and we have only heard it one time in one source. Given the seriousness of the accusation and a BLP I thought it ran close to the line. Probably best to remove it to be safe, he is likely to die soon anyway (in his 90s) and his obits will determine how much weight this story carries. In the mean time the article will require monitoring. -- GreenC 14:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

The subject (commonly known as "Farmaajo") is the current president of Somalia. Another editor is insisting that the sentence "The deposed Somali president Siad Barre was Farmaajo's uncle" appear in the opening paragraph. On the article's talk page, I've presented my case as to why the sourcing of the uncle/nephew connection is questionable ("Somali Dispatch" appears to be self-published, as are a couple of medium article's, the only sources I've been able to find mentioning that relationship). Numerous other global sources (BBC, AfricaNews, AllAfrica) do not mention any familial connection in articles that mention both leaders. On the talk page discussion that I started, the other editor does not appear willing to compromise on the wording or placement of the statement, which my gut says in an effort by opponents of Farmaajo to discredit him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Even if it is true, if reliable sources rarely mention it then it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. While this is under discussion I am going to remove it from the article as it violates WP:BLP. Rublov (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Robin Dyer

Robin Dyer

This article reads like it was written by the subject, someone very close to them, or someone paid to write a biography. There is very little in the way of cited sources, and seems like mostly opinion and/or spin to deflect from the current problems plaguing the school they run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.239 (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The uncited assertions have been removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Amanda Kloots

There is a current RFC debating the inclusion of Amanda Kloots's son's name that involves BLPNAME concerns. Interested editors can directly comment there.[9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have also removed the name of the son per BLPNAME from Nick Cordero, although that has been reverted because of WP:STATUSQUO, ignoring WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oleksandr Yefremov

A deprecated source is being used to support a quote about a conspiracy theory, potentially libelous, about another living person. Possible #4 WP:BLPREMOVE issue? Amigao (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, definitely given WP:UNDUE also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

nicole fisher

Apologies, there is no violation, but I happen to be the subject of a page and my name changed months ago. It just occurred to me that Nicole Fisher should reflect Nicole F. Roberts. Is it possible to update the title/name to reflect who the page is about? Is there a way to verify my marriage and new name? Thank you for any guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.232.127 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources like newspapers or journals that report on your changed name? The latest articles I can find, today even, still refers to your maiden name. [10][11]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Forbes changed my name: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleroberts Company I work for changed it: https://www.hhrstrategies.com/about.html The NYPost link to President Trump retweeting Nicole Fisher is not of me (Nicole Fisher Roberts). It's of Nicole Alexander Fisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.232.127 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The reason I asked is that, generally, the title of biography articles on Wikipedia is the name by which the person is best known. If you would like to request the change, please write an email to [email protected] so that the appropriate people can verify that it is indeed you that is requesting the change. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Can Yaman

• Can Yaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

[12] This article has been produced by Turkish tabloid press and does not reflect the true and final legal outcome of the reported case and hence produces fake and defamatory information about Can Yaman. The placement of this article has been shared with Can Yaman's legal team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.139 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This article has been generated by tabloid press and doesn't not reflect the final legal outcome of the case and hence presenting defamatory information about Can Yaman. The presence of this article has been reported to his legal team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.139 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

1. All content contained in the “Controversies” section is factually incorrect. The sources relied upon are documentary hearsay (unreliable by their nature) and self serving. The latter arises due to the undisclosed close personal relationship between the author/s and/or interviewer responsible for the source and Selen Soyder.

2. Proceedings concerning Mr Yaman and commenced by Ms Soyder are confidential and subject to a non-publication Order. Publication of their content is a contempt of Court.

3. Publication of the inaccuracies referred to in [1] and continued reference to the proceedings referred to in [2] give rise to several potential causes of action including but not limited to defamation and contempt of court.

4. In all the circumstances and for the reasons stated, it is submitted the “Controversies” section together with its entire contents must be permanently omitted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.62.21 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a legal threat. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. 2 and 3 especially. Also, unless you request oversight and get it approved, the information isn’t "permanently" deleted. It still exists in the page history forever. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the legal threat for the moment, are the sources unsuitable? There are four in that section: T24, NTV, Hürriyet, and Sözcü. I don't read Turkish but these all seem to be reliable sources, based on their Wikipedia articles. If the content in them doesn't support the content in our article then that's an issue, but like I said, I don't read Turkish. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The information does seem like tabloid gossip even if true due to his celebrity status. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Park Yoo-chun

Hi

I would just like some editors to run through the talk pages that I have added 20footfish is me. I have done some edits based on being impartial. I had started as a wikipedia editor back in 2007 and did it for a few years but not for a while. I have run through terms and conditions and added new titles to this article, amended grammar and am looking at a couple more changes and I would love a second opinion, someone who would be able to confirm that I have done the right thing here. I am comparing material on Bios for other celebrities and ensuring that the uncited info like subheadings remain impartial and as fair. Consistency from Wikipedia is always good. Can anyone second on my talk that they are happy with my reasons for changes?20footfish (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gunnar Kaiser

person is object of permanent insult; some weeks ago he was described as "narcist" in the personal introduction; permanent try to put him in the right-winged corner - what is a bad joke for everyone who knows his work; permament try to brief against him by "guilt by association", with detailed descriptions of interview partners but ignoring the fact that he also works with the other edge of the political spectrum; seems that he won some enemies due to his own very independent political perspectives and that these people try to insult him in any way that is possible. Please keep a watch on this article for the sake of neutral reports on critical political minds - that especially we need in open and pluralistic democracies these days. Cheers! Prinzvonzavelstein (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Nico Tortorella

Hello.

User:Red Echidna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has persisted over multiple days in attempting to remove they/them pronouns from the Nico Tortorella article.

Diffs here:

• 1
• 2
• 3

Warnings:

• general indication of issue
• disruptive editing warning
• warning about discretionary sanctions on article's Talk page

I've also tried to explain to them repeatedly that singular they is completely acceptable at Wikipedia (especially in terms of respecting BLP subjects' own pronoun choices) on my Talk page, but they persist in denying this to be the case.

(another editor has since reverted their pronoun changes but I suspect the problem will remain unless Red Echidna has explained to them by someone more "official" than me) —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

User:Joeyconnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has repeatedly changed and vandalized the Nico Tortorella article, utilizing a preference for slang words and incorrect usage of mechanics. The resulting errors are antecedent-pronoun disagreements.

Objects

• 1
• 2
• 3

Warnings

• Warning about discretionary sanctions on article's Talk page
• Disruptive editing warning
• General indication of issue

We have tried to explain to him what the errors are, but JoeyConnick persists in the view of prioritizing slang use. The article clearly states and explains what the topic's favorite pronouns are. However, we have again tried to explain that for an encyclopedic entry slang is not appropriate, likening it to an opinion-piece, that impartiality is the priority, and that his grammar and mechanics have made the article appear informal, elementary, and riddled with errors. If someone else could perhaps explain or review from a neutral standpoint, as JoeyConnick has displayed a lot of hostility. I have also tried to be diplomatic by giving an option of correcting either the antecedent or the pronoun, explaining that the numbers cannot be mismatched, which is how it presently stands. Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would just like to add that, in addition to the hostility displayed, JoeyConnick has repeatedly resorted to the use of aggression and anger in his responses and correspondence with me and the other editors. He continues to make use of ad hominem attacks, demeaning replies, and mocking my statements. I try to be as objective as possible. Please take this into consideration, as it is extremely difficult to work with someone who belittles another and resorts to injurious responses. Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is unambiguous about using a subject’s self-stated pronouns. Is there any guideline or policy reason this article should be an exception? POLITANVM ^talk 07:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. The consideration should be made that such an action is prioritizing subjectivity over objectivity. We should aim to be neutral and strive to remain a reliable source of information. Presenting information with errors in an encyclopedia brings our standards down and reduces the quality of our articles. It should also be stated that the subject's self-stated pronouns are in the entry itself. There are many reliable and validated guidelines on correcting pronoun-antecedent disagreement, such as https://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/pronante.html https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/modulepaa.htm and http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/agreement_pa.htm Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style would take precedence on Wikipedia, rather than other institutions’ guidelines. Nonetheless, it’s easy to find counterexamples that singular they is common, acceptable, and correct, including Merriam-Webster, the Chicago Manual of Style, and APA. If you believe the Wikipedia MOS should be changed to exclude singular they, it’s probably best to take that up on the MOS Talk, though I don’t think it would be fruitful. POLITANVM ^talk 08:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That is so bizarre. Britannica and other encyclopedias have put in place stringent standards that follow grammatical rules and mechanics. In addition, APA and MLA both lay out the proper formats for avoiding pronoun-antecedent disagreement, so I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Merriam-Webster only reflects the current trending use; it does not indicate correct mechanics. Are we to assume that Wikipedia doesn't follow English grammatical rules? For example, if pronoun-antecedent disagreement is acceptable, are things like double negatives, misplaced modifiers, fragmented sentences, or subject-verb disagreement also acceptable? Also, should we not have more editors who are unaffiliated and neutral weighing in on this? Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Both APA and MLA explicitly support singular they for people who use it as their personal pronoun. While their style guides aren’t relevant to Wikipedia, perhaps their pages can help clarify how singular they is correct in this context. Additionally, I am neutral. All I’m referencing is Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. POLITANVM ^talk 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I just meant more neutral editors reviewing this instead of just one or two, those who are possibly third-party entities. Saying that it's following the Wikipedia Manual of Style is like referencing a tertiary source as a primary source. There's a systemic bias in that. Additionally, I have the APA manual, and in order to avoid pronoun-antecedent disagreement for a singular subject 'it' or 'he or she' are the appropriate terms. In addition to that, none of the scientific review boards who use APA style accept pronoun-antecedent disagreement, so another conflict. I appreciate your assistance and your willingness to help. Thank you again. RedEchidna (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is a manual of style guideline on Wikipedia and all editors are expected to follow it. Intentionally and repeatedly misgendering article subjects is a BLP violation as well. Woodroar (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Politanvm and Woodroar's comments above. I'd also like to flag another issue with the article which is of significant concern from a BLP perspective. Mixed in amongst the reverting over pronouns have been repeated edits to replace the term polyamorous with polygamous in the description of the subject's relationship. The source states they are in a polyamorous relationship, not a polygamous one.[13][14][15][16]--Trystan (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Biography on Aaron Coleman is overly hostile against him, giving massive amount of time on criminal allegations rather than his accomplishments or statements on them

While the subject of this page, Aaron Coleman, is quite a controversial figure who has done questionable actions, this page has been written in a way that is clearly hostile to him. I do think the sources are legitimate, but mostly negative information taken out of the sources without the other parts. I believe that the rules of Wikipedia biographies are being violated in multiple parts:

Balance

The page mostly talks about recent scandals of Coleman, while neglecting anything positive about him. Three out of the five sections of his article talk about scandals, and have far more information attacking Aaron Coleman for them than the article discusses his life, political campaigns or his statements on them.

Accusation of Crime

Not only does the article take a negative tone regarding Coleman, but frequently neglects Coleman's denials, his reasoning for them and the lack of convictions in many cases. For example, "On December 8, 2020, Kathleen Lynch, a Wyandotte County, Kansas judge, issued an anti-stalking order against Coleman after Brandie Armstrong, the campaign manager for Frownfelter, accused Coleman of sending her harassing messages, showing up at her home uninvited twice, and attempted to get her evicted." there is no statement from Coleman, no information that states that it was temporary and clearly slanted against Coleman.

Tone

The article is clearly written in a passionate tone against Coleman, while using loaded language and giving undue weight to recent events. For example, "supporting abortion up to the moment of birth" is clearly loaded and could easily be made in a neutral tone of "supporting abortion". When attempts were made to fix loaded language like these, the user most active on this article replied, "Wikipedia is not whitewashed.".

Overall, the article is improperly written in an inappropriate way toward Coleman. Almost none of the sources cited have a negative tone as dark as this article and this place seems to be more of a dark list of allegations than a biography about a person.

Orange1861 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Orange1861

So... uhh what accomplishments has he had by the age of 20 besides running for state legislature and winning? How do the majority of reliable sources cover him? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (politician)

• Nathan Larson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nathan Larson, failed political candidate and former Wikipedia editor, has been [accused of doing a bad thing][17][redaction by Herostratus (talk) per BLP, we usually should only publish convictions. Sorry, just business, no criticism intended] Although the article title calls him a politician, he has never held office or won an election. The WP:BLPCRIME section of our policy on biographies of living people suggests that care should be taken if including such things in biographies of non-public figures. Is Nathan Larson a public figure? Mo Billings (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Judging by the refs, it looks like his political attempts have made him notable. Much of the article seems undue though. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

To some extent, perennial candidates are still public figures if their candidacies are for high enough office. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

He's a public figure in Wikipedia terms. He's not a deer in the headlights type case -- he's deliberately put himself in the public eye, indeed striven to, and gotten a certain amount of coverage just for that. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual says that makes him a public figure, particularly if (as here) it's not one single event we're talking about:

A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention... Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile... Need not be a 'household name', simply self-promotional.

(According to our article Public figure, he's probably a "limited purpose public figure" for legal purposes. However, we go with our Wikipedia definitions of terms, usually.) Herostratus (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I do not believe that our BLP policy is intended to prevent us from openly discussing issues, especially if what we are discussing is including potentially damaging facts in a BLP. Nathan Larson has been [accused -- accused -- of doing a bad thing]. That is simply a fact. The question is whether or not that fact belongs in his article. Your redaction here is an over-reaction. Mo Billings (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree that is is possibly a mediocre rule, but it is the rule, a policy rule -- and I'm particularly sensitive to it. For BLP purposes we treat article pages and all non-article pages exactly the same. Not sure if I agree we should, but we do. So....

WP:BLP says -- indeed, leads with -- "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" [Emphasis in original, including emphasis of "any"]. WP:BLPTALK has more; my reading of it is that "accused of doing a bad thing" covers the question well enough without getting down into the particulars, which dissemination of that accusation would be harmful to the person's reputation. It'd be OK to point to the source without saying anything fraught here, I gather. In the case of your post, you would have to go dig up the ref and put it right there, or at least point to it, exactly the same as for an article. Sorry, but that is policy.

And the person is not really very well-known. He does (easily) pass WP:GNG, and as having put himself in the public sphere he's probably no longer a private person. Still, he's not a United States Senator or anything. He's a guy who mostly nobody has heard of. That matters, I think. This article will probably rise to the top of his google results and thus present his main public face to the world... forever. A conviction, that'd be different -- maybe, depending on if it's central to his notability. If we change the lede to "is an American criminal..." it might be; otherwise, not to sure... I think his notability is around his political view and so forth.

The Wikipedia has an enormous amount of power, and we want to be conservative about deploying it. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I suspect you and me probably feel the same about whether or not this gets included in the article, but we can't have that discussion if you're going to keep removing what we are discussing. Namely, the fact (not allegation) that Nathan Larson [redacted, accusation can be found at link]], as reported in many places, such as the NBC news link I supplied earlier. Please undo your redactions. I don't want this to end up at ANI, but that's our next stop. Mo Billings (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, there isn't really any such thing as "we can't put such-and-such in an article, but we can do what we want here". WP:BLP makes this super clear. "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" and "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." and "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." and so on and so forth.

WP:BLPTALK does say that you can say "This article [link] makes a pretty serious allegation about Dr Robert. Should we put it in the article?" and that's how you get around it. So do that, don't write things like what you wrote above because that puts it in our voice. And our stuff stays around a lot longer and is a lot more prominent than most sources. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he'll be found innocent or maybe not. Maybe the charges will be dropped or maybe he'll plea bargain to a lesser offense. A lot of people get arrested who aren't actually guilty. But then it'd be too late wouldn't it.

But whatever, if you feel strongly about it. I'm not going to redact what you wrote above, OK? I'm not going undo my earlier redactions, no, but if you want to, fine. If the, you know, 'BLP noticeboard doesn't care about this part of the policy, well, that's that I guess. =/ Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have redacted, per WP:BLPTALK; the links are there for anyone who wants to know the matter at hand. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK starts with "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. It continues "not related to making content choices". This is a discussion about making those content choices, and in the place to have that discussion with regard to our BLP policy. BLPTALK does not say what you want it to say. Mo Billings (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

He's a public figure, but wasn't well known before. He's a lot more well known now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just adding this for the record. My original question was: Nathan Larson, failed political candidate and former Wikipedia editor, has been arrested for abducting a 12 year-old girl. Although the article title calls him a politician, he has never held office or won an election. The WP:BLPCRIME section of our policy on biographies of living people suggests that care should be taken if including such things in biographies of non-public figures. Is Nathan Larson a public figure? As agreed in this ANI discussion, the redactions by Herostratus and NatGertler were not based on policy. It is clear that editors believe Nathan Larson is a public figure, which addresses my initial concerns. Mo Billings (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. Mo Billings, I think the confusion stems from the fact that, in law, you can be extremely famous, known to everyone, and your face a familiar sight worldwide, and not be a public figure. But, you can be entirely unknown and be a public figure. This is counterintuitive.

If you regularly write letters to the editor and they're published, even if they're written in crayon and nobody much reads them and you live in box under the Santa Monica Freeway, you're a public figure or might be. Conversely, George Floyd is not a public figure (if he was alive) since he didn't want to enter the pubic arena and didn't try to, and didn't even commit any action (such as commit a crime or run around naked shrieking about UFOs) that would, as an effect of his own overt actions, thrust him into the public arena. (Both of these examples are debatable, but that's the general thrust of the law according to our article I think.) That's the law dictionary definition, the regular dictionary definition would reverse these: Merriam-Webster defines "public figure" as "a well-known person", period. Naturally, people in normal conversation use the regular dictionary definition.

Of course the Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the law-dictionary definition -- we are not a court or law school class -- but we do anyway, because reasons. This engenders confusion, and also resistance (when it comes to people like me), because using the law-dictionary definition is narrow-minded, wrong, dangerous, and too easily weaponizable, and you end up with articles on the Star Wars Kid an so on. There's your problem I think. Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but was there confusion over WP:BLPTALK since it made the redactions seem heavy handed? Lex specialis. The reasons behind the public figure analysis are derived from traditional legal principles of defamation, and there is no dispute that the man was arrested and charged with kidnapping. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Rajendra Singh Rathore

Please correct the name of the page. The page name is in correct. The correct name is Rajendra Rathore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGAchuru (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Murray (author)

Recently a large edit[[18]] was made to Douglas Murray (author). As this is a BLP several aspects of this edit concern me. First, is that I think two of the sources are very questionable, one appears to be academic but self published. The final is what appears to be a questionable use of a reliable news source. There are three blocks of edits in this one overall edit. The first block says the subject has been profiled as part of the Bridge Project out of Georgetown U. [[19]]. This appears to be self published and in the Murray article no secondary, RS is saying this is happening. The other source in the section is an Op-Ed published by Middle East Eye [[20]]. This appears to be a very small source so I'm not sure it could be used to establish WEIGHT for the claim. It also is an Op-Ed being used to say negative things about a BLP.

The next edit block cites The Guardian but goes for a guilt by association angle. Effectively "Someone bad likes the BLP subject". My view is absent some sort of evidence the BLP is courting this "like" it should not be included. It is a guilt by association. A related claim sourced to IntelliNews is also included. Again, this looks like a question of DUE given the source as well as a question why this would be part of the Murray article vs some other article assuming IntelliNews is both reliable and can establish weight.

The final block is sourced to Sludge [[21]]. Yet again I can't find good evidence this is a reliable source for negative claims about a BLP subject. The article in question is mostly not about Murray and relies extensively on appeals to emotion rather than simply reporting facts. It seems like a mix of facts with lots of commentary.

I would like to get a few more eyes on this material. There may be some content worth saving but given this is a BLP it seems we need to err on the side of caution both in terms of source quality and DUE. Springee (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page, the Bridge Project at Georgetown University is not meaningfully "self-published", and especially not a WP:SPS as the term is used on Wikipedia. The project's director is John Esposito, who appears to be a credible expert in the project's field, and its directory includes four fellowships and several additional associates. First the source was "primary", then it was "self-published". This seems like shifting goal posts to denigrate a source based on what it says, rather than whether or not it's reliable on its own merits.

The Sludge article includes many specific financial figures with direct citations. Dismissing this as using "appeals to emotion" is subjective and unsupported, especially when evaluated in context.

Murray's article is currently incomplete in its selective coverage of his views and career. Factual information cannot be simply dismissed as "negative claims". Using supposedly unflattering sources is not a BLP violation, because Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The expertise of the project's director is not a factor on whether or not a source is self published. From the About us section the group does their own research and publishes their own findings. This is the definition of a self-published source. We would need independent sources covering their content to include it on BLP's.

The Sludge appears to be a 2 man show, as such has questionable editorial oversight. This source is at best a questionable source if not completely unreliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this is factually incorrect. The project's director is presumed to have editorial oversight over what the project publishes, and this is also published through Georgetown University itself. Therefore, there is no indication that individuals are self-publishing their work through this project.

WP:SPS is not the same as WP:PRIMARY, which is not the same issue as WP:IS, which is not the same as WP:RS. If you wish to argue that this is somehow unreliable, you would have to make that case based on its own merits, but the standard you are applying here would disqualify all think-tanks, research groups, or academic projects. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What's factually incorrect about it? Whether or not something is self-published has to deal with if there are independent fact checkers verifying information. A research group publishing it's own findings is not independent of itself. You need an independent source to provide the independent fact checkers. --Kyohyi (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"Self-published" means individuals are publishing themselves. Conflating this with "independent fact checkers verifying information" is erroneous, because the claim is not that it's unreliable, it's that it's self-published. These are two entirely separate issues. In this case the project and the university are acting as the publisher. The project's director has editorial oversight. Therefore, nothing about this is self-published. You can argue that it lacks fact-checking, but you have not done this, and you would need some specific, policy-based reason to make this claim. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Self published is defined in policy. And it's defined as a lack of independent review, from WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". The material is research being published on a web page controlled by the research group. Any research group has an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own research, so any internal review would not be sufficient. Self-published isn't just individuals publishing themselves, but also includes organizations publishing their own works. --Kyohyi (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Based in part on the feedback here I've removed the material in question. If nothing else this discussion establishes that there is not consensus for including the material after discussions with 4 editors. Springee (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Some eyes on this article would be helpful. The disputes related to these sources have not been resolved yet the they have been restored to the article. Springee (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my frankness, but from my perspective as a GA/FA reviewer, that BLP comes across as a political hit piece attempting to WP:RGW, and further denigrate one political party over the other. From what I've gathered, Murray has authored a Times and Sunday Times book of the year, titled "The Madness of Crowds"? I haven't read it, I don't know Murray or much about him, and what little I do know comes from glossing over his WP article. I noticed The Guardian labeled his book "a rightwing diatribe" in their clickbait headline, which automatically raised a red flag for me. After a bit more research, I came to the conclusion that I opened with above, and that is not how we want our readers to feel when they read one of our BLPs. I would have felt and done the same if the book had been labeled "a leftwing diatribe" because it speaks to the reviewer's political position rather than the contents of the book, much less the author. With regards to self-published sources, if the author is credible, use in-text attribution in compliance with PAGs. An encyclopedia should not appear to be a collection of opposing contentious opinions about a BLP, all of which resulted from opposition research, especially that which is non-compliant with NPOV. Such labels are clearly noncompliant with NPOV which is mandatory for all BLPs in our encyclopedia. The Guardian and other online publications can publish whatever they like or need to publish because they are selling to their demographics, and are highly dependent on clickbait. Fortunately, WP is not but we are dependent on maintaining our reputation as a neutral encyclopedia.

The lead of this BLP is biased with its contentious label overkill, which makes it noncompliant with MOS:LABEL, MOS:BLPLEAD, and WP:BLP. It doesn't matter how many contentious opinions an editor gathers and cites to RS - they're still only contentious opinions, not statements of fact. The body text is where such material belongs and where most of the controversial views are customarily mentioned - but realistically, the argument about one's ideology belongs in the respective articles about ideologies, not in the BLP itself - see User talk:Atsme#BLP. We are not here to pass judgment on our BLPs because of their ideology or make it appear that we favor one ideology over the other. We allow our readers to make those decisions on their own by simply stating verifiable facts and also include a proper balance of controversial opinions, while avoiding contentious labels or at least limiting our use of them.

MOS:LABEL clearly states (my bold underline) Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. To reiterate, use in-text attribution, not a generalization of every lable one can cherrypick from RS, the selection of which must comply with NPOV, and of course, we should include the BLP's rebuttal/acceptance of such claim(s), if one exists. In a nutshell, our job as editors is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that includes all 14 species of wheat, not just our favorites. Atsme 💬 📧 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• A few eyes on this page could be helpful. As a new editor I think Notebuck's good faith efforts are being tripped up by failing to understand sourcing and consensus policies. I think a bit of help in figuring out how to get content in without sourcing/BLP issues would be helpful. Springee (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Elliot Page

Elliot Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

68.170.218.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Repeatedly vandalizing the article, misgendering the subject, adding nonsense and insulting things. Multiple warnings on talk page from myself and Cluebot. --Equivamp - talk 02:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nithyananda again

After a year or so of comparative calm, the BLP Nithyananda has been re-invaded both by haters and by devotees. This week, it's mostly followers clearly working in concert to whitewash, last week or so it was mostly detractors trying to dwell on allegations. This article needs more experienced, neutral editorial eyes and brains on it. The WP:SPA tides are not relenting.

PS: At this time, I'm just asking for additional watchlisting and input from WP:HERE editors, not seeking to open a BLPN thread about this (and someone else on the article's talk page has suggested opening such a thread at another noticeboard, I think WP:RSN, but I'm skeptical that would help much because the problem editors are basically all newly arrived "throw-away" accounts).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had this on my watchlist for a while. I've upped the protection to ECP due to both the BLP issues and the disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

See also followup discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Nithyananda again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Zara Kay

Zara Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• A recent arrest has caused a flurry of activity and BLP concerns. More eyes and hands are appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nupur Mehta

• Nupur Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mehtanupur21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone help Nupur Mehta? She is a Bollywood star and keeps inserting unsourced material in her article. I suspect most of it is true but don't really have time to track down all the necessary sources. My attempts to communicate have not been productive. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Guba

This entire website page is made up by followers of Danny Guba and all of the links are either expired or pages/PDFs created by his students. Needs better sources for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipinomartialarts (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Only a single sourced statement. Looks like an AfD candidate to me. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Carol Moore

Draft:Carol Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted years ago as IAR for BLP issues, and at AfD over a decade ago. New draft seems like a negative coatrack as well, but not really to the level of G10. Can an admin please have a look and determine if it should be deleted immediately? VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a different person. But as it stands, it needs to be deleted as a hopeless NPOV attack page. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tanya Roberts

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.

---

This person is not dead, but is in the hospital being treated for an illness. This has been on the news on Monday early Monday morning. Many news stations and news internet sites have reported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:E800:FB00:19CF:A992:635A:3443 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If you check the news, she was incorrectly reported dead, then the report was rescinded, and now it's been reported that she has actually died.[22] Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It was the weirdest thing I have seen in at least a couple days even with 2020 behind us now. But yeah NY Times confirms it as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tanya Roberts Blum (October 15, 1955 – January 4, 2021), known professionally as Tanya Roberts, was an American actress, producer, and model. She was best known for. This needs to be changed also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:E800:FB00:19CF:A992:635A:3443 (talk)

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.

Is including this person in this article potentially libel?

Back here again with this woman, who until a few minutes ago was one of three images used at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. I think the fact she was even included in the article may represent libel, so I've removed the section again, but there's a lot of pushback from other editors there, so I need other opinions. —valereee (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There clearly was no libel. Libel is a false accusation published in a public place. Slander is similar, only there is no paper trail. The person in question is based on numerous news reports about an incident that caused tens of millions of dollars in damage to the incoming Biden transition and the nation as a whole.

The person in question has stated that these reports are substantially correct, so there is no libel. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please try to indent correctly at talk pages. By including something she did among "attempts to overturn the 2020 US presidential election", Wikipedia is saying that what she did was try to overturn the election. Without some extremely reliable source saying that's what her delayed issuance of a letter was in aid of, that is synth and arguably libel. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Overturning an election" is a broad description of the series of events between Nov 4th and today to keep Trump in office, it is not a description of a crime, though there may be some criminal elements under the broad umbrella elsewhere in the article. Therefore, Emily W. Murphy is not being associated with a crime just because she is discussed and her image is used in the article. Whether there is a need for the image in this particular article, i.e. of what benefit is it to the reader to view this woman in the context of "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election". ValarianB (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly does her face represent the context of attempts to overturn the presidential election ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed there should be more pictures of other people. But I'm not sure that this is the place to have that discussion. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to accuse her of an actual crime for an assertion to be libel. By including it in the list of "attempts" we are clearly implying that delaying the letter was part of an overall attempt to overturn the election and was one of the attempts. @Arglebargle79 even called it the Trump administration's "opening salvo", said she had been asked by Trump to delay the letter -- an allegation she's denied and the only evidence for which is an after-the-fact tweet by Trump -- and called her a criminal at the talk page. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Which I didn't. However, her actions did do damage. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and until some RS says that, it is likely libellous. It belongs neither in the article nor on the talk page. You need to stop. —valereee (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe including her role in delaying the transition is WP:UNDUE in this article about attempts to overturn the election. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This, though certainly a see also link to an article about the delayed transition can be included in this article, since it is a related concept. --Masem (t) 20:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a see also would be fine. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Rivera Case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Stansberry#Rivera_case

I don't really know how to submit this feedback, but the entry above is written in an editorial tone with some unclear language. It heavily implies the involvement of Stansberry in the case without much discussion of any other surrounding details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeefTiger (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the RFC is about Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez on the article talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pretzel butterfly: I would also advise you to move the RFC on the talk page as a subheader to the main discussion so not to separate them when it comes to archiving. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Wang (designer)

There have been recent allegations of sexual assault against Alexander Wang (designer). I removed a BLP-violating image and nominated it for deletion at Commons. I'm less certain about the article text. References include reliable sources (The New York Times, The Guardian), sources that are reliable for news of the fashion world (WWD, Vogue), and sources which likely need closer examination (several, including Diet Prada and The Daily Beast). BLP's not one of my stronger areas, and I'd appreciate more eyes (and hands) on the article. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Eisenberg

I reverted back to an old version, but someone had changed Mr. Eisenberg's profile and filled it full of QAnon-esque conspiracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.92.130 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it (and for getting all of it). I have blocked the user and hidden the edits, just to be on the safe side. The article seems quiet otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mary Miller (politician)

I would like to ask a few of you to look at this article. One (new) editor seems to have been on a crusade and while I reverted some of their edits, I would rather leave it to uninvolved editors to make sure we get it right. I think the content is very excessive, but I would rather not prune it myself. Thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at it. Before today, this was a nothing article, yet another example of using the term "biography" to push content that's more about a political office than it is about a person. Here's the thing, though: there's a bunch of BLP-violating hit pieces just like this all over the encyclopedia and nothing's been done. Are we giving attention to this because she's a member of Congress as opposed to a "lesser" office, and/or because it's wrapped around the latest controversy du jour? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

By "we", do you mean us, or them? If you mean Wikipedia, I doubt it's anything so nefarious and conspiracy-ish. My guess is, someone decided to make this a huge issue in a rather small article, which is all kinds of NPOV problems to the extent of becoming a BLP violation, and that simply caught Drmies eye.

It caught my eye too, but I'm not at a place where I can do much about it right now. My first thought was Godwin's law rears its ugly head yet again. She should have known better, but I had to laugh, because it's like the equivalent of someone saying, "Napoleon was right about one thing, strawberry, chocolate, and vanilla ice-cream are great together." This is one of those instances where the people protesting this make themselves look like idiots. ("Boo. He likes the same ice cream as Napoleon! He's the devil! Evil!" And I know, Napoleon has nothing to do with Neapolitan ice-cream.) It makes me laugh, but to get up on the soapbox with you for a moment, it does make me sad for the state of politics in the US of recent. If you would have told me just 10 years ago that politics would start to resemble those fledgling democracies like those during the so-called "Arab Spring", I would have thought you nuts.

But, I digress. We can only deal with this here, in this forum, one article at a time. In the scope of the article, this is entirely undue, and one of those WP:RECENT-isms that constantly plague politicians during an election cycle. It should probably be removed entirely, or at the very least whittled down to proper weight for the scope of the article. But my feeling is that we need to wait and see what sort of impact it has on their life and career before we can make any determination of weight. We should therefore err on the side of caution and to wait to see if it develops into something life-altering, or fizzles out. Given the size of the article, I don't foresee this developing into something big enough to warrant a single sentence, let alone an entire section and half the lede. But time is short and I gotta go, so that's my $0.02. Zaereth (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a shot and pruned the quotes only cited to twitter per WP:BLPSPS and since we have no context of their importance under WP:DUE without independent reporting. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be removed from the lead.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

After giving it some thought, I don't think the quotes of condemnation from everyone are necessary per WP:UNDUE. The only quote should be hers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if this does stay in, there are serious BLP concerns. Editors keep saying that Miller "praised" and "quoted" Hitler, but the sources do not say that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Shahid Malik

An editing dispute on Shahid Malik involving potential sockpuppetry and personal attacks about racial bias was brought to ANI. There's a neutrality dispute about this British former Labour MP, so more editors to discuss whether content is indeed trivial/irrelevant or not and whether the content is presented fairly using the best sources would be appreciated. Fences&Windows 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Stamatis

See Talk:Alexis Stamatis § Untitled. This was originally discussed at WP:COIN#Alexis Stamatis, but it's seems to be a BLP issue more than a COI one. I'm not sure about how to handle this, so it would be good if more experienced editors could deal with this. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Cindy_Stumpo

Article reads like an advertisement for her, and her business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.54.193 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) WP:AFD is thataway → Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mindy Seu

Mindy Seu

This article reads like it was written for self-promotion. It lacks sufficient citation for most of its material, references predominantly coming from university profile pages that are given too all students and faculty. The rest of the cited sources do not establish notoriety. There is no evidence of established design practice nor significant new ideas presented in the field of graphic design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks144 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) WP:AFD is thataway → Narky Blert (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Derrick Evans (politician)

West Virginia State Delegate Derrick Evans got into the newspapers recently by participating in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. That bit has been well-attested in cited sources and video recorded by Evans himself in which he shouts his own name while storming the Capitol Building. Which is funny, but not the point of this notice.

A number of editors persist in adding inflammatory opinion content re: this guy's intelligence and morality. While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, this wiki is no place for it. See, for example, this IP editor, this IP editor, this IP editor, and this IP editor.

User:Neophraz has been one of the more persistent in adding references to Evan's "sedition" (using a source in which a law professor speculates broadly about the rioters in general, and does not actually mention Delegate Evans by name). See, for example, this, this, this, this, and this. User:Neophraz has not responded to a note on the article Talk Page.

I'm not the only editor on this page, and frankly don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole. If there's a source out there in which some person calls Delegate Evans a seditionist, by all means include it (and note that Dr. So-and-so accused Delegate Evans of etc. etc.) -- but I think it's clear this article needs some sort of protection and possibly other intervention. RexSueciae (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I semiprotected the page for three days. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol - claim that Trump incited the riots

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.

---

2021 storming of the United States Capitol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article states: "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." This violates WP:BLPCRIME (as well as NPOV, etc.) by reporting accusations of a crime as fact. These accusations need to be clearly attributed to sources and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's editorial voice.

I proposed a fix for this violation in Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (3). User Gwennie-nyan declined the edit request, citing two reasons:

• Claiming that Trump incited the riots is not the same as accusing him of a crime.
• Attributing the accusations to sources would violate NPOV.

I strongly disagree with both points; escalating here for further assistance. AnonQuixote (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Declining Editor Response — This is a heavy contentious article still in development and context must be understood.

• I stand by my statement that using the term wikt:incite to mean provoke/goad/rile does not automatically carry an insinuation of the legal charge of Incitement
• I believe that the above user has improperly understood my response, especially in regards to their second point. The wording they proposed was contentious. We have overwhelming sources saying the same thing, as such, we don't need to preface things, as they suggest, with "Several media outlets accused", when something happens. That feels very WP:WEASEL. Also, given the contentious subject matter, this wording proposed can be easily read in an NPOV fashion to support Donald Trump's fake news rhetoric. I believe that this user's proposed edit would appear to support this rhetoric with the insinuation (real or imagined) that Trump didn't absolutely do something, but it's just "the media" accusing him of doing it.

However, I am also open to other perspectives. As such,  Second opinion requested. Regards, ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 09:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think your concern about attributing the accusation to "media outlets" is valid, as it could be taken to imply that only the media were making that allegation, when in fact several public figures did so as well. I think we could find a better wording that doesn't risk such an implication. Maybe "Multiple observers" or "Many sources"? AnonQuixote (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Front-page, above the fold headlines from some Thursday papers

• Boston Globe: TRUMP-INCITED MOB ATTACKS THE CAPITOL
• Chicago Tribune: ‘Insurrection’ at Capitol: 1 DEAD AMID CHAOS INCITED BY TRUMP
• Des Moines Register: CAPITOL CHAOS (first story hede: "After weeks of egging them on, Trump then asks rioters to leave")
• Los Angeles Times: TRUMP-INCITED MOB STORMS U.S. CAPITOL
• New York Times: TRUMP INCITES MOB
• Politico: DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE: Trump rioters storm the Capitol, halting election certification
• San Francisco Chronicle: INSURRECTION: As Democrats win the Senate, a violent mob incited by Trump storms the Capitol and delays certification of Biden’s victory
• Washington Post: Trump mob storms Capitol: President incites crowd to acts of insurrection, violence

So please, spare us all the bogus Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 09:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

From WP:BLPCRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." AnonQuixote (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Spare me. That crime in your Wikilwayering bit of obfuscation is what? Has he been charged?

Some lead paragraphs from Reliable Sources, with emphasis added. I can do this all day:

McClatchy News:

"Hundreds of rioters encouraged by President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, crashing through police lines to lay siege to the building and force a halt to the constitutional process of certifying the Electoral College count after the Nov. 3 presidential election."

LA Times:

"Violent supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, shattering windows, ransacking offices and pounding on the barricaded doors of the House chamber while shaken lawmakers huddled inside.

"The extraordinary breach of democratic order — blamed by both parties on the president’s incitement — forced members to flee the House and Senate floors under armed guard, delaying Congress’ constitutionally mandated count of electoral college votes."

New York Times:

"Congress moved late Wednesday toward confirming President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory after a mob of loyalists urged on by President Trump stormed and occupied the Capitol, disrupting the final electoral count in a shocking display of violence that shook the core of American democracy.

"There was no parallel in modern American history, with insurgents acting in the president’s name vandalizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, smashing windows, looting art and briefly taking control of the Senate chamber, where they took turns posing for photographs with fists up on the dais where Vice President Mike Pence had just been presiding."

WASHINGTON SCENE by Peter Baker: "So this is how it ends. The presidency of Donald John Trump, rooted from the beginning in anger, division and conspiracy-mongering, comes to a close with a violent mob storming the Capitol at the instigation of a defeated leader trying to hang onto power as if America were just another authoritarian nation."

Washington Post:

"As President Trump told a sprawling crowd outside the White House that they should never accept defeat, hundreds of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup that they hoped would overturn the election he lost. In the chaos, law enforcement officials said, one woman was shot and killed by police.

"The violent scene — much of it incited by the president’s incendiary language — was like no other in modern American history, bringing to a sudden halt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory."

--Calton | Talk 09:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Above comments on sourcing aside, the protections of WP:BLPCRIME only applies to people who are not public figures. This is widely reported in reliable sources, and the President of the United States is the textbook definition of a public figure, so BLPCRIME does not apply, and thus there are no BLP issues here. For your NPOV point, you can take it up on the talk or WP:NPOVN, but since it's widely reported in RS inclusion seems WP:DUE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2021 (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.

Mia Malkova

There is repeated insertion of unsourced potentially defamatory material in the Mia Malkova article about Mawra Hocane. I am at my third revert so I would like additional eyes on this. I've also notified AIV but there was another account that inserted the information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears the editor adding the content has been blocked as a sock, but I've added the article to my watchlist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

John C. Eastman - subject complaining of factual errors and bias by his opponents

I have finally persuaded the subject of this article, User:Jeastman, to use the talk page instead of edit it directly as he has done for years. He was given a COI notice in November 2015. He's made some requests at Talk:John C. Eastman#Proposed edits to correct errors, remove blatant bias some of which are reasonable (and straight facts), others are not, eg he wants secondary sources replaced with primary sources because he doesn't like that the secondary sources say about him. He starts his request with "This page, of which I am the subject, has quite obviously been largely taken over by political opponents of mine". As I'm the one who reverted his last edits I don't want to handle this right now. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelica_di_Silvestri

This page contains slanderous information about me. it was not created by me and I request that it is deleted or that I have access so that the correct information about me can be inserted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.125.234 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to post news reports relevant to you on the article talk page and we will get to it immediately. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 18:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and also Wikipedia:No legal threats. To email volunteers who will consider your complaints, see Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and then Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. Fences&Windows 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Note the contrast in coverage between Gary di Silvestri and Angelica di Silvestri. Fences&Windows 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed both linked articles be deleted. Notable content is already included at Dominica at the 2014 Winter Olympics. I'm going to edit that a bit to help neutrality. Jdphenix (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

They are notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. I believe one or both of them were already PROD-ded previously as well, which would make them ineligible, though I could be misremembering. Smartyllama (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say that. The IP editor should follow the directions here. Mo Billings (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Think it would be reasonable for me to take a crack at fixing the article's issues then? If not, I'll defer to a more experienced editor. Jdphenix (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and go for it. The worst that can happen is that someone else makes additional changes or reverts you. Smartyllama (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Emanuel Cleaver II

The article contains a contentious statement claiming Cleaver “misconstrued the meaning of the word Amen”. This is a presumption that goes contrary to his statement. It is hard to believe that a Methodist minister is unclear on the meaning of the word “Amen”.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article248266055.html?fbclid=IwAR2-xZnAdg_J_QUJ80ybf1WiyK-isWutdn2YqKqiDHqYvb6TevWBaS7vYRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CW1150n (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

links: Emanuel Cleaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is being stated as fact but it's sourced to an opinion piece. At the very least this needs to be attributed as the author's opinion, not fact. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two pertinent facts here, which have been widely reported: he did say "Amen and Awoman", and he doesn't know what he's taking about. Maybe a better reference is needed - there are plenty of them - but the current one does meet RS. I suppose in the interests of fairness and neutrality we could include mention of his claim that it was a pun, and perhaps use the above link as a reference?Arcturus (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, he doesn't know what he's taking about? You need to follow WP:BLP on WP:BLP/N too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes I used to have that point-of-view regarding BLP discussions, and have even pulled people up in the past about it. However, I now realise that we need to have some latitude on these pages. So if what's being said is readily supported in sources, and relates to a specific matter - as is the case here - then discussion should not be stifled (libellous material excepted). I contend that's it's perfectly reasonable to state that the subject here didn't know what he was talking about when using the words Amen and Awomen. Such a statement IS NOT saying generally that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Arcturus (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is both undue and a BLP vio. It's a dad joke of no significance that has been turned into a culture war faux controversy by right-wing outlets. The claim that Cleaver is "misconstruing" something is a BLP violation. Per linguist John McWhorter, it's a "long-lived Southern/black preacher signature."[23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus your remark is a BLP violation and you ought to retract it. BLP policy applies to all pages. The John McWhorter Twitter thread linked above includes a 1905 book about a preacher that uses the phrase, and a reference to Susan B. Anthony using it in 1874. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I support removing it, as per Snooganssnoogans's assessment of Cleaver echoing Susan B. Anthony's dad jokery, WP:UNDUE, and I'll also add WP:NOTNEWS. It fails the enduring nature of WP:N unless it actually ends up magically leaping over the Republican WP:TABLOID polemic gate and being cemented in history with all-time dad joke legend Susan B. Anthony. — Smuckola(talk) 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to support either side, but I will provide some reliable sources that have covered this "awomen" thing in case they are needed for the article or in another instance [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I also found this opinion piece from USA Today, although it's behind a paywall, [29] and a Fox News article detailing Ben Shapiro's criticism of the "awomen" term [30]. That's all I want to say. X-Editor(talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No WP:RS media seriously make the case that Cleaver didn’t know the difference. Per Snooganssnoogans and Smuckola this is clearly a joke that fails to rise to WP:DUE significance for a long-time public official. The reference should be removed.Go4thProsper (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the addition of amen & awoman being added due to the fact that this made national news and was highly covered by all people and organizations. This is NOT a political issue and it does not matter if he says it was a joke. It was said in the chambers and was the opening prayer of the 117th Congress. The wording on his page does not need to reference that he may or may not have know the definition/background of the word "amen", but this was a signifacant moments in the opening moments of the 117th Congress and possibly the biggest moment of Mr. Cleaver's political career. Regardless of what the media claims this happened in the chambers of the United States Congress and should be included. Even as little as "Rev Emanuel Cleaver ended the opening prayer of the 117th congress with "Amen and Awomen". This was highly debated amongst news organizations and poltiical figures as the term "amen" is not a gendered term." Grahaml35 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Laurence H. Kedes

Not reporting a violation, I just wanted to report that Laurence H. Kedes passed away on the evening of January 5th, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracblau7 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Dracblau7. This is reported by his children at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157349777137041&id=654407040; https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159126375312329&id=771897328. Is there an obituary notice? Fences&Windows 23:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Theresa Knorr

Theresa Knorr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More editors keeping an eye on this would be helpful. Constant WP:BLPCRIME violations being added in relation to a 1964 incident for which she was acquitted, including egregious violations in edit summaries. 92.40.189.55 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month and edit summaries deleted. Sockpuppets were already blocked. Fences&Windows 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that BLPCRIME doesn't really apply to her given the amount of coverage she had for the murders she was convicted of. A movie was based on those crimes and her case was featured several times on television according to the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Meena Kumari Weight Lifter

Hi ,

Recently i came across the wikipedia detail for Meena Kumari weightlifter and saw there was hardly any information and authentic detail about her.

Me being from the family of Meena Kumari is ready to provide any identities , proofs and undertakings so as to declare the information to be edited in Meena Kumari's wikipedia account to be correct , true , authentic and resourceful.

All these details which has a copy here too at the bottom of email are available on google searches too for cross check and verifications .

Please respond as soon as possible for the correct information approval and publishing of Meena Kumari Weightlifter.

Awaiting your response at the earliest

Regards

Rajan Sahotra [email protected]

Copy of wikipedia detail which has to be edited and added besides present one which has no information about Meena kumari at all

Meena Kumari popularly known as Meena Kumari Weightlifter also known by the name Meena Kumari Powar. She is most popularly known for her weightlifting participation in Common Wealth 2014. She also won the title for the Strongest Woman of India title in 2018 Indian Power Lifting Federation. Meena Kumar was the only girl weightlifter who got selected from Punjab for Common Wealth Games 2014. Games 2014 which held in Glasgow. In Early Days Meena Kumari was a an avid NCC cadet 2006-2008 in which Parajumping for more than 5 Total jumps , the only girl in Punjab , Haryana , Himachal and Chandigarh.

Meena Kumari is also known for her adventurous mountaineering which began in the snow capped mountains of Manali in 2006 in which there were total 15 people qualified to climb and Meena Kumari was the only girl among rest of the 14 climbers The altitude for peak climbing was 15000 ft

Next altitude which Meena Kumari adventured in for was 19500 ft at Rudugaira Peak Gangotri Jamnotri -Utrakhand 2007 Meena Kumari’s actual weightlifting love started in 2009 in which she won the first ever Silver Medal for Chhattisgarh Junior National Weight Lifting championship. In 2009 Meena Kumari accepted the offer for the Police Department of India and began to serve in Punjab Police as a constable in Jalandhar district. Meena Kumari after joining the Indian Police services joined the Centre Sports Punjab Police Jalandhar Cantt for her weight lifting further training and preparations for bigger tournaments. She has also won a Silver Medal In Police Meet Games in All India Police Athletic Meet 2010 In 2011 Meena Kumar won the first ever Gold in All India Police Games in the sport of weight lifting held at Jammu in the 58 Kg weight lifting category.

In 2012 she won the Silver Medal in the Senior National Weight Championship held in Odisha again 58kg weight category. And in 2010 she won aa Gold in All India Police Games held at New Delhi also met in making a new meet record in weight lifting.

In 2013 Meena Kumar won a gold in weight lifting category of 58 kg once again in All India Police Games in New Delhi. Meena Kumari grew her success in her sport in 2013 also in a remarkable achievement of a Gold Medal again in 58 kg weight category in Modi Nagar UP.

In 2014 again Meena Kumari was successful to bring name and fame to her family and her prestigious love for sport by winning a Gold medal in 64kg category in Ranchi -Jharkhand.

Meena Kumari was able to add one more medallion to her belt as in huge list of achievements in winning Gold Medal in weight lifting category 58kg at Nagpur , Madhya Pradesh and due to her unconditional dedication and hard work in weight lifting she also got selected in Asian Games 2014 , Common Wealth Games 2014 Camp.

Meena Kumari other than her professionality has a great love for music too and has been a winner in singing competition in college times at BD Arya College Jalandhar Cantt. She loves to eat home made food and above all she has a great respect for her mother’s hand cooked Indian food. Into her free time she loves to listen to music while taking her time into a long drive and exploring places which proves her to be travel lover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajan Sahotra (talk • contribs)

Rajan Sahotra, please read WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:RS. We will listen to requests for changes and it's great you want to expand the existing short biography at Meena Kumari (weightlifter), but we cannot accept an unsourced version provided on behalf of an article subject. Please suggest additions, each sourced to an independent reliable source, at Talk:Meena Kumari (weightlifter). Fences&Windows 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I expanded the bio from a stub using reliable sources. Fences&Windows 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Niruben_Amin

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

On the Wikipedia page of Niruben Amin who seems to be a revered spiritual master, a couple of editors have made an attempt to remove two sentences mentioned in the Early Life section [[31]] & [[32]]. The links are just of two editors who have done the change although there are more who have done the same change. However, every time, the same editor has rollback these changes considering the citation is of an academic source.

Two more editors have also tried to protect the page in March 2020 due to suspected vandalism [[33]] and [[34]], presuming that they have noted the repeated removal and rollback of the two statements.

Both these statements are cited by giving an academic source whose author is Peter Flugel [[35]]. However, in the source itself, there are no citations or sources mentioned for these two statements. Surprisingly, these statements about a spiritual master, who has left the mortal body, are found no where else on the Web. Ideally, as these statements are about the personal life of a famous personality, there should be other reliable sources that state the same. However, there are no other reliable sources (other than those authored by Peter Flugel) stating the same.

So, are they defaming the personality? So, what should be the resolution in this case?Dipalig (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Dipalig, this is a stale dispute, BLP does not apply as she died in 2006, and you give no valid reason to doubt the veracity of the source: the author notes he interviewed Amin, so it is credible that he would know her biographical details. Fences&Windows 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jake Angeli

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bilorv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bilorv made an allegation about Jake Angeli and attempted to bolster his allegation by providing a "source". I contend, firstly, that WP:BLPREMOVE applies here, because his allegation is unsourced, contentious, and about a living person. I contend also that since his linked source does not mention Angeli but a group he allegedly belongs to, it is WP:OR to transitively apply the group's properties to an alleged member of this group. I twice removed his comments per the policy, and I am hesitant to link to them here, especially because he was also unwilling to do so. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I contend that transitivity is not inherently in violation of WP:OR (a very obvious claim) and that it's not in violation here (less obvious). The source I provide is reliable and a significant academic opinion (I don't believe this is contested); it says "X is a type of Y". I then said "W is a Z" because we have reliable sources saying "W is an X" (not contested) and "Z" is the word for someone who agrees with "Y". An analogy would be that if an English (X) person lives in Britain (Y), a person who lives in Britain (Y) is called "British" (Z) and Stephen Fry (W) is English (X), then we can state that Stephen Fry (W) is British (Z) (non-synthesis transitivity). While I understand that my claim would not fly in article space because "X is a Y" is an opinion, AfDs are inherently places where fact-based opinions of editors are gathered in order to determine consensus.

WP:BLPREMOVE recommends that we go to BLPN in cases of disputes over the invocation of the policy, and I didn't want to start this thread because Elizium23's understanding of BLPREMOVE was unknown and unexplained to me. From my perspective, I'd either like the content to be oversighted (and therefore get the understanding that the content is considered by the community to fail BLPREMOVE) and for a reason (on- or off-wiki) to be given to me for why it fails BLPREMOVE, so that I can avoid making such comments in future; or for the content to be reinstated with consensus that it is not afoul of BLPREMOVE.

I've seen trigger-happy mishaps before by admins who do not investigate before blocking so I'll reiterate (having stated on my talk page) that I will not reassert the statements under contention or re-add the contested content without independent assessment that the content is BLP-acceptable. Hence why I have not described what W, X, Y and Z are in this specific case, though I am happy to email anyone who is (understandably) confused. — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Transitivity is not inherently in violation of OR where groups are defined by their manifestos (I don't think you'd get any pushback if you said that a member of the KKK was a racist, or a member of the English Defence League was an Islamaphobe, for example) but it doesn't work in all situations. Is QAnon a Nazi cult? Yep, it might well be. Is it definitively one? That's a completely different question. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: but this discussion is specifically over whether I am allowed to express my opinion on the topic, as you have in this comment. Am I allowed to express my opinion that the answer to your question is yes, and if so what are the implications on the diff above and BLPREMOVE? — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies in all namespaces though, regardless of whether you're saying something in Wikipedia's voice in an article, or expressing your opinion on a talk or WP page. Consider what would happen if you "expressed your opinion" about a fellow editor rather than a third party, for example. So regarding Angeli, can you say he's "a QAnon supporter covered in tattoos that have been appropriated by white supremacists"? Yep. Can you say he's a Nazi? Nope. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: why not, if it "might well be" that QAnon is a Nazi cult? Would things change if the sentence I wrote had begun "In my opinion"? — Bilorv (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"In my opinion QAnon is a Nazi cult" is not a BLP violation. "In my opinion X is a Nazi" might be one, depending on context. "X is a Nazi" is definitely one unless they're a reliably sourced member of an organisation that's reliably sourced to be a Nazi one. "X is a Nazi because they're a member of Y which Z says is a Nazi cult" isn't good enough, I'm afraid. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"In my opinion X is a Nazi" might be one – How about this particular context? Can I restore the content if I add "in my opinion" throughout? To respond to your earlier point Consider what would happen if you "expressed your opinion" about a fellow editor, the last time I saw WP:NONAZIS cited as a reason to ban a specific editor was two days ago. Obviously such invocations and descriptions are appropriate if the person is a NOTHERE case of someone pushing Nazi propaganda. — Bilorv (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I'm just going to leave this here. And maybe this. And this. Mo Billings (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mo Billings, are you trying to say that one or more of those sources supports what Bilorv wrote? Do you understand German and French? I am not seeing any "W is a Z" conclusions here, just a lot of circumstancial evidence (and ridiculous tangents that have nothing to do with their subjects.) The French article is not marked so, but it is either a blog post, an opinion column, or both. No reporter had the temerity to attach his or her name to it! Elizium23 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 Sorry, it looks like French Slate may have been the original source of that piece. The byline is Séverine Pierron. Mo Billings (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, you had one admin tell you it's a BLP violation. I'm the second. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone attempt to reason with 174.212.222.0/24, who can't resist repeating the line on his own talk page? Elizium23 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Elizium23: though I see that consensus is seemingly against me in the adjective I used to describe the figure in question here, you removed a reliable source and my opinion that QAnon is a Nazi cult (self-described as an opinion in the post). Would you object to me reinstating that latter material specifically? Black Kite above seems to think that this part is not a BLP violation. — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, you are just Hell-Bent on wedging your opinion into that discussion, aren't you? Where's the fire? Will it turn around a heated deletion discussion when you drop your revelation that QAnon is indeed a Nazi cult?! We should be ashamed of ourselves for muzzling a true believer! The truth must come out! Shout it from the housetops! Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  If this is sarcasm or satire of some kind it's going over my head. I'm hell-bent on including my opinion in a discussion? What else would a discussion be for? — Bilorv (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, per WP:NOTFORUM, the discussion in question is for determining whether an article meets the inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. We would be very much entertained for you to explain to us how your so-called reliable source and opinion about QAnon (Or even the personal beliefs of the subject in question) relates to the inclusion criteria for the BLP in question, and how said source and opinion would sway the outcome when an admin comes along to determine whether or not to delete said BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is clearly moving the goalposts. You can't remove a comment of mine based on one policy and then claim another. You wouldn't like it if I started removing your comments everywhere and every time you whacked down an argument "it fails WP:XYZ" I said "oh well actually I removed it under WP:ABC and just didn't say that". Luckily I've now given a reason at AfD why the source and its opinion are relevant to notability and what do you know, it's a relevant notability policy that nobody (!) has pointed out yet at the discussion. I didn't really believe my browser's search function was working when I searched "fringe" and found no single mention of it at the page. — Bilorv (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, don't say I'm moving the goalposts just because you want to kick the ball further. I removed your original comments per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NOTFORUM although I didn't need to specify the latter. I am glad you managed to find a comment that passes both policies safely, enjoy the outcome. Elizium23 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Cooke

181.169.227.109 (talk · contribs): This IP is repeatedly adding unsourced content to Olivia Cooke's article. Their talk page shows they have been warned about it multiple times before and already received a level 4 warning from another user in April. Their contribution history shows they almost exclusively provide edits to Cooke's article, and have repeatedly been adding unsourced content regarding who she is dating for months (diffs in April: 1, 2, 3, 4; in August: 5, 6; in September: 7, 8; in October: 9; in December: 10) and on one occasion with an unreliable source (diff 1). They have also occasionally added the content to two of the three alleged boyfriends' articles (diffs 1, 2, 3). Can they be blocked? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have since noticed that the user Minniem16 (talk · contribs) has a history of doing the same thing to Cooke's article after they recently reincluded it (diff 1). Their contribution history shows they have repeatedly done this previously (diff in July 2019: 1; in April 2020: 2; in August 2020: 3; in December 2020: 4). Also at one of the alleged boyfriends' articles in July 2019 (diff 1). Should they also receive a (partial?) block? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Abbyjjjj96. I've partially blocked both users from Olivia Cooke for six months and semi-protected the article for three months. Fences&Windows 23:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

P Sainath

Indian journalist P Sainath's WP article is being repeatedly vandalised by a redlinked editor who's clearly set up for this purpose (GreenBlueYellow) and a couple of IP accounts (potentially a case of sock puppetry). It's clever vandalism, in that it purportedly adds "facts", but that includes citing a book of fiction that doesn't seem material to the biography, and conveniently omitting actual facts that would make it a stronger article. Sainath is a Magsaysay award winner, for instance (the "Alternate Nobel"), and my adding that to establish notability and crisp up the lede was deleted and called "vandalism" in turn (the irony is deep).

I would suggest page protection of some kind, and an investigation into some of the recent edits by IPs and new accounts. In India, P Sainath is the equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of the highest calibre, and whatever the personal opinions of editors, deserves a clear, credible, and reliably sourced biography. Many thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This page needs some page protection please. Vikram Vincent 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This was already protected and then unprotected: User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Just_FYI_-_Palagummi_Sainath. You all need to stop accusing each other of vandalism, stop reverting each other, and reach consensus on the talk page. Fences&Windows 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Slovenian National Police Force

Hello! I would like to inquire whether it is in line with the relevant policies, particularly WP:BLP, to add a link to a list of personal data of employees of a public body to an article, like I have done at Slovenian National Police Force.[36] This list has been published by the Slovenian Ministry of the Interior in response to a threat of a police strike and provides much insight into the internal workings of Slovenian Police, which is encyclopedic per se, but also contains sensitive private information (names, workplaces, salaries). At this moment, it is still unclear to me whether publishing a list as such is fully legal, though this data may be considered information of public interest and as such public. Have there been any similar cases in the past? How should this be handled (it is a major news story at the moment)? Thank you for your opinions. --TadejM ^{my talk} 21:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY speak against linking to such documents: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". Fences&Windows 00:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

TadejM, I removed it and please do not re-add unless you gain consensus to do so. You say this is a major news story - if so, you can use the reliable sources that discuss this, rather than the primary source itself. Fences&Windows 00:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, thank you for the comment. I'll probably add some news article about this, given the significant coverage of the event. Though I'm not sure what actual difference does this mean regarding privacy since these news articles mostly provide the link to the record themselves. --TadejM ^{my talk} 01:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Raphael Warnock - Democratic candidate for Senate in the Georgia election

This is fairly prominent in his article, does it belong?

In 2002, while senior pastor at Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore, Maryland, Warnock and an assistant minister were arrested and charged with obstructing a police investigation into suspected child abuse at a church-run camp in Carroll County, Maryland. Warnock said the alleged abuse was not sexual and denied any wrongdoing in trying to prevent a state trooper from interviewing counselors. He said he was only asserting that lawyers should be present during the interviews.[10] Warnock said that he had intervened to ensure that an adult was present while a juvenile suspect was being questioned.[11] Prosecutors dropped the charges against Warnock, and the deputy state's attorney acknowledged that it had been a "miscommunication", adding that Warnock had aided the investigation and that prosecution would be a waste of resources.[12][13]

It's most of the section on his religious work. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems due. There is continuing coverage of this incident due to the current political theatre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is the case, it would indeed be due, but aside from one "debunking," every citation in the relevant paragraph is from 2002. I am not finding a lot about it in recent news, but my search is certainly not exhaustive. Based upon cursory review, it seems undue to me given the age of the allegations and the apparent lack of coverage in intervening years. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent coverage [37][38][39][40][41] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Definitely due for the article. I still think we could probably pare it down to one sentence. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If reference to the incident is included at all, which is debatable, it should only be a brief mention, per Dumuzid. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems roughly due, though I wonder if one of these sentences should be dropped: "He said he was only asserting that lawyers should be present during the interviews. Warnock said that he had intervened to ensure that an adult was present while a juvenile suspect was being questioned." I would also not mention "an assistant minister", which seems irrelevant and even though that person is not named, they are probably not a public figure. Politrukki (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi

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.

---

Maryam Rajavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings, there is an edit war going on for Maryam Rajavi. There appear to be editors there with a long history of scrubbing clean any reliable sources that outline the BLP's militant/terrorist affiliations. Please intervene to prevent vandalism and bad faith behavior or direct me to the proper notice board if this is the wrong one kindly. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just at a glance, you lumped all Iranians into a (derogatory?) term, hoped that someone would be assassinated, and obliterated the talk page. I know nothing about this topic, so just wanted to give my understanding of what I see. Jdphenix (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maryam_Rajavi_-_Terrorist_Links. Keep discussion there. Fences&Windows 01:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

TLDR: Dewey is keen on pushing a terrorist narrative to the talk page. Was told that this topic was already discussed and got a consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran, ignored it, and is now making every attempt to get his way, violating WP:NEUTRAL. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2021 (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.

Category:Participants in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Is having this category in the Category:21st-century American criminals category ok per WP:BLP? I don't think any of those people are convicted atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What about persons charged in the storming of the Capitol? I don't think that we need a list of every person who attended every demonstration. TFD (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many people were attended or were involved with attending some of the demonstrations in DC. Only a small subset of people actually participated in the unlawful entry of the capitol building. Given the implied crime associated with "storming" of the capitol I would say a relevant conviction is required for entry. Springee (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. Ali Alexander may be connected to the protests, but was not in attendance as best we know, and so far no one has placed him under arrest for anything, for example; this is in addition to the fact that while those like Baked Alaska have been arrested have not yet fully convicted. A category "People convicted in the 2021 storming" would be reasonable to be under the criminals category, but that would a subset. --Masem (t) 18:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and therefore nominated for CfD. The cat is very premature. Fell free to add your comments there. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note to Masem, since I saw it after I was directed here after asking a question at Template talk:2021 US Capitol Storming, but Alexander was in attendance at the protests (source). I don't believe he entered the Capitol (at least I haven't seen as much in RS). As a note on the larger topic, any decision about the category should probably apply to the participant list in the template. There is also 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Participating groups, though that has the benefit of being longer-form prose where more context can be given about just how involved people were. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• This should be a speedy delete, because it violates so many policies and guidelines.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like the category was just speedy deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 12#Category:Participants in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Linking it here because for some reason the bot linked to the wrong day in the log when it deleted the category. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of an unsourced biography of a living person

Article titled Syed Talat Hussain is totally unsourced. The biography has literally no source, citations or links to any reliable and independent sources. Too many claims are made without a single reliable link to the source. Some links were dead others were added from social media platform like twitter. Therefore, I strongly recommend for immediate removal of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanglaKing (talk • contribs) 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

JanglaKing, the funny thing is, when you remove all the sources from an article, you're left with an article with no sources. I suggest you not try that a second time. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:BlackcurrantTea Hi BlackcurrantTea, I removed 2 or three links due to the following reasons. First one I removed was a link to twitter as a source, which can't be proved to be reliable and Wikipedia discourages such links to social media apps as sources. The other one I removed was a dead link. Another one was linked to an unreliable and unknown website trying to validate their claims. I removed the other link because the link had nothing related to article and the claim the link was meant to validate. I hope you look into this and remove the warning from my talk page and show support to your fellow Wikipedian. If you still have questions, you can ask. Regards.

JanglaKing (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC) JanglaKing (talk)

JanglaKing, you seem to be missing the point. It is not acceptable to remove all the references from an article, then claim it should be deleted because it has no references. Do not do this again. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Can Yaman

1. Once again content permanently removed under the previous heading of “contentious” is now published under the heading of “career” with a footnote 10,11 reference.

2. The infringing sentence and reference likewise needs to be removed in its entirety for reasons that:

a. The content is factually incorrect. The sources relied upon are documentary hearsay (unreliable by their nature) and self serving due to the undisclosed close personal relation between the source author/interviewer and Selen Soyder; and

b. Publication of the inaccuracies in [2a] and continued reference to the proceedings referred to give rise to several potential legal causes of action including but not limited to defamation and contempt of Court.

3. In all the circumstances and for the reasons stated, it is submitted the infringing sentence and all reference to the proceedings involving Mr Yaman and Ms Soyder must be permanently removed and remain omitted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:440D:8B00:148C:34FA:E571:8EB4 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not determine what is true or what is false but what can be verified to reliable news sources. You have made a legal threat and may be blocked for this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

[11][10]

This part has been previously retired as Libelous and poorly based — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaair (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IPs disputing sources

https://t24.com.tr/foto-haber/rol-arkadasina-bardak-firlatan-can-yaman-a-ceza,7542 "Selen Soyder'e bardak fırlatan Can Yaman'a ceza". www.ntv.com.tr.

Both of these articles are already reported correctly and referenced. Article 10 and 11. Tabloid press news without any confirmation of court outcome or detail is not a well sourced information for biographies of the living person. This is defamation libelious information which has not been verified. It has been already stated that this violates the wikipedia rules previously and the same account which made this last entry time and time again is again doing this. The account should be blocked from any entre on this page due to its clear malicious intent to try to re-report already reported data in malicious light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.175 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about Can Yaman. User:Drmies and User:The Bushranger, I can see you were recently involved. Does further action need to be taken? Fences&Windows 15:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that glass: the IP is laying it on a bit thick here, but they have a point. Now, the IP also added a bit of celeb trivia about him being in a ad for pasta--I reverted that as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Rol arkadaşına bardak fırlatan Can Yaman'a ceza". T24. 29 March 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2020

This reference is a BLP violation due to the citation refering to tabloid journal only. It states in the article that those are just allegations and no proof of the either allegations nor the actual outcome of court case and damages paid has bee provided to verify the information. Request removal of the poorly sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.68 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Selen Soyder'e bardak fırlatan Can Yaman'a ceza". www.ntv.com.tr. 29 March 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2020

The reference and the whole section is BLP violation as it only refers to tabloid newspaper without any verified reference of the information provided. The article also states that those are only allegations. Due to defamatory status of the reference as well as lack of well sourced verification for the data such as court documentation request is made to remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.68 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have put all these discussions into one section, semi-protected the article for one month, and warned several users about making legal threats. The dispute is over reports of a court case. The discussion needs to focus on the reliability of the sourcing and whether inclusion is necessary per WP:UNDUE. Other newspapers have covered this, e.g. Hurriyet.[42]. Fences&Windows 14:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WT:BLP#Categorizing people

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk: Biographies of living persons about potential additions to the BLP policy on categories. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Need Admin Help regarding editing and publishing.

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.

---

Draft:Zeyan Shafiq (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Zeyan Shafiq|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello sir, i am mutahir and i am basically from kashmir, i have started my wikipedia journey recently,i am a quick learner and i have learned a lot of things related to wikipedia till now. i am trying to create wikipedia articles for notable persons from Kashmir since they dont have enough presence on wikipedia but they are very notable. i started by creating Draft:Zeyan Shafiq which was unfortunately declined for (Adv) and since i approached the subject myself to gain some more information(for eg: his current academic information,his current living location and other information the reviewers might have thought that it is a (COI) but it is not a (COI) i am planning to create wiki pages for all those kashmiri people who meet the notability guidelines because i dont think anyone from kashmir is trying to do this, i reviewed my first draft Draft:Zeyan Shafiq and understood what (adv) actually meant, i had given very less information and it looked like an advertisement. i later researched again and edited all the incomplete information myself and i wrote down everything in brief, i am a new editor here so i might do more mistakes but i don't have anyone to guide me properly, if you can assist me and tell me what is wrong in my article now, i would really work more hard on those issues and i will correct them. the only reason why i am requesting this help is because my article got declined but i wasn't guided on how do i improve it properly. my reviewer gave me reason and i followed it but i don't still understand where i am lacking and i want to improve it. thanks sir

Hums4r (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, I've cleaned it up and moved it live. You've learned that contacting subjects usually doesn't help - we can't use the info they give and it raises suspicions of COI. Compare how you were writing versus my edits - your writing was not neutral. See WP:PEACOCK. Fences&Windows 02:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows:, thanks for cleaning it up, i was looking for assistance everywhere on how to clean it up. yes i have learnt it, and i assure that i won't repeat this ever again. yes there's a huge difference and i will take this as example for all the further articles that i do, i just have 2 queries, 1. his father has appeared in a video and even in a reliable article, but as per the article there is a slight spelling mistake, what should i do to add the family details?
2. There are many picture available on google for zeyan shafiq, can you assist me with what should i follow while uploading a picture.

Hums4r (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help, Hums4r. What is the spelling mistake? Details of his family were in reliable sources, so those were added by another editor. For images, see the policy at Wikipedia:Image use policy. It's not enough that the images are online: we need the images to be freely licensed. If an image is not already freely licensed, you may ask for permission from the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Fences&Windows 13:44, 14 January 2021 (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.

Zhang Xinxin (writer)

I am Zhang Xinxin's translator. Some language editions of Wikipedia give her date of birth. Someone has added this information without her permission. She is a living person and would like this to be removed. How can we do this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkb100 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Her birth year is easily sourced to information she has provided herself, so that will be hard to remove. Her precise date of birth is not stated in her Wikipedia article: you may be thinking of her Google Knowledge Panel which is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hkb100 was referring to other language Wikipedias, which do indeed have Zhang Xinxin's full date of birth. I left a message on their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The date of birth was in three language versions and Wikidata. It has been removed from Wikidata and two of the three languages. A request has been left on the talk page of the third, and Hkb100 has a link to an appropriate noticeboard if that goes unanswered. All done here (it seems {{resolved}} isn't used here; if it is, please feel free to apply it). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Brogan

[Kelly Brogan] The article uses liberal use of the word "discredited" based on the author's of the article's opinion. It's one thing to point out the fact that she has been met with a lot of controversies and to point out beliefs, but is missing a myriad of sources and unbiased information. The whole article is written as an opinion piece and rarely sites actual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2300:6A3:987A:852F:A6D5:6C68 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You can change the references to the academic journal citations in the coffee enema article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that quip is helpful. Fences&Windows 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLPFRINGE. Our treatment of alternative medicine and science denial is based on mainstream and scholarly sources, we don't allow bios or other articles to be used to promote such beliefs - that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Fences&Windows 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources and didn't read the article very well. I stopped because I quickly found this wasn't just someone with mildly controversial views. If there aren't sufficient sources to establish that the views of someone who apparently scoffs at the Germ theory of disease are "discredited" then I don't think we have enough sources for an article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Elaine Aron

All contributions to this article seem to be by Ms Aron's paid staff. The article uses many external links to Ms Aron's website in the first paragraph. It reads like promotional material. There is also a link to a Wikipedia article created for Ms Aron's husband. However Ms Aron's husband does not remotely meet any notability criteria, and as such the Wikipedia article dedicated to him should be deleted. The use of citations in Ms Aron's article is absurd- at one point there is a citation linking to a psychotherapy institute where Ms Aron apparently received training, instead of linking to any verifiable source that could corroberate the cited claim. Other questionable claims in the article are uncited. This article needs to be flagged so that people who come to Wikipedia to read about Ms Aron get a neutral review of her work, and to prevent Ms Aron from using Wikipedia as another online venue for her self-promotion. 2A02:C7F:A054:E300:70A6:580C:8CB4:DF5C (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The articles in question are Elaine Aron, a clinical psychologist and writer, and Arthur Aron, her spouse and psychology professor. While more secondary sources would be good, there's nothing overly promotional in Dr. Aron's bio. Prof. Aron likely passes WP:PROF, especially in light of coverage such as this: "Arthur Aron, professor of psychology at the State University of New York, is now famous for developing 36 questions that bring people closer together - most recently brought into the limelight by an iconic New York Times Modern Love column."[43] Fences&Windows 19:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is definitely a debate to be had about whether this person rises to WP:NOTABLE standards, but the larger question here is the obvious WP:COI or possibly WP:PAID editing. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Which editors are you suspecting of COI or paid editing, and why, Go4thProsper? Fences&Windows 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Matija Babić

Matija Babić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of IPs kept adding "convicted criminal" to the lead in the article. After they were reverted by multiple users, an editor showed up and began re-inserting it as well as WP:OVERCITE to justify the inclusion.

Looking over the subject's history, it appears that he was convicted in 2015 and sentenced to eight months of community service for withdrawing millions from companies through student contracts (a form of money laundering I'm guessing). Obviously this is noteworthy to mention in the article but does this mean that this is most what he's known for and that it justifies having "convicted criminal" in the lead?

A newly added paragraph to the lead also has this phrase: "Croatian people who he continuously insults and offends using hate speech on Facebook and his tabloid Index.hr".

Furthermore, some of the articles cited are clearly tabloids and I'm not sure that they qualify as RS. For instance, the first citation links to an article which begins with (engl. translation) "Matija Babić has always despised "Great Croats" and "he hates "big Croats" because a small Croat must always hate the more successful than himself". 1 In no way is any of this NPOV and the recent changes have been clearly writen with someone who has an axe to grind. --Griboski (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço

Caesar DePaço (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like to ask for another pair of eyes to look at this article.

A (new) editor seems to be on a crusade to remove a paragraph of content that could be viewed as negative publicity about the subject of the article, but which has been (I think) fully backed by in-line reliable sources. If you look at the article history, you'll notice they have by now disregarded the three-revert rule, and have left threats of legal action in edit summaries. The material in question (currently absent from the article) was also prefaced by another editor with a {{Disputed-section}} template, but no explanation for it was ever given, neither on edit summaries not on the article's talk page.

In short, would like others to weigh in on this instead of actively engaging in an edit war. Thanks! RickMorais (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for two weeks to give time for consensus and warned several IP users about making legal threats. Fences&Windows 00:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason for this is clear - there is an action agaisnt this because a major Portuguese political party is involved in shady business, and they are working overtime to make it vanish from the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kranke133 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fences and Windows, I hope it's ok with you that I am remaking the content. The origin of the allegations is a major Portuguese Television Network, SIC, comparable to ABC news in America. It is not tabloid journalism nor is it salacious material. I will remove any questionable content, and focus on what's been marked as true by investigative journalists. There has been no pushback from anyone involved that the report is inaccurate, therefore even the "factually disputed" tag is false. --Kranke133 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: The user Cristiano Tomás has decided to "sanitize" the title of very clear and serious allegations to "political controversy". The man is accused to being involved with known drug dealers (Fernando Madureira from Portugal, who was there in Cape Verde when he became consul) and most likely having purchased his consulate from the Cape Verde Foreign Ministry. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in Cape Verde immediately resigned when this was outed in the media due to this appointment being hugely suspect. I don't agree that the title should be sanitized to something as plain as "political controversy" and I fully believe that Cristiano Tomás is trying to censor the article. He keeps going back to it and removing/adding elements that indicate his intention is to censor the article, most likely due to personal interest.

You have to assume good faith here. It's just a header that was changed for the purpose of conciseness. You must avoid speculating on his motivations as that can be seen as casting aspersions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

A sentence in the lead refers to Mr. Navarro's economic views (China Trade) as "fringe" (a pejorative).

"Fringe" as defined by the dictionary (the same way the U.S. Supreme Court holds common definitions) implies a very small number. To meet the principles laid out in Wikipedia's 'Biographies of living persons' the common definition of fringe must also be met so as to not be be slanderous.

The term "fringe" is inflammatory, unnecessary, and is slanderous because it doesn't meet the "peripheral" requirement of the definition of "fringe." The word in the sentence should be changed from "fringe" to "controversial."

Bernie Sanders was/is also against the TPP as was/is Peter Navarro. President Biden's thoughts on China trade have evolved since 2017. Both the TPP and China Trade policies were mentioned as the reason by the articles as to why they refer to Mr. Navarro as "fringe." How can Mr. Sanders, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Biden be considered "fringe" when it comes to this economic issue? Mr. Biden just won the Presidency with 81 million votes. Mr. Sanders received 39% of the vote in 2016 presidential primary.

Wall Street Journal, By Austen Hufford and Bob Tita, Jan. 3, 2021 8:00 am ET “From autos to our stockpiles, we’re going to buy American,” Mr. Biden said in November.

Wall Street Journal, By Jacob M. Schlesinger, Sept. 10, 2020 1:34 pm ET: "Advisers to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden say they share the Trump administration’s assessment that China is a disruptive competitor."

Wall Street Journal, By Bob Davis, Jan. 11, 2021 4:36 pm ET: "... U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer helped move protectionism from the fringes of American policy-making to the core." Karagory (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That requirement of "peripheral" has not been met as evidenced as both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden (and multiple other individuals; the aforementioned being the most prominent) hold similar views as Mr. Navarro regarding China trade.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." Multiple, current Reliable Sources state that Mr. Navarro's view is no longer considered "fringe" on China Trade. The article is failing to keep up with the times.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Karagory (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The subclause "and are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists" does not seem entirely by the references given, but rather editorialising. However, other reliable sources say: "economists on both the left and the right say that Navarro’s fundamental views of trade are outdated, misguided, or just plain wrong." [44]; "When Donald Trump was elected president, Peter Navarro was viewed as a fringe character even by the standards of the other misfit advisers" [45]; "Navarro’s protectionist leanings and fringe theories have helped to empower Trump" [46]; "Navarro’s economic views have been dismissed by most economists as “fringe” and “oddball” although Trump has hailed him as a “visionary”." [47]. However, another says "There are still free traders who would like to dismiss Navarro as a Don Quixote tilting at Chinese-made wind turbines. That would be a mistake." [48]. Fences&Windows 00:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you can't argue with the opinions given in reliable sources by giving your own interpretation based on what Biden has said, as that's original research. Stick to what the sources say about Navarro. Fences&Windows 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

* NY Times: "books like “The Coming China Wars” and “Death by China” that put him on the radical fringe of his profession"[49]

* Reuters: "Navarro’s economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe'"[50]

* Times of London: "When Donald Trump was elected president, Peter Navarro was viewed as a fringe character"[51]

* Politico: "economic theories that were considered fringe even by the confrontational standards of the field"[52] soibangla (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Two points I would really like your opinion on:

• Firstly, the four articles that you cited are not referenced in the sentence as required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation ..."; the articles that you referenced are immaterial to these discussion because they are not the articles referenced by the sentence in question.
• Secondly, in response to your statement "... you can't argue with the opinions given in reliable sources by giving your own interpretation based on what Biden has said ...": I am trying very hard not to give you my interpretation of Mr. Biden's and other's statements. I am providing additional, up to date Reliable Sources with a differing assessment. I am not even doubting the validity of statements given by the Reliable Sources you referenced; I think time have passed them by... Is it not possible that the his ideas are no longer "fringe?" Hypothetical: What happens if they are no longer considered "fringe?" Are we stuck with the term "fringe" forever because some Reliable Sources claimed they were "fringe" in 2016 even though more up to date Reliable Sources claim that they are now mainstream? Karagory (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Karagory, Sourcing is supposed to be optional in the lead when sources exist in the article body, which has previously been pointed out to you on the article talk page. But I suppose if your objection is just that the sentence in the lead needs more citations, we can accommodate that. I've added the NY Times and the Reuters sources soibangla mentioned. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no exception in the Biographies of living persons regarding inline citations for the lead section. I believe the sensitivities required for the Biographies of a living person would take precedent over sourcing that is optional in the lead when sources exist in the article body. I would agree with just more accurately referencing the sentence in question. Thanks for making this accommodation. Side note: I don't know how now get this off this noticeboard. Karagory (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Karagory:, you don't need to remove settled threads form this board - it is regularly archived. Most threads don't need formal closure once it is clear that a consensus has been reached. Since the addition of the inline cites for "fringe" appears to satisfy your concerns, I'd say that applies here. I hope that helps. Thanks for pointing out the issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Navarro has been mentioned here before. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes

Fuentes is a far-right political commentary live-streamer who has been banned from most major platforms.

There are several contested issues which would benefit from closer scrutiny, specifically because this involves ongoing legal issues surrounding the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Fuentes was at the event, although he has not (as far as I know) been charged with any crime and did not enter the capitol building.

Two days before the Capitol riot, Fuentes floated the idea (on stream) of killing state legislators who were unwilling to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Per multiple sources, his specific comment was :"Why, because we had no leverage, what are we going to do? What can you and I do to a state legislator, besides kill them?" Followed by "Although we should not do that. I am not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?"

The current wording doesn't mention his comments or indicate why he was banned from the social media platform DLive. His streaming, incendiary comments, and popularity on DLive are all treated by sources as defining traits, so this information is important to an article about Fuentes. Instead, the article currently mentions the "desperation of Americans who believed the results of the 2020 election were fraudulent" which is completely unsupported by the cited sources, and bordering on WP:FRINGE.

There is also an issue of how to describe his tweets saying that he did not enter the building during the storming of the Capitol. Presumably, this would have serious legal ramifications if he had entered the building. Sources mention these tweets, but it's not clear from reliable sources who he is responding to. As far as I can tell, no reliable source accuses him of entering the capital building. In other words, he is defending himself against an accusation that no sources appear to be making. My instinct is to leave it out as a tweetstorm, a BLP minefield, and a pointless distraction, but others disagree.

Further, this edit attempted to introduce unrelated sources to legitimize antisemitic conspiracy theories. The most recent revert appears to be a continuation of that effort, which is contrary to reliable sources.

There are other issues, also. We need help to figure out how to explain this without whitewashing, and without scandal-mongering.

Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean We need help to figure out how to explain this without whitewashing, and without scandal-mongering.? What makes you think that is the situation? I am not saying that the article Nick Fuentes is FA ready, but I don't see any whitewashing or scandal-mongering on it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the article's current status, whitewashing dominates the article's edit history. Fuentes has a notable fan-base known as the groypers. Per that article, they are "a loose group of white nationalist and far-right activists" who are "generally considered to be followers of Nick Fuentes". The groypers have a documented history of trolling and similar disruptive behavior in real life and on other websites. The article therefor also has a history of disruptive edits.

There is a disagreement about how to explain his most recent activities, and because this is controversial and has potential legal implications for Fuentes, it would be helpful to have more eyes on the article. WP:NOTNEWS is also an issue. Hence my request for more scrutiny of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Lara Trump

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.

---

Editors continue to include an intentionally less than flattering image of Lara Trump in the infobox of the article.

Originally, This edit substituted a perfectly suitable image with a picture so unflattering it serves only to disparage the subject. For comparison, this is previous photo is the infobox image currently used at commons:Category:Lara Trump. I would go as far as saying this is in violation of the Biographies of Living People policy.

Instead of allowing for the perfectly fine image across the platform, this was approved shortly after. I understand that people age, but it certainly looks like editors are attempting to portray the subject in the worst way possible. We all get age lines and wrinkles, it isn't going away. However, there is problem when a 38 year old woman has images that make here look several years older or in some comical sense used in a BLP. There are dozens of more appropriate images to chose, and anyone following neutrality could pick one.

I don't believe editors have acted in good faith and am interested in poking about the real issue for a month while they play games. Talk:Lara Trump#Lead Image.2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion you started on the talk page is still open, and there's no urgent need to start another one here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a BLP, so yes it is urgent. Should I elevate this to more eyes at ANI?2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it - they all look like the same person, who looks roughly the same age in all of them as far as I can make out - I can't see why anyone would think of any of them as particularly flattering/unflattering, what makes you think it's being done out of improper intentions? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Girth, going off the IP editor's comments on the talk page, it's because of the original editor's userboxen. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This being a noticeboard, I see nothing wrong with drawing attention to the issue here, but it is doing nobody any favors to discuss the matter over again here when the original discussion has barely started. If an admin could do the honors and apply the Seal of Closure™, it seems to me we've been adequately notified. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)\

Not gonna take someone's complaint seriously when their username is a bunch of stupid numbers. Tym2412 (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2021 (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.

David Brat

Resolved

 – Appears to be fixed per Woodroar and OP's complaint is resolved

Source 98 is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.111.50 (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, but this isn't the place for drive-by opinionation. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, it was wrong. But it's fixed now. Woodroar (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jon Ossoff

There is an editor editing this page being unintentionally disruptive by evincing a fundamental misunderstanding of how the American system of government works. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a couple of folks have reverted the edits in question, the 2nd with a full explanation of what was wrong with it. It's been three days since then so the IP editor probably understands what was wrong with the content they added. Now we've got this post and an RfC about something that frankly looks like it's already handled. Jdphenix (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not the IP who is being disruptive, its the editor reverting them. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can Yaman - 3rd request

This is the 3rd report I’m making on the same subject matter. The content in the career section to which footnotes 10 and 11 apply is libellous and published in contempt of Court for the following reasons: a. The content is factually incorrect and self serving. The source/s relied upon are documentary hearsay and unreliable by its nature. The author/interviewer of the article cited in the footnotes has a close personal relationship with Ms Soyder. That relationship is not disclosed and gives rise to bias;

b. Proceedings concerning Ms Soyder and Mr Yaman are confidential and subject to a non publication Order; and

c. Continued publication of the inaccuracies referred to in [a] and references to the proceedings referred to in [b] give rise to several potential causes of action including but not limited to defamation and contempt.

In all the circumstances and for the reasons stated it is submitted the infringing information must be permanently omitted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:440D:8B00:4167:871E:4C55:BF39 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You sound like a lawyer, and I'm guessing you have some sort of affiliation with the subject of the article, in which case I thank you for not trying to edit the article yourself in accordance with our WP:Conflict of interest policy.

I can see you must be a good lawyer, because you're stopping just short of making legal threats, which would violate our WP:Legal threat policy. I'm not familiar with Turkish law, but you should keep in mind that Wikipedia falls under US laws, and Turkish ones may not apply. In any event, you're not going to win any support by starting off like that.

That said, we don't deal with such issues here. We simply report what is already published in reliable sources, and if there is any legal issue I suggest taking it up with them.

Now that leads to the real issue, which we can deal with under Wikipedia policy, which is: are these sources reliable? As FencesandWindows pointed out on the article's talk page, both sources are really reprints (literally word for word) of this article, from Sabah's "Gunaydin" (translates as "Morning's" "Good morning"), which from reading it I take to be a show similar to Good Morning America, Turkish style. Although it looks like a possible reliable news outlet, it does not read like journalism as much as it does a morning talk show, so I think the reliability is questionable. It's actually just a blurb; more than a sentence but less than a paragraph. I would really want to see this in a real newspaper or something before putting it in the article.

WP:Reliable sources is the argument you should be exploring if you want this removed from the article. I can't read Turkish and am relying on google to translate for me, so I may not be the best person to judge its reliability, but good journalism is good no matter what the language, and visa versa. If the sources are deemed reliable, then the next issue becomes WP:Weight. In other words, does a single blurb from a morning show constitute enough weight to be included? (Possibly not). I'd suggest first reading up on these policies and then taking your argument to the article's talk page, and convince others of why, per Wikipedia policy, it should be removed. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)