Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Murray Hill (performer)

This article has an inconsistent use of pronouns to describe either the performer or the character being portrayed, depending on the section being read.

The current version of this article has female pronouns in the introductory text and male pronouns in the biography section. It is unclear from initial reading which gendered pronoun should be used, or whether multiple pronouns should apply to this person and used interchangeably.

If this is an example of kayfabe, the article may need to be rewritten to provide greater clarity as the title currently states "performer" but the biography section may be referencing a persona, which can cause confusion.

Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.

This is not a request for deletion, but someone with greater knowledge of this person may need to provide accurate, up-to-date information to prevent repeated edits by overzealous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.83.25 (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 17, 2024 (UTC)

• This article appears to provide a good overview -- it uses he/him pronouns to refer to him, and he states in the interview "I'll pick out a man in the audience and say, "I'm reading your mind, sir. You're thinking, Is it a man or a woman? Sir, the answer is no."" The pronouns in the intro appear to have been changed to he/him, which is probably correct given it is what is used in an LGBTQ-positive magazine (i.e. not going to be something deliberately misgendering him). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Exclusion of Dating, Live-In Relationships, and Broken Engagements from BLP Articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force

Dear editors,

I propose the addition of a clause under the Indian Cinema Task Force's Manual of Style (WP:ICTFMOS) that explicitly excludes details about dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements from BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force. This suggestion follows a concerning trend where these personal aspects are disproportionately highlighted, often overshadowing a celebrity's professional achievements.

In the Indian entertainment industry, particularly among A-list celebrities and prominent television personalities, there is a growing trend of using staged relationships, live-in arrangements, and broken engagements as strategic PR tools. While celebrities have the right to discuss their personal lives publicly, these narratives are often orchestrated by media companies and PR managers to generate attention. Even after marriage, some celebrities continue to discuss past relationships on public platforms, which can blur the lines between genuine personal disclosures and PR manipulation. In some cases, reputable sources report these fabrications as fact, making it difficult to distinguish between truth and PR strategy.

What further complicates the issue is the way Wikipedia's principle of verifiability (WP:V) is sometimes exploited by PR managers. Once these stories are published in otherwise reliable sources, they are often cited in BLP articles, lending them an air of legitimacy. Journalists and other media outlets sometimes reference Wikipedia content, creating a circular reinforcement of potentially misleading information. Wikipedia should not amplify content that is based more on PR-driven sensationalism than on factual, career-related information.

While WP:BLP provides general guidance on the removal of certain information, it does not fully address the cultural nuances of the Indian entertainment industry or the PR-driven narratives that often lead to misrepresentation. In Western societies, dating is publicly accepted and often seen as akin to marriage without formal commitment. In India, however, dating tends to be private, usually involving minimal interaction and often arranged by families to assess compatibility. These differences are frequently misrepresented in Wikipedia articles, where PR-driven narratives based on Western norms distort the personal image of Indian celebrities.

PR management often sensationalises relationships, including broken engagements, as extensions of dating, strategically manipulating a celebrity's image for public attention. While these narratives may occasionally influence public interest, they rarely contribute to the individual's professional notability. This becomes problematic when exaggerated or fabricated stories are published by reliable sources and included in BLP articles. These narratives, especially concerning female celebrities, result in a disproportionate focus on their personal lives rather than their professional achievements. Broken engagements, in particular, can carry significant social stigma in India, yet they are often portrayed in ways that sensationalise the personal experiences of individuals, further distorting their public image.

WP:BLPPRIVACY does not fully address these cultural nuances or the impact of PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context. For example, live-in relationships are widely accepted in the West but remain controversial in India, often used to sensationalise a celebrity’s image. My proposal discourages the inclusion of such PR-manipulated personal details, ensuring that articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force remain professional, culturally accurate, and gender-neutral, focusing on the subject's contributions rather than on sensationalised personal matters. It is important to emphasise that excluding these details does not limit a celebrity’s autonomy, but ensures that Wikipedia maintains its role as a reliable and neutral source.

To address these concerns, I propose the following:

1. Exclusion of dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements: These personal aspects should not be included in BLP articles, as they do not typically contribute to the individual's notability in their professional domain. While there may be public interest in these stories, Wikipedia should avoid becoming a platform for amplifying tabloid-like content.
2. Focus on professional achievements: Articles should primarily highlight the subject's contributions to the cinema or television industry, ensuring that their professional work takes precedence over personal life details. The integrity of Wikipedia’s content should be safeguarded against PR-driven manipulation.
3. Gender-neutral approach: BLP articles should ensure balanced representation, avoiding poetic or narrative embellishment in one article while reducing the significance of similar content in another. The sensationalisation of personal lives, particularly of female celebrities, should not overshadow their professional accomplishments.

I believe these changes will help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and ensure a fair and accurate portrayal of celebrities, especially in the context of articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.

I welcome any feedback or further discussion on this proposal.

Note-- This proposal was first raised in the Indian Cinema Task Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Film%2FIndian_cinema_task_force#Proposal%3A_Exclusion_of_Dating%2C_Live-In_Relationships%2C_and_Broken_Engagements_from_BLP_Articles_under_Indian_Cinema_Task_Force), where participants suggested that it be posted here for consideration.
W170924 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why the editors at the Indian Cinema Taskforce sent you here – I would have thought that it's up to them to decide what their manual of style says. I'm not sure how much editors here know about the Indian entertainment industry specifically. In general, I would not be unhappy if Wikipedia only covered celebrities' dating lives if they have been discussed in high-quality reliable source: if only tabloids and gossip magazines discuss something, we probably shouldn't consider it encyclopedic. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: I acknowledge that this proposal might have been better addressed within the Indian Cinema Task Force, but I was directed here by other editors. I do not have insight into that decision or any existing rules governing it. My main concern is that PR-driven stories, even from reliable sources, blur the line between encyclopedic content and sensationalism, resulting in tabloid-like material in Indian BLP articles. Correcting these articles requires extensive and tiresome case-by-case discussions, which could be avoided through this proposal, preventing similar narratives in the future.W170924 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Paid news in India is a greatly complicating factor here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

May also touch on WP:RS issues then? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem unreasonable on the face of it but is rather task-force specific. Are you asking for a formal survey to take place here in WP:RFC style to decide the matter?

There are specific provisions in various Wikipedia:MOS namespace manuals of style (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles), and I don't see why there couldn't be something similar under BLP, although I am not sure there is precedent for that. If being added to a subpage of WP:BLP it would probably need to be discussed on Wikipedia talk:BLP or at least clearly notified there if this is to become an RFC. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:Thank you for your response. The issue is indeed prominent and visible in celebrity BLP articles, especially those covered by the Indian Cinema Task Force (ICTF). It is less common in other BLPs related to Indian personalities, as such personal events tend to remain private, with public attention often focused only after formal engagements. Considering this, I believe it would be more appropriate to incorporate this guideline specifically into the ICTF’s Manual of Style, with a cross-reference in the broader Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Given the limited scope of the change, I don't think it warrants creating a separate page under WP:BLP. As for the process, I’m not entirely sure how to move this forward correctly. When I raised the issue at ICTF, editors directed me here. Any guidance on next steps or suggestions for relevant region-specific editors to reach out to would be greatly appreciated.W170924 (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:BLPPUBLIC apply in a lot of instances? Where it does then projects can't arrive and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that is at odds with core Wikipedia WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thank you for pointing out WP:BLPPUBLIC. However, the situations I’ve described don’t fall under the threshold of allegations covered by this policy. My concern isn’t about major scandals or significant allegations, but rather the glorification of private events—such as dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements—that are frequently used by PR teams to generate public attention.
Even though these stories may be reported in reliable sources, the issue is not just about verifiability but about maintaining WP:UNDUE neutrality and relevance. These personal details often add little to the subject's notability and create an imbalance, where PR-driven content overshadows professional achievements.
In many instances, policies like WP:FRUIT and WP:SOAP are not adequately considered, resulting in a narrative style that feels more tabloid-like than encyclopedic, even when coming from otherwise reliable sources. Wikipedia’s role is to provide neutral, fact-based content, and my proposal is aimed at preventing unnecessary PR-influenced material from distorting biographies.W170924 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly WP:FRUIT is neither policy nor guidance. It's an essay. Secondly, if there are a bunch of reliable sources reporting something it is not WP:SOAP not WP:UNDUE to reflect those sources. You can always make arguments about how much prose should be devoted to covering the reliable sources but that's an entirely different question. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we suggesting that gossip from reliable sources is acceptable simply because it’s published? Could this be viewed as a case of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTSCANDAL? While I understand that WP:FRUIT is an essay, does this imply that PR-driven stories automatically qualify as encyclopedic content? Should we reflect on whether tabloid-style language aligns with the principles of WP:UNDUE?W170924 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't say how strongly I oppose your 1st proposal as a broad policy. This can be done on a case by case basis, and an umbrella policy would only stifle the ability to address each individuals article. As for the 2nd proposal, this should already be the case most of the time if the person is note worthy for their achievements. However, a persons relationships may be notable, and broadly excluding them to focus only on professional achievements seems like it could easily be abused to make a page promotional. Many celebrities have very blurred lines between their professional and personal relationships, even striving to create Parasocial interaction. Look at the page Public image of Taylor Swift, and you'll see wide coverage of her romantic affairs as part of what makes her a notable person. When it comes to humans, we should take a gender-neutral approach. That said, it is odd that you want this policy applied to the personal lives "particularly of female celebrities."

What makes a person interesting or noteworthy is hard to pin down, and what someone might consider important others may find irrelevant. Consider an actor trying to portray a celebrity from 50 years ago. Their professional achievements may help them broadly understand the persons career, but it gives them little insight into what the person was thinking or feeling during those achievements. If a person is a scholar of pop culture (they exist I assure you), then the stuff you're trying to remove may be the entire focus of their research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. While I acknowledge that personal relationships can contribute to public figures' notability, I remain sceptical due to the widespread use of “PR relationships” in the media. My focus here is specifically on the Indian cinema industry, where PR manipulation and sensationalism surrounding personal lives often overshadow professional achievements. Regarding female celebrities, my intention was to highlight that tabloid-style language seems more common in their articles than in those about men. However, my aim is not to prioritise one over the other, but to ensure that all Indian BLP articles are free from sensationalism. I mentioned Indian cinema because this issue is particularly pronounced there, and the ICTF is an active community where these changes could effectively be initiated. This proposal is meant to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context.W170924 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Gebru

Could someone have a look at Samuel Gebru? I've reverted the recent addition of some unsourced allegations against him here, but the current version of the article has a statement to the same effect on the Political Involvement section, another passing comment in the EGI section and something about his "alleged" school. Looks like this goes back a year or more, and I'm not confident about resolving it myself. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is he notable enough for a wikipedia bio at this point? Not sure its worth resolving if we can't establish notability. If there is not enough sourcing about him, we should consider WP:AFD Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, can't use blogs as refs, added some refs for his high school. If the IP editors add it back, just revert it. Looking at some of the content they have added, it's clear it is vandalism and BLPVIO. An admin might want to take a look at those diffs, see if it should be rev-del. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protection would probably help, the BLPVIO vandalism dates back to 2021. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving that. I'll keep an eye on it and request page protection if further vandalism happens. Re notability, I've added some additional coverage. I'm leaning non-notable despite this, but will leave it for a while and see if anyone responds to the notability tag. Thanks again, Tacyarg (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No comment on notability but I've fixed a bunch of errors where editors haven't even spelt the guy's name correctly. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabriel Wainer

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Wainer&oldid=1218964877 The original page was vandalized and it includes insulting and libelous items.

I would appreciate any help to have them as they were in April 2024. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 Oct 2024 (UTC)

While the IP's edit summaries cause me concerns about whether they are editing in good faith, they do have a point about deleting a large chunk of the article, saying his works "don't meet the threshold of merit to be included on a wikipedia page. The benchmark he created and his most influential research has less than 10 citations."[1] Now, the unsourced addition from the IP has already been removed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they were not editing in good faith, that edit summary pales in comparison to the BLPVIO content they added. I left a warning on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred, the 15:00, 3 October 2024‎ edit was revdeleted, but the edit summary is still there and strikes me as a BLPVIO. Would you take a look? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose this is a warning for people vain enough to create autobiographies of themselves that people can vandalise your articles with defamatory information, though this partially the WMF's fault for allowing IP editing of BLPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Jacob Appelbaum

Hagiographer on aisle three. The account is JunkmailU, which says it is a reincarnation of an account called BlueSapphires. My particular concern was some of the accounts first edits sought to paint Appelbaum's accusers as liars, though (for now at least) it has appeared to back off from that effort. This is a request for more eyes on the article.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Murphy's allegations are untrue. I never called anyone a liar!

What i wrote was that: I watched the documentary JA (which is on AppleTV) and I wrote what the documentary detailed: one of the guys who accused JA was himself later accused by the two women who started the board. The guy doesn't like JA, but he wound-up questioning the situation. That was part of the documentary. If you watch the documentary on Apple TV, you can see what what I said was the truth. Whether that's the correct way to write about it on Wikipedia may be another question.

Murphy claimed that I'd made a BLP violation against the women. That's false. I didn't draw any conclusions. I wrote about the documentary's content. In any event, I dialed-it-down. Murphy is running around "waving his red hankie", with dramatic flair.

My account is indeed BlueSapphires and I can't log-in, and I'm not getting a password reset, so I made a 2nd temp account, which I declared. He turned that into a crime too.

It seems like he is not neutral, i.e. Murphy distorted the facts, all-around, in a manner which was neither kind, nor accurate.

Thanks for your understanding. Cheers. JunkmailU (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is now a mess. Looks like someone is trying to WP:RGW after watching a documentary. Here is what the lead used to look like; now it has eight paragraphs. And I don't understand this edit either - Nowhere else are the doctoral thesis advisors of any Phd-holder listed on their Bio. - I don't know what is meant by "nowhere else", but it is literally an infobox parameter that is widely used in BLPs, see for example: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Donald J. Harris, David Deutsch and Lex Fridman, just to name a few. The documentary is probably/maybe due for inclusion, but the entire article shouldn't be re-written in favor of the docs narrative. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right in that other people who have Phds listed show their doctoral advisors. This seemed OTT in this case, given that the advisor names were listed before his work was even defined (if you look at the history). Moreover, thesis advisors only appear to be listed on topics or personalities which are REALLY famous, such as : The father of the current Vice President (Donald Harris), the pioneer of Quantum computer (Deutch). I could be wrong, but listing advisors didn't seem appropriate. Perhaps I was wrong.

The introduction was a total mess before, outright libelling someone with rape for whom formal charges were never raised.

But I guess Murphy did a canvassing,and the article is going to be written using the word rape. Chapeau. JunkmailU (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

JunkmailU, here you clearly added the claim [2] "The film found that many of the persons who made the rape allegations had falsely accused others". The claim does not appear anywhere in the only source you provided and I fairly doubt any reliable secondary source will present the film as having findings in that way. So this is a clear BLP violation. Please don't do that again or you can expect at minimum a BLP topic ban. BTW, your own description of what you saw in the documentary above doesn't even support the content you added, not that adding content directly from the documentary was acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. In fact the documentary found that to be the case. So when you say *The claim does not appear anywhere in the only source you provided". YES. It does. In fact, one of the guys who supported that platform, and made allegations against JA, got accused of rape by one-of the two women, she did it online (according to him, in the documentary) - he explains that he was beaten-up by some person-or-persons who was/were holding a phone with he allegation on-it saying "you know why I'm hitting you". It was quite something. Go check it out for yourself.

Returning to the point of my original-sin (!!!) ... in fact, if you look above, I wrote: "If you watch the documentary on Apple TV, you can see what what I said was the truth. Whether that's the correct way to write about it on Wikipedia may be another question."

This feels like being cross-examined. Frankly. Spanish-inquisition-ish. JunkmailU (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

<It's like you want to parse my thought-crime. JunkmailU (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal stake in this point, and I changed it. But I made it in good faith to start-with.

Documentaries are not reliable sources. I know their supposed to be fact-based, but they have no editorial oversight and the "facts" are usually stitched together to fit some narrative in order to make it more interesting than actual journalism. A good example is White Wilderness (film) by Walt Disney. It was supposed to be a documentary about animals in the far north where he shows how lemmings commit mass suicide, but it was a complete hoax. They took thousands of shots of lemmings and stitched them all together into this completely fake narrative, thus creating a myth that still persists today. Now I'm not saying all documentaries are that bad (some, like Ken Burns, are rather good) but it's the reason we can't consider them reliable sources. We can't use Ken Burns for history articles anymore than we can use Forensic Files for crime articles.

The factual parts of most documentaries tend to come from reliable sources. For example, Forensic Files gets much of their info from newspapers, so it's best to find those sources and use them instead. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Zareth. Sage advice, well received. JunkmailU (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually hadn't given it enough thought when I made that edit, so I revised. JunkmailU (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Seong-Jin Cho

Article: Seong-Jin Cho As of four months ago, June 2024, this article was up to standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seong-Jin_Cho&oldid=1229219333 However, this article now consists almost entirely of uncited information, non-neutral language, with an obvious Korean nationalist bias inserted (e.g. repeated removal of the 'Hanja'/Chinese version of the subject's name, which is standard for those of Korean descent).

Most of these edits are due entirely to months of edits from one person: Floresebius, who is now also attempting to do the same to Yunchan Lim, which I've manually reverted twice after reinsertion by this user. However, no one else is actively maintaining the Seong-Jin Cho article. I believe the page should be reverted to the above diff and the page or user locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.118 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Same is now ongoing on Yunchan Lim 130.132.173.118 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you're calling a "Korean nationalist bias". I haven't looked at the Yunchan article, but from digging into the Seong-Jin article I tend to agree. It reads like an autobiography. I didn't check all the sources, but sampled quite a few. There are some good ones mixed in, but we also have things like concert promos and youtube in there quite a bit. Most of the sources are short and tend to only support the sentence they follow, not the entire paragraph or section above them, so there is a lot of information there that could only have come directly from the subject or someone very close to the subject, so it looks like a case of COI editing to me.

Not to be harsh, but much of it is just too detailed and difficult to read. I mean, the English is very good, but there are many entire paragraphs that consist of a single sentence, simply listing every venue he played at or person he's performed with, or things like that. That makes it difficult to read because of the sheer monotony and how boring it is. It's hard for the reader to absorb and retain info that way, and overshadows the forest with all the trees. I definitely agree it needs to be whittled down a lot.

However, there may be some good info added in there as well, so rather than simply reverting to an earlier stage, perhaps it would be better to go through all the sources, keep what we can and toss out the rest. Unfortunately, this really requires someone who can read Korean fluently to do it right. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

An article, vandalism persists (... User:AntiDionysius; User:Daniel Case)

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.

---

Please, someone revert to Special:Diff/1249994783. --109.163.168.198 (talk); 04:41, 10. October 2024. (UTC)

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

Salim Yusuf

An IP user is insisting that a section noting that some of Salim Yusuf's views regarding salt intake and saturated fat is opposed to the mainstream medical consensus is libellous and should be removed. I personally don't see how it is libellous, given the reliable nature of the sources cited, but I thought it would be worthwhile getting input here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any case for libel there, as long as we're faithfully representing what the sources say (and providing they're reliable sources, which at first glance it looks like they are). His medical views are most certainly important to a bio about him, just as a politician's political views are to them.

I really don't know why reporting his views would be an issue at all, but I ask myself this a lot for anyone who comes here worried about being labeled fringe. All the really great scientists of today were the fringe scientists of their time. Lavoisier had his life threatened for speaking out against the phlogiston theory. Wegener was a laughing stock when he proposed plate tectonics. Young had the crap beat out of him for calling light a wave. Those that have their fringe theories immediately accepted, like Einstein, are extremely rare. If history says anything, if you're not being called fringe then you're probably just going to be forgotten.

I don't disagree with his views myself, but then again I tend to eat a lot of salty, fatty foods, as did my dad and most of my ancestors with no ill effect. (Salt was the only way to preserve meat.) Ask any good doctor why and they'll tell you, "We really don't know." If these are the subject's views then it seems to me he should want to stand behind them. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely the question about how Yusuf's views should be the framed, but the fact that his views have brought him into disputes with other doctors and several medical organisations seems relevant and due to include. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Before 2016, Yusuf used to do a lot of valid epidemiology research but he joined the cholesterol denialist camp in 2017 and allied himself with Nina Teicholz, authoring a paper that was funded by her Nutrition Coalition, a group known for promoting all sorts of pseudoscience. These-days much of his content is promoted by fringe figures from the low-carb camp and not on mainstream websites. Yusuf is in conspiracy theory terrority when he claims that Ancel Keys fudged his data [3]. That is a typical low-carb diet talking point that has been discredited.

Yusuf was the co-author of the 2017 PURE study (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) [4]. This is a flawed study that is widely quoted by carnivore diet proponents and those in the low-carb community to justify their belief that saturated fat is "good" in unlimited amounts and "all" carbohydrates are bad. As seen here the study had many methodological problems such as grouping all carbohydrates together [5], [6]. One study is not going to alter consensus dietary recommendations based on decades of research. As we can see on this link [7], Yusuf claims the American Heart Association's dietary recommendations are all wrong. He is arguing from an extreme position. I am not convinced we should remove sources from the article just because some of his followers may be upset with it. The article can be updated and improved, it is probably worth mentioning his involvement with the PURE study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the IP is from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada where Yusuf works, I suspect that the IP is someone closely associated with Yusuf, rather than just a fan. The article needs to balance the fact that Salim Yusuf is a distinguished and high-profile cardiologist with his promotion of controversial and widely disputed claims regarding sodium and saturated fat intake. I think the current version does this OK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, his views are not primary to his notability, so it would be undue to give it anymore weight. Besides, if someone is interested in "debunking" his views, opinions are not facts and thus can't be debunked. We can and should show that others disagree with those views as a matter of NPOV, but for purposes of debunking that often tends to have the opposite effect intended. People are far more likely to believe something just because someone tells them not to. For example, I don't trust the medical industry as far as I could throw it because, as I see it, they're puppets of big pharma and for them it's all about the money. People are far too likely to cite some random study or two as fact, but to be scientifically sound those studies need to be repeatable many times over, and they rarely are. One week honey is a magic cure-all, the next it's bee stings, then fish oil, then acacia berries, etc.

Nutritional advice like the food pyramid comes from the FDA whose primary goal is to help the farmers sell their products, not protect the health of the public, so I don't put much stock in them either. I just eat the way I was raised and don't worry about it. The point is, the weight of information is usually far more significant than the info itself, and giving stuff like this more weight than it deserves will often have the exact opposite results that were intended, whereas less weight would be more effective towards that goal. I agree it's probably fine as is.

I also had a feeling the IP was somehow connected with the subject, hence my previous comments about fringe scientists were directed specifically at them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to state those views publicly then by god you should own them. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

libelous sounds vaguely like a legal threat… if any legal threats are bandied about those are grounds for admin actions Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to use the word libelous, but that in itself doesn't constitute a legal threat. It's simply a comment on the info itself, as perceived by the IP editor, and if any info is found to be libelous it should be removed immediately per BLP policy. But I don't see that as being the case here. Just a misunderstanding of the law. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Roberto Rosario

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

I came across the article of Roberto Rosario by chance; to me it looks like it has very obviously been edited to put the subject in a more favourable light. All of the stated facts are positive, the 'controversies' section only mentions a controversy made by other companies that he disclosed/solved, and the provided references are questionable at best - three sources are linked that are purportedly meant to illustrate that 'PyCon Cuba [is] a joke', but they link to some April's fools joks post from 2018 and 2 reactions to it.

Finally, a post by him regarding his current status is quoted, but the 'many situations' (as quoted) that led to it it are not listed, referred to, or otherwise acknowledged at all. From doing a bit of google research it seems that the actual reasons where quite controversial, which makes it all the more prudent to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.189.90 (talk) 13:19, 11 october 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any significant edits to the article in the past five years, and the account that created the article has been inactive since 2015, so there is no complaint to be made about recent behavior. If you feel that there are aspects of his biography that need enhancing, you can of course suggest edits or even make them yourself, provided that you have reliable third party sources discussing the matter in ways that do not violate our standards for biographies of living persons. I will note that we prefer to avoid having controversy sections at all. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-public accounts being linked to by IP editor

What I believe to be a non-public Instagram account of a public and notable artist has been linked to multiple times by an IP editor. I'm unsure if this falls under the pervue of BLPN but the content has been removed and the user warned for vandalism as the information was added uncited and inserted in the lede and various locations within the article that aren't external links. This account has done this multiple times to this page. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has been page protected by Drmies for a month, so that should help. And hopefully, the IP editor will heed the warnings on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs (Main Page)

Could I get someone familiar with the policy to double-check content before it hits the main page. Josh Hawley's book Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs has been near universally-panned by critics who mock Hawley for initially supporting the January 6th mob before "running for his life" like a "bitch", ask "Is Josh Hawley All Right?", and describe the book as a "disaster". Two hook facts are approved for Wikipedia:Did You Know, both are somewhat negative but I think that is likely necessary to meet WP:NPOV. Any approved hook fact will not run until after the 2024 United States Senate election in Missouri is over.

Comments welcome at: Template:Did you know nominations/Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Pinging @Steven1991 and @Butterscotch Beluga

Most of this list after 2000 is WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME violations and seems extremely troubling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, before I delve too far into this, I'd like to clarify if we should simply remove names from incidents that lack convictions, or should we flat-out delete those? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The same issue happened for List of Islamophobic incidents. I would appreciate if we can address it as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That article is a mess as well. Arguably, not sure why we have an article like that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider taking both articles to WP:AFD then due to WP:NOTDB, as you suggested on talk? Or should we try to narrow their coverage first before considering deletion? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is what the article was originally approved for? I can see that entries started in 2020 and a number of cases were well-documented, well-sourced and the ones widely discussed in Western media, e.g. Charlottesville ramming, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Steven1991 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. If they weren't convicted of a crime, we shouldn't list it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, I had a look at List of Islamophobic incidents and it appears to have similar problems. Should we address them as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I read your first response already. I haven't looked there yet, but let's focus on managing one topic at a time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For the betterment of Wikipedia, it’d be good to address them all. Steven1991 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I know & we should clean that article up as well, I'm just saying that it'd more efficient if we don't split our focus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The entries are as carefully worded as possible to indicate their “suspected” nature, mainly quoted directly from the news articles cited to provide objective descriptions of the hate crimes that happened. Would be there suggestions on how they can be reworded to minimise any impression of presumption of guilt? Steven1991 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at the list suggests there are a lot of incidents that fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. Additionally, if there isn't an article covering the incident it really shouldn't be listed, per WP:DUE. The WP:ONUS is on editors to find consensus for inclusion, and I'd argue about 90% of that list should be deleted per above policies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Mark Carney

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

Some extra eyes on this would be nice. Stickhandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added a "controversy" section to the article (after being reverted) that is based on a single sentence from a single source, which doesn't even focus on that supposed "controversy". This is entirely undue weight, and even though I feel justified to remove it again per WP:BLP policies, I'd be more comfortable if someone else did. Stickhandler refused an offer to self-revert. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

They are now repeatedly reverting my changes to the article, ignoring WP:ONUS in the process. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now stepped in. The other editor is claiming on his talk page that his repeated reinsertions of this material are not an edit wa and criticizing the above poster for acting "entitled" to take the concern here. More hands would be welcome. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert Rosen (writer)

This is false and possibly libelous: "In 1981 Rosen stole copies of John Lennon's diaries from Frederic Seaman, Lennon's personal assistant, and tried to sell them to Jann Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone Magazine." The footnote for this information, "Double Theft-Rosen Testifies" is a dead link. 2603:7000:3802:27B4:ECF7:7654:9C02:DACF (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

the article does not seem notable anyways. should probably be deleted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff where it was introduced yesterday by an account created yesterday. Then it was reverted today by an account created today, and reverted back again today by an experienced editor, AntiDionysius, who I'm hoping will join the discussion and explain how they decided that the current version is accurate.

Normally, we could check the archived copy of the reference, instantkarma.com, but unfortunately, the Internet Archive is not available right now due to a DDOS attack. Offhand, I don't know that instantkarma.com is a reliable source for anything. The Washington Post says that Seaman pled guilty to grand larceny for stealing the diaries and other material from Yoko Ono, but that's distinct from Rosen allegedly stealing from Seaman or vice versa. Per WP:BLPCRIME, I don't know that either allegation should be there, and it certainly shouldn't be presented as a fact. Per "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," I'm going to remove it, and it can be reintroduced if appropriate later, after further discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Rosen did send a copy of the manuscript to Wenner, who told him he couldn't do anything with it because Rosen had no proof. This is all addressed in the first chapter of his book. I'll open a discussion on the talk page since no one else has. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. When I said "the current version," was referring to this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

This article got the name of the person they are covering wrong - her name is Jane Haley (only one y at the end, not after the a). How can this be corrected?

Source: every quoted article on the page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8D40:417C:34E6:5BF4:8C27:DDBF (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, but only since 2021 :/ Afaict you're absolutely correct, so I moved the article, it's now at Jane Haley. Thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Jilly Kelley

Jill Kelley is a biography that could use some attention from thoughtful editors with no particular interest in the subject but an interest in NPOV and getting things right. There's some discussion that I posted on the talk page but the tldr is that there's a claim in a reliable source that her charity went bankrupt, but there's also good reason to think that may not be precisely right - per the form 990, it spent all the money donated to it down to the last penny, but there's not really any evidence of filing for bankruptcy. For a few years after the "wind down" (I'll use that for lack of a better term at the moment) it appears to have been revived. I've recommended to the subject that she contact the Huffington Post for a correction, but that may or may not ever happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording has been changed from bankrupt to defunct, which is supported by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Town & Country magazine, refs in the article. Per the Tampa Bay Times - "According to state corporate records, the group was dissolved in 2007". - Gale A308382313. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to deal with the issue very effectively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Axl Rose

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

I’m reviewing old edits, I can see the tabloid entries were removed in agreement. That information has made its way back in using unreliable sources. A section has been made called “Legal Issues” and another “Lawsuits”. How is this relative to the entertainer’s notability. His biography reads like a personal attack and in every conflict situation and every accusation made, he’s assumed as guilty. The sources are mostly music blogs using clickbait headlines. Demsuz (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of an article must be notable, but there's no expectation that the article's contents are limited to the subject's notability. If you see content that is sourced to an unreliable source or a self-published blog, or where the ostensible source doesn't actually back up the claim, you should remove it. If you think that there are missing viewpoints, you can add them. If you think that the amount of text devoted to his legal issues is WP:UNDUE, you can edit it, or wait to see what kind of discussion your post on the article's Talk page -- only opened yesterday -- leads to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Vexxed

This has been raised before (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Vexxed) but I'm still unconvinced by this article, firstly whether they are actually notable or not, and secondly that their death is currently sourced to Reddit. On the other hand, removing that would suggest that they're still alive, which doesn't appear to be the case but pretty much everything regarding this is on social media and therefore unreliable ... Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is an unacceptable source for a death, I reverted those edits. Also agree his notability is questionable, some of those sources look sketchy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)