Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here. You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns. Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III. Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. Place the {{BLP noticeboard}} template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. All editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators should review enforcement instructions.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Proud Boys and political protest type articles in general

The discussion stems around whether to include the names of individual arrestee roster in the article Proud Boys simply because they appeared in a list of so and so were arrested/charged at so and so protest/incident prior to conviction. I argued against it, but an editor in favor of inclusion argues "seriously consider not including" does not mean do not include". The only thing credible is the fact arrests of those individuals were made, but as far as I know, including those names prior to conviction is discouraged and not included without compelling reason to include them regardless of which political group these arrests are attributed to. Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are the policies to consider here. Is there any loss of context if the members are not individually named? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe not naming them really affects the context. As far as I see it, there's no hurry to rattle off names. That can wait until there's a conviction or it could be talked about in more general terms. Graywalls (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, those wishing to include should gain consensus to do so. See also WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps as a non-involved editor to this point, you could have a look at the discussion Talk:Proud_Boys#arrestee_rosters Graywalls (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns about including the names of those arrested for crimes related to a major event simply because they are associated with a particular organization. I think that WP:BLPCRIME means we have to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis when it comes to allegations of a crime, especially for non-public figures who have not yet been convicted. I also left a comment on the article's talk page with my perspective. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I think discussing specific names with specific information is the best way. From a legal perspective, one or two interviews is generally not sufficient to establish someone as a limited public figure, but I'm not sure how much we need to go by U.S. law. However, I think each individual does need to be evaluated a case-by-case basis with the factors at WP:LOWPROFILE unless they are clearly a public figure, as well as consideration of why particular names are important to the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, the people I mentioned above are all the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, including coverage before January 6 in all cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, if you could provide links to that type of information, I think that would be very helpful, as I am not able to find significant coverage before January 6 using Google searches. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I am beginning an article about Ethan Nordean AKA Rufuo Panman, which is located at User:Cullen328/sandbox/Nordean. At the time of this writing, the draft consists of twelve references, three of which go back to 2018.

If you add keywords related to the 2020 state legislature elections to a Google News search for Ochs and Garcia, you will find plenty of coverage from 2020 that describes how their campaigns were backed by powerful men close to Trump. As for Joe Biggs, there are at least six references in his biography that predate the events of January 6, and the article was created last October. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just because you can find sources, doesn't necessarily mean they make for an appropriate article, considering all three of NOT, BLP, and NPOV, as well as SIGCOV of WPN:. Spot checking the refs in Nordean, the ones prior to Jan 6 2021 aren't really good signs for notability: MediaMatter would be considered a name drop and not sufficient for notability. The others all seem to be similar name drops. That would make him very much not a public figure that we should not be highlighting despite the coverage post Jan 6. --Masem (t) 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I share Masem's concerns with sources such as MediaMatters or SPLC being used to show someone as a public figure, which is sometimes a higher bar than notability, and I am not sure Nordean satisfies either. The SPLC articles discuss Nordean punching someone and posting in private Facebook groups, but it does not seem that he has actively sought out media attention or had a prominent role in the January 6 riot or as a leader of the Proud Boys. I don't think a single appearance on Infowars is enough to establish someone as a public figure. Joe Biggs seems to be notable and was also called the "a leader of the Proud Boys" by the NYT, and so I do not see an issue with mentioning him in the article. I don't think simply listing any members of the Proud Boys who have been arrested is appropriate unless they are clearly a member of the Proud Boys and had some type of more significant or prominent role in the controversy beyond being a participant. Depending on how its worded, including former candidates for state offices may be appropriate and along with mentioning why their participation was relevant and important. It may be helpful for all the non-notable people being included to also have it mentioned in the article why they are relevant to be included. If someone else is objecting to their inclusion, then I think we need to be able to provide links to the sources to support our claims. I don't think it is too much to ask for sources before including the names of non-notable people in an article for being arrested for a serious crime. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Ethan Nordean's coverage before January 6 made him notable by Wikipedia's standards on the 5th, but rather that his documented activities before January 6 made him a public figure according to U.S. law and common sense, and that anyone who reads those twelve sources carefully will understand that he is just as much of a top tier leader of the Proud Boys nationally as is Joe Biggs. And the Wall Street Journal coverage makes it clear that Biggs and Nordean were, effectively, the two leaders of a coordinated mob of roughly 100 Proud Boys on January 6. The coverage of Nordean in reliable sources since January 6 has been massive, and includes extensive original reporting. Much of that coverage describes events before January 6 in addition to extensive content about his participation in that major historical event at the Capitol. I believe that the quality and depth of this coverage overcomes any WP:BLP1E concerns. If anyone disagrees, they are free to make an AfD nomination after I finish the article and move it to main space. I will, of course, oppose such a nomination, and I am highly confident that the community will agree with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I invite any editor to read this article in the Seattle Times and other similar articles, and then try to argue that Nordean is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, BLPCRIME/BLP1E have a higher weight here, particularly as there's no conviction yet so we cannot assume guilt (compared to the tone of these articles you are using). We purposely avoid giving these type of people standalone articles if they have no significant notability ahead of time (which is definitely the case with Nordean) and there's no post-conviction analysis of the person's motives. This is not to say that if Nordean is found guilty (or even what we know now) he cannot be covered in the PB article to document his involvement, but we cannot presume guilt and write that way about it. --Masem (t) 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have completed an article about Ethan Nordean. I welcome input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The blow-by-blow account of current court processes shouldn't be there IMO. Just because a page was created doesn't make him a "public figure" to Wiki standard. Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I also have some concerns about whether there is coverage about him that overcomes WP:BLP1E since it's not obvious from the sources in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Either one of you or any other editor can take the article to AfD, where I am highly confident that the article would be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well now there's citation overkill, (a copy & paste from the Proud Boys article?), of articles that don't even seem to mention Nordean. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I checked the references and already removed some that didn't mention him. I may have missed some, but you may need to look for his nom de guerre being used too. Fences&Windows 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of how well it's cited, I find the entire section Ethan_Nordean#Arrest_and_aftermath undue, on which convictions haven't been secured. Given the way the article's creator said "violent right wing" at the talk page of the article where this spun off of, I'm sensing a hint of bias. Special:Diff/1005035470. No? Graywalls (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Hint of bias"? Incorrect. The phrase "violent right wing" accurately summarizes the very broad consensus of reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the Proud Boys. If you are going to talk about me, please ping me, Graywalls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post a diff of the comment you mentioned, because context is important. Many of these individuals either advocate violence themselves, or are affiliated with organizations where violence is a part of their raison d'être, so sometimes the shoe fits. Regardless of that, I agree that some mention of anyone who's a public figure (if even just low-level) is probably due. But I agree in theory with those urging caution in how much space to devote to these individuals; this should be individually weighted, and those with limited coverage beyond BLP1E deserve little more than a brief mention. Others are in the public eye enough that they should probably be in article space, as a subject. We shouldn't be shy about documenting something encyclopedic. And there's no doubt that the events and recent zeitgeist in the AP topic area are inherently encyclopedic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OR and non-independent sourcing on Roger Kimball page

The Roger Kimball page appears to be a BLP that doesn't get much traffic. I'm concerned about recent material that was added to the article which is solely sourced to Kimball's own article and contains OR. It appears that in December of 2020 Kimball published articles in the Epoch Times and The Spectator saying something to the effect that the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent.[[1]]. The Epoch Time source was removed but the Spectator article was retained. This meant the only source was Kimball's own article used as a source for this content.[[2]] Additionally, the text was edited to say Kimball repeated the "debunked and discredited" claim... It's probably safe to assume the claims were debunked and discredited by the time the article was published but Kimball didn't say that about his own claims. I believe that makes this OR. Anyway, absent 3rd party sources raising a concern about this I think this would be UNDUE and violates OR. I would be interested in the take of editors here. Springee (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If there are no reliable, independent sources that note Kimballs articles, I don't see how it could possibly meet BLP, NOT, POV. --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: The disputed content is sourced to Spectator Australia, which is a WP:RS. Our perennial sources page directs that The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Since the specific cited opinion piece is not a blog, we must look to WP:RSOPINION, which explains, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. In saying that Kimball has repeated the debunked and discredited claim that Joe Biden won the election because of large-scale electoral fraud, we clearly attribute that opinion to him. In so doing, we have properly used a reliable source. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote there are no reliable, independent sources. Articles that he wrote are not independent. --Hipal (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

He is expressing his opinion, as published in a WP:RS. It is entirely compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for us to rely on this source, as long as we identify it as his opinion. We do. NedFausa (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

NOT emphasizes the need for independent sources.

If you're only using his own writing, then it's an OR violation as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Why_independent_sources_are_required. That should clear things up. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. Springee (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the problem is that relying solely on the author's work does not demonstrate DUE weight. Without an independent source, we haven't shown that this is due in an article on Kimball. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Hipal and Shine - the whole gang's here. Springee, you've quoted the WP:INDEPENDENT page out of context. "Subject" (noun) on WP:INDEPENDENT (it's used 33 times) clearly means "the subject of an article" (e.g. Roger Kimball himself), rather than "the subject of Roger Kimball's views on Trump". Looking at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY, there is no overt prohibition on primary sources, merely a stipulation that extreme caution should be shown. There are several more references to Kimball's own journalistic work in the article, but only the reference to Kimball's (repeated and vocal) support for a debunked conspiracy theory has been called into question. Is the position you are taking that primary sources can never be used for a BLP article? Or that calling the "2020 stolen presidential election" conspiracy theory "debunked and discredited" constitutes OR? Noteduck (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Even though it seems obvious, an independent reliable source must discuss Kimball's opinions as debunked and discredited or it is considered synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Please help me understand. It seems you are saying that if a WP:RS were to publish an opinion piece by Roger Kimball in which he declares, for example, that the Earth is flat, we cannot add it to his BLP unless a different WP:RS reports both that:

• Kimball believes the Earth is flat; and
• generic claims that the Earth is flat have been debunked and discredited.

Do I have that right? NedFausa (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is classic WP:SYN. Picking and choosing opinion pieces that he wrote based on what we feel is important or outrageous is coatracking and unverified WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Thank you. And, to extend the analogy, if we were to add to his BLP merely the attributed quotation "I believe the Earth is flat" without identifying it, in Wikipedia's voice, as a debunked and discredited claim, would that be acceptable? NedFausa (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would I agree to extend the analogy given my comments about coatracking and weight? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: In my clumsy way, I'm trying to craft a compromise in which we could reach consensus on substitute phrasing such as:

In the aftermath of the United States Presidential Election, 2020 Kimball wrote, "This was no squalid two-bit voter fraud. It was a planned campaign. … some geniuses understood that COVID was the perfect cover for voter fraud on an industrial scale."

References

I do hope other editors will consider such an approach. We can then leave it to Wikipedia readers to make up their own minds about whether or not such claims have been debunked and discredited. NedFausa (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the others above that this content is not WP:DUE because it is sourced solely to an opinion piece by the article subject. Especially if the article subject's claim is "debunked and discredited", I'm not sure why Wikipedia would be the appropriate place to serve as a mouthpiece for their opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ned, While that sentence doesn't have SYNTH has no weight since no independent RS has talked about it. This is what Hipal and I were trying to articulate. Per Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and with a few narrow exceptions) we need independent RSs to tell us what is important about a subject. If no independent sources call our attention to a specific thing/statement then we shouldn't discuss that thing/quote that statement even if we can verify the subject did it/said it. When editors look at a work by a BLP and decide to highlight a claim in the BLP's work then we the editors rather than an independent RS are giving weight to the statement. If no independent RSs have mentioned it then, per NPOV it has no weight. In this case that sentence would be fine if it were something like this:

"After the election Kimball wrote, [Kimball quote taken from RS]. [cite RS][cite Kimball's article]"

In this case the Kimball article is included as a supporting source because it was mentioned by the RS. Springee (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Wallyfromdilbert and Springee that the issue is that this content is not DUE. You can't just depend on WP editor opinions to decide what parts of what Kimball has wrote belong in the article. Per policy, we are to put the parts that are notable in the article, and we judge notability not based on our own personal opinions or even consensus among us--no matter how reasonable those opinions are--but based on what RS actually say about the subject. What we are seeing here is that a couple of editors find what Kimball is saying to be outrageous, and they therefore judge that readers of WP need to know that he said it. But look: it doesn't matter what you think even if you are right. It only matters what RS say is important about Kimball, and if they don't report it, it isn't DUE. That's it. Otherwise WP would not function. Every article would just report everything that every person ever said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Kimball did not just write one opinion piece in support of this discredited and ultimately insurrectionary conspiracy theory - even before results were counted he was predicting "deliberate fraud and litigation planned by the Democrats".[3] In the aftermath of the election he vociferously promoted the conspiracy theory over and over, alleging that millions of votes were fraudulent, e.g.[4][5][6][7] I can't think of any commentator who has embraced these theories more enthusiastically and more widely. At any rate, it's a moot point, as a few third-party sources have indeed written about Kimball's embrace of the "stolen election" conspiracy theory. For a critical account see[8], for more favorable ones see[9][10] The point about when primary sources can be used is an interesting one though. For example, if a controversial journalist were to be described as bigoted or Islamophobic in the media, and then wrote an article criticizing this claim and defending themselves, would this article be inadmissible on any Wiki page on the grounds that it is not "due"? What about biographical details of a subject - are the subject's own articles inadmissible for these? Noteduck (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, if a controversial journalist were to be described as bigoted or Islamophobic in the media, and then wrote an article criticizing this claim and defending themselves, would this article be inadmissible on any Wiki page on the grounds that it is not "due"? That would depend. Per ABOUTSELF if an article criticizing Kimball for X, Y and Z came out and Kimball replied on his personal blog we could note that Kimball replied and cite the blog entry. If the reply was little more than "no I'm not" then we could say he replied but wouldn't bother to quote him. If the reply was pure trash (say he doubled down on a clearly debunked claim) then we probably wouldn't bother. In some cases where the reply is well considered we may choose to use more of it. See this discussion [[11]] Springee (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the critical or favorable independent sources Noteduck provided is that they are at best WP:RSOPINION, cannot be used to assert facts, and it's not clear how much weight they should be assigned given the publishers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Kimball has vociferously endorsed a violent conspiracy theory, and a bunch of non-primary media sources have reported on it - of course this belongs on his page, but I'll think about the best way to integrate it. Springee, your logic is not sound here. On what grounds are you claiming such a reply would meet the threshold of WP:INDEPENDENT? Why does a primary account of a public figure endorsing a crazy conspiracy theory not belong on their page, but their response to a claim of endorsement of said conspiracy theory does? Noteduck (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Because mentioning the denial would be required under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The best way to integrate the endorsement into the article is to gain consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE. The non-primary media you refer to are also opinion pieces rather than news reports. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, I'm not sure I understand your comment regarding something meeting the threshold of Independent. As for what belongs on Kimball's page, the only content that belongs on his page is content that has WEIGHT. Wikipedia has rules for sourcing. For example, if a public figure, on their personal blog, says he thinks the Cultural Revolution was a great thing but no RS mention it then we have to assume the claim has no weight and thus shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia. If only non-reliable sources mention it then again, no weight. The principle is anything that should be mentioned will have been mentioned by independent, reliable sources. Springee (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Eddie McGuire

There has been multiple founded claims about Eddie McGuire being racist from players who played for Collingwood FC. While this is a contentious issue, the topic is factual, and of interest to the entirety of Australia. Understandably, multiple other users and IPs have come out in support of McGuire. I would appreciate some help in dealing with this matter objectively as BLPs are not really my territory. The rules of the fourth estate apply here to defend the validity of claims until proven otherwise. --120.22.146.148 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem with it being on the article, as long as it is properly sourced and WP:NPOV. No need for it to be in the lede. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have a better solution then fix it. --210.1.220.106 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to. I don't have the time or energy rn to do that legwork, research, and careful writing. My point is that the information shouldn't be in the lede. That doesn't put the onus on me to put it elsewhere. --SuperJew (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, SuperJew, I think you're wrong: it's a big deal, controversy about racism and sexism has surrounded him for years, and being made to step down is important enough. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: It's a big deal, because that's how the media likes to paint it. McGuire has done plenty for inclusion, both of indigenous and LGBT. As JackofOz says below, we need to be careful with the wording and give a neutral point-of-view. Your message is enough example of it - not everyone will agree with you that he was made to step down - he surely could've continued, but has decided to retire as he has been considering the last couple of years. --SuperJew (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: After looking at the article in it's current form, I will say that the way you worded it in the lede seems to me more neutral and descriptive than the previous ways (which said he is racist or accused of racism). --SuperJew (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew, I was trying to find a way that got the bare facts in without either casting stones (though it seems clear there's plenty of rocks laying around) or getting all verbose with describing who said what in which context and which publication. Economy is a virtue. Thanks--but I'll add that I wrote that up after just a cursory read so I'm sure there's room for improvement. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• We have to be very careful with our wording. It's one thing to say that a joke, statement, decision or whatever is racist; but it's quite another to say that the person involved is a racist, which means that he has a deeply imbedded bias/hatred against some/all other races, which is demonstrated on a very frequent, probably daily, basis. Some of McGuire's utterances might be described as racist in content, but to extrapolate from that to say that he is a racist is a step fraught with difficulties, and best avoided. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And that would apply regardless of sources/commentators who describe him as racist. They probably call him an arsehole, wanker, dickhead ... as well, but that doesn't make him one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a problem in this country of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to racism... Regardless of who said what, if you make racist comments you are racist. This applies under calling a duck a duck and there is specifically worded tight regulations on when you can apply the duck theory above. --120.22.234.44 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but WP:DUCK definitely does not apply here -- verbatim, from the current version of the page: "The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view." --50.100.77.106 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Qiyu Zhou

User Ben-Tiger-Woods appears to be the subject's mother. I don't understand the full story, but apparently she is worried about how her daughter's choices will reflect on the family. I do not have any proof, btw., that this user is in fact her mother. It just fits the story that has been told on twitch and the contributions of this user also make it fairly clear that there is some COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ben-Tiger-Woods). Also her talk page hints at this having been a problem in the past as well (which apparently got forgotten/dropped when there was some unpleasantness with vandalism in the past).

User Ben-Tiger-Woods seems to hide "problematic" edits between larger numbers of mostly innocent edits. For example I don't know if every single interview someone has done is relevant for their wiki page. And making it into a story about "positive effect on society" is a bit of a reach. I wouldn't even care about those edits.

But then there is stuff like this one somewhere in the middle of a couple of other revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&type=revision&diff=1005669698&oldid=1005666112

The streamer explicitly said that she dropped out of school to pursue streaming. She intends to finish her degree "one day before her grandparents die". For this year she has dropped her classes and did the official paperwork to drop out. And the justification for the linked change was "correct the vandalism for a livng person, in Canada, you can never drop out a college, instead, you can pursue the degree as long as you want in your lifetime span" - which is ridiculous.

(Removing poland, btw., is correct (same revision, a bit further up). That is a running gag in her stream that keeps getting put back on her page. This might warrant protecting the page.)

--2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:ACBA:45DA:8CEE:DF4 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Still me. There was a bit of an edit war in the history and I just noticed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonJunior

In the specific case of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&diff=prev&oldid=1005998487 I tend to agree. They streamed together for a while. Now they don't. That doesn't seem to warrant marking them as associated acts (not sure what the rules for that attribute are, but this is a very loose association).

But considering all the contributions this user did it is clear that this is another account that has been created with the specific purpose of making "friendly"/COI edits to this page.

e.g. (keeping with the above theme of covering up dropping out of school) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&diff=prev&oldid=1005792986

--95.89.12.116 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good gravy. Where to start... This article has been created and maintained, and edit-warred over by a host of SPAs (WP:Single purpose accounts). It's not proper to speculate on who, but I would say it's likely several of them are the same user, or otherwise have some COI. That said, the subject is most certainly notable, but the article is just awful. It takes the idea of putting everything into a timeline of events much too literally, making for a very dry reading. There are a lot of good sources, and a lot of good info from those sources that tell us more about the person --which is what this article is about-- which for some reason we're not utilizing. Then there are quite a few primary sources that are being used inappropriately. There is also quite a bit of chess jargon that is not really explained to the general reader (ie: things like U-10 should be spelled out at least one, "under the age of 10). This article is in the need of a major overhaul to make it more of an encyclopedic article and less like a resume. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Just pinging Sportsfan77777 in case they haven't seen this discussion. Sportsfan77777 has overhauled the article massively since the above was written and we're currently mid-Good Article review. Could be that I'm completely out of the loop and Sportsfan77777 is already well aware of this thread but I guess this is something to bear in mind when observing future edits by others.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow. To Sportsfan77777, I am impressed. It looks like a totally different article. I haven't had time to read all the way through it yet, but from what I've seen, good job. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Bilorv, I had not seen this. And thanks for the gratitude, Zaereth! I had not assumed that user had a COI (although it wouldn't surprise me given that her father created the page, and at another point tried to delete it for no clear reason). I will be mindful of that possibility in the future. (Though, I also wonder as to how the IP user above knows that?) At the moment though, I had them blocked (for SOCK-ing, not for a COI), and I rewrote the whole page, so them editing the page may not be a concern for now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gorilla Glue

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

I'm sure that many of you are familiar with this news story, but if you're not then here's a quick synopsis:

A woman ran out of her typical hair product and used Gorilla Glue in its place. She had to go to the ER to try and get it removed. During this she posted about this to social media, gaining media attention in the process. Around this time an outlets began to spread false claims that she is considering a lawsuit - apparently it started with TMZ. The woman herself has denied that a lawsuit was ever actually considered.

Information about this woman has been repeatedly added to the article. This poses a BLP issue since there's no evidence of lasting (or really any) impact to the company and there's the concern of misinformation being added to the article, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. I just want some extra eyeballs on the article for the time being to help prevent it from being re-added. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

At best, this may have potential as a meme but that requires some element of enduring coverage of that, of which this is not yet at. Agreed that removal at this point given the person otherwise being a non-public figure would be 100% the best option. Even if it was added, it could be added without WP mentioning the name (even though the sources would). --Masem (t) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much the textbook example of why we have both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Person does something foolish, it creates a flash-in-the-pan slow-news-day item, we erect an permanent monument to her shame. This is something that needs to have been forgotten— yesterday. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

100%. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No issue for me if the story is mentioned in the article without naming her per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you be considered a "victim" if you do something to yourself and then draw attention to your actions by posting about it on social media? I don't think that's what WP:AVOIDVICTIM is meant to do. Mo Billings (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, people are often victims of their own silliness or stupidity. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The woman herself has stated that she did the videos as both a warning and because she was trying to get help, as she was scared. Whether this is the truth or a reaction to the public backlash is up for debate, but eh, not our case to argue for either side. It sounds like while she is enjoying some of the attention, she does kind of want this all to disappear. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that her story belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. I was just commenting that WP:AVOIDVICTIM is intended to give editorial guidance about people who are "victims" of crimes, not to spare people from being embarrassed by their own actions. Mo Billings (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See my comment below. Note also that no where does AVOIDVICTIM say "crime". It say's "another's actions" as I highlighted below. In quite a lot of jurisdictions, prior to recent law changes, if an adult knowingly allowed someone to record them having sex, even if they said it was just for them both, and the second person the uploaded it all over the place or sent it to their friends and family, this often wouldn't be a crime. Even if an adult sent an intimate to someone else, and this person sent it all over the place, again this often wouldn't be a crime. It may have been copyright infringement, but that's generally a civil issue except in cases of significant or commercial infringement. In some jurisdictions, one or both of these may still not be a crime. It's ludicrous to suggest the "another's actions" don't apply to these just because they didn't involve crimes. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh if only I could gain fame for all my super-glue accidents... I'm going o agree with Mangoe. This isn't a case where AVOIDVICTIM even needs to come into play. If it turns into something big and lasting, then it becomes encyclopedic, but Wikipedia should not be the place to report every freak (mishap) of the week, every person that's earned themselves 5 minutes of fame, or every bit of filler newspapers use to make up space. If it turns into some huge meme or something, then I'd think about revisiting it and the AVOIDVIC, but not yet. Good chance it'll fizzle out and the next one will rise momentarily to take it's place, and in a week no one will remember this. Zaereth (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well there is a section in the article about health hazards and one in another article about the chemical's safety issues. I think RS will continue to refer to this incident afterwards in the caveat context of not adhering the glue to body parts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

AVOIDVICTIM says "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization". This implies two things. One "another's action" means if someone sends a video to a friend who then uploads it or something, this could reasonably be taken to apply. However it's hard to say it applies when the person intentionally uploads a video to social media. But at the same time, the fact that it says this also means the section does apply when people aren't "victims", it's just not immediately of "particular importance" and the last sentence doesn't apply. Otherwise it would say something like, "this only applies" or probably a rewording of the earlier part. The first two sentences of avoid "avoid victimisation" should always be taken on board, not only in cases of "victims". Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Lisa D. Cook

Lisa D. Cook is an economist who is currently in the news--for example, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/white-house-officials-back-economist-lisa-cook-for-fed-board. Twice this week, Special:Contributions/Hangsun.577 has edited the article to insert a tweet made by a co-author about the Tea Party movement. Here are the edits that concern me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_D._Cook&type=revision&diff=1006113452&oldid=994252727

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_D._Cook&type=revision&diff=1006319054&oldid=1006279365

I think these insertions are irrelevant to the current contents of the article, and the way they are written ("without evidence") seems like a slanted point of view to me. I've reverted this twice, so I want someone else to get involved.--EAWH (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have warned User:Hangsun.577 that if this is repeated they will be blocked. Fences&Windows 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

William Kwaku Asante vs Joseph King Amankrah

There appears to be some confusion here, I think the latter should be deleted...GrahamHardy (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging, GrahamHardy. I thought perhaps the first article was just used as a template, but the refs don't refer to anyone called Amankrah and I can't find that there was a Ghanian politician by this name. I speedily deleted it as a hoax. Fences&Windows 23:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Whitney Wolfe Herd

Can people keep an eye on the Whitney Wolfe Herd article? She recently became a billionaire and has been the subject of media attention and the Wikipedia has seen a flurry of activity over the past day. I don't think all of the edits are bad however people keep adding undue negative material cited to self-published tweets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Laura Kelly

This page is being locked by certain users who are preventing reasonable edits based on factual information accompanied by proper sourcing. They simply keep arguing the information is not relevant and undoing edits rather than making any suggested changes or their own modifications edits to fix concerns. The edits involve Laura Kelly and her administration's response to the COVID pandemic, which are certainly relevant to Laura Kelly's BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggieville (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be an ordinary content dispute where Aggieville needs to gain WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page before restoring the material as per WP:ONUS. Here is an example of the content that IPs have been edit warring into the article the past few days: [12]. It looks like that content has been removed by four different editors over the past two days for WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH concerns. Aggieville has created the following thread on the article's talk page if anyone is interested: Talk:Laura Kelly#Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021. I tend to agree with the response left by FantinoFalco there that the content would be better for the article on the COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas rather than Kelly's biography. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This article has been repeatedly edited without reaching consensus. The edits were done by a user without login. Request for semi-protection was granted (not done by users who contested those edits as insinuated by Aggieville) by administrator. The edits do not pertain to the governor herself. Given the argument, you could literally cite any event in the sate during the tenure of the governor. According to Wikipedia:BLP BLP's are not newsblogs. I am glad, Aggievielle decided to open an account so we can have a discussion on this. --FantinoFalco (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

• Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From the lead:

The Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case revolved around an 11-year-old American named Jessica Leonhardt (known as "Jessi Slaughter" and "Kerligirl13" online) whose profanity-laden videos went viral on Stickam and YouTube in 2010.

From the lead caption:

Dahvie Vanity (right) (real name Jesus David Torres), whose alleged underage sexual relationship with Jessi Slaughter (real name Jessica (now Damien) Leonhardt) led to the posting of videos online, for which they were bullied and harassed.
Although Leonhardt denied the claims due to online pressure, they and multiple others later accused Vanity of raping or sexually abusing them as children

BLPN discussion from 2010: Archive90. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Even though I commented in the AfD in 2010, I've gone ahead and deleted this as a BLP emergency, given that so many real names and serious allegations are involved, and some of the sources don't look ideal. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Bangalamania, can you take us through your thinking about why you recreated this? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I recreated the article because of the (2018–19) rape/assault allegations against Dahvie Vanity, and the in-depth Chris Hansen interview which revealed new information. I was thinking of moving the page over to a title which focused on this aspect over the "cyberbullying" (in reality harassment and abuse of a minor). The fact that there have been FBI investigations and articles talking about this ten years since the initial incident (and since the page was deleted) showed some continued notability, and the reason why it was deleted in the first place – safety concerns over the BLP of a child – seem redundant now.

If there are problems with the sources, or use of real names, or other personal information, then those sources and revisions can be deleted. This is a notable topic regarding the bullying of an alleged victim of sexual abuse, who has given on-the-record and in-depth interviews with reliable sources about the harassment they received. – Bangalamania (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no indication in the article, unless I missed it, that the police were investigating. If there's consensus that I shouldn't have deleted it (or if uninvolved admins/editors say so), I'm willing of course to undelete, or anyone else can do it without checking with me first. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it was mentioned in the article, apologies if it wasn't.

"Insider has also learned that an FBI special agent interviewed Leonhardt and two women who have also accused Torres of sexual assault, though no charges have been filed. Those two women, in addition to Leonhardt, told the FBI that Torres sexually assaulted them when they were underage. Both women provided Insider screenshots of correspondence with the same FBI special agent."

– Bangalamania (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Insider Inc.#Insider doesn't appear to be an RS for serious allegations in a BLP, and you would need multiple sources, that's assuming the accused counts as a sufficiently public figure per BLP. And even if yes, I think it would have to be written differently. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You can always nominate it for deletion review, i.e. ask that the AfD deletion and mine be overturned. That's probably the best way ahead if you still want to recreate it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Insider wasn't an RS for this; I know that Business Insider has no consensus over at WP:RSN, but this isn't syndicated content. Even without that fact, I would think that this topic warrants an article.

Thanks for being so kind and guiding me through the process, I have listed it up at the deletion review now (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 15). − Bangalamania (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Slaughter has had significant coverage in major news sources, and this is worthy of covering in an article in some form but I agree that care is needed in how the material is presented to comply with the Biographies of living persons policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with Hemiauchenia. Jessi Slaughter and Dahvie Vanity have both seen a spike in coverage since 2019. I found sources from The Independent and Buzzfeed News that prove that WP:PERSISTENCE is met. [13][14] I do agree that we need to do whatever we can to ensure this article is accurate though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

British Members of Parliament - Date of Birth

Currently it appears that many articles about British Members of Parliament (MPs) contain dates of birth either unsourced or sourced to this raw data from the UK Parliament's official website, thought to be wrong in at least one case (Paul Maskey). Limited RSN discussion found issues with the reliability of the source. Users like Alex B4 and Opkiller82 have taken issue either by comment or by reverting with 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013, who rapidly removed many of the DOBs. A reminder that WP:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis in the original). Per WP:BURDEN, if you revert then you must be able to explain why the information you are re-adding is true and justified by the reliability of the source, rather than justifying the action procedurally ("discussion was in the wrong forum", "more discussion needed"). Recall also that WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private" and such information must be "widely published" for us to include it (which the raw data obviously and egregiously fails).

Opkiller82 says they emailed one MP to confirm their date of birth, which is fine as an extra precaution, but does not get around the fact that all sources we use must be published, and this information in particular needs to be widely published.

I suggest we treat this as a serious BLP issue and continue the IP's efforts by removing all dates of birth with no source or the raw data as source, and then manually on a case-by-case basis re-adding those for which we can find reliable sources (WP:SELFPUB included). Or, if someone can find an actually reliable list of all MPs DOBs then we could use that as a source (but every DOB will still need to be checked against that new source). I am aware that this is a huge pain that could take a lot of editors' time but it is important to take this seriously. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also discussed on this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive323#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people. I'd cleared out the dates of birth referenced by the whole list (see data.parliament.uk/membersdataplatform/services/mnis/members/query/House  ), I wasn't aware of the individual records search being used as well. Those results can (hopefully) be seen at data.parliament.uk/membersdataplatform/services/mnis/members/query  . FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, I agree with Bilorv and do not see it fit to revert until we have resolved this. My exact comment on the IP user's talk page was:

Hello. Having looked at the linked discussion in your edit summaries, it a. was held in the wrong forum and b. was only contributed to by four users with minimal policy referencing. I recommend re-instating the DOBs but with a Better source needed or Citation needed template, since the priority of including key facts such as DOBs in pages is why said templates exist. Thanks.

This remains my recommendation so that should be considered my contribution to the discussion. Alex (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The date of birth a British MP is rarely a particularly interesting part of their article. I contest the idea that it is a "key fact". At most, the year of birth is of some interest, but the exact day matters not one iota. We should err on the side of caution/WP:BLP and remove until we are confident the information is well sourced. Wikipedia is meant to be about good quality prose, not being an almanac of birthdays. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Where does Wikidata fit into this? Right now, of course, a lot of its sourcing just scrapes from Wikipedia, which is not helpful. wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians might be where this is resolved? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata's "referencing" of other Wikimedia projects is horrendously circular and asks for trouble. Let's clear up our mess and leave them to theirs. — Bilorv (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. So we should wipe the things completely until there's a reliable source -- which would consist simply of someone other than us making the proper query to that database, publishing it somewhere that satisfies WP:RS, and then all that now-questionable data is valid. This is solely a technicality; nobody is saying the data is per se unreliable, just that it doesn't meet our BLP standard to the letter. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's nice that we're all on the same page. DOBs are really trivial information in the scope of a person's entire life and career. It's nice to have them when readily available, but not at all necessary for understanding the subject any more than it would be for understanding, say ... lasers. If it was in even a government profile then I would probably say ok, but if you have to dig through lines of code to find it, then I would say the source fails all measure of BLP policy and is straying into OR territory. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider that someone else publishing the DOBs in bulk would meet WP:BLPDOB. Remember that especially for DOBs, although as for all areas of Wikipedia, the information being unreliable is not the only consideration. The information also needs to be sufficiently published in sources to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, as I say nearly every time this comes up, we do have a lot of articles with DOBs where the sourcing clearly does not meet our standards. It doesn't help that a lot of people think of DOBs in a similar manner to Alex, important biographical information that must be included when policy says almost the opposite. We get similar problems with real names/birth names/full names as well as the names of childrenetc, although there's normally stronger push back against that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood, Jpgordon. The data is not necessarily accurate because we know it was wrong in the case of Paul Maskey and no-one has actually checked accuracy in other cases (that I can see). If another source just copied this data then I would be concerned of that source's reliability. It's also not a technicality that a source has to publish it because we need per WP:BLPPRIVACY the information to be widely published for safeguarding reasons. I'm not saying that data is wrong. I'm saying that data has not been proven to be correct, and that even if it were correctness would not be sufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Just spotted you referring to the Wikidata MPs project - from that side, I don't think we have an easy answer here, sorry. I've been mostly focused on validating the career data not the biographical data.

At the moment about 500 of the 650 sitting MPs have a date of birth sourced to the Parliament linked-data service (which has the same underlying data as this bulk source; report) - it looks like I added these sources at some time last year, as most were otherwise just "imported from Wikipedia". However, given the issues flagged up here I may have to look at this again... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This again? Raw data is not a reliable source without informed interpretation and publication. WP:BLP requires adherance to reliability that in other areas is less problematic. Secondly, WP:DOB is very clear on the requirement for reliable sources. Lastly, a database provided by the Houses of Parliament containing data on its own members (MPs) is a primary source. And WP:BLPPRIMARY is also very clear on using primary sources for details like DOB's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In a strange turn of events, the current removal spree is by the same IP editor that caused the previous threads by insisting the raw data had to be used. FDW777 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777:, As it happens, I am the same person who sparred with you on numerous occasions on this issue when I fought vehemently for the British Parliament website. It was upon your counsel and realising there was not just the one case in Paul Maskey, but in several cases upon checking more reliable secondary sources that I realised you were right and I was wrong, and I am delighted to say I totally agree with you now.

UK Parliament - Members' Names Data Platform

I note the above discussion. I don't see that anyone in the discussion has troubled to identify the source of the disputed data; it seems to be being discussed as "raw data" like some sort of weird alien.

The service under discussion is the Members' Names Data Platform. It is published by the UK Parliament. It is termed a beta service, and has been so termed for the last 7 years. Of the service, Parliament says: "Data stored on the platform will be correct to the best of our knowledge".

The service has been designed expressely by UK Parliament to disseminate data. The UK Parliament stands by the data it disseminates. The UK Parliament is a reliable source: its information is disseminated by a team of professional librarians.

I do not see that there is any good argument, given the credentials, the express purpose and the express undertaking of data quality, that wikipedia should treat this service as anything other than a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It may just be reliable, but that's not the only issue, not by a long shot. So would a birth certificate, yet those are not allowed. Tax records are probably reliable, or court documents (nobody ever lies at court, right?). The main issue is that this is a primary source, and BLP rules are very clear, and very strict about the use of such sources when it comes to birthdates. In most cases, there needs to be coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a public document akin to a birth certificate or a court document. It is not, for me, settled that a publication of the UK Parliament Library & Information Service is not a secondary source - LIS is clearly distinct from the legislature as well as from the MPs. WP:BLPPRIMARY points to WP:PRIMARY which talks in terms of "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". There is, per the discussion at that page, no original research being done here. No interpretation. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is the case here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPDOB says Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. It's raw data, hidden away on an obscure part of the website that displays the data as an XML file, and I doubt many MPs are even aware it exists considering how many hoops need to be jumped through to even see the data. That's practically the opposite of "widely published". It isn't published on a page such as this which every MP has, or some similar profile page. FDW777 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that unless there are multiple reliable sources, the dates of birth are not "widely published" and should generally not be included on BLPs. We should err on the side of privacy for the personal information of living individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're not seeing a good argument it's because you're not looking for one. I quoted WP:BLPPRIVACY, so that reliability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, and the case of one of the data (for Maskey) being incorrect. On the other hand, I was unable to identify how the data were gathered and "it's part of a beta service" (even though the UK government seems to describe almost all of its website this way sometimes) doesn't fill me with confidence. — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. In the case of politicians, if it were only found in a single government profile, which is easily accessible, then I would say go for it. Politicians have a measure of control over the information put in those, but a source like this is unacceptable, not necessarily for reliability reasons (those too), but for reasons of demonstrating that it's ok with the subject if we publish it. This is one of many reasons why we need to be careful with primary sources, and in reality, when using primary sources like this we're actually doing the work of investigative reporters, or secondary sources. In other words, original research, which can often lead to misinterpretations and even synth. There are larger issues at play when it comes to BLP rules. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv actually that’s where you were wrong because I noticed several of them were wrong for example even Keir Starmer himself had the 20th september (my birthday lol) instead of 2 September as his birthday. This source is totally unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully this means case closed as we have conclusively decided it is not a reliable source. If you want my recommendation for better sources use their Twitter feeds if applicable and I know of a great source that’s a book called The Women MPs 1997-2019 by Iain Dale and Jacqui Smith about female MPs which of course is reliable, with one of them being a former MP herself, albeit an expense-grabbing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is almost never a reliable source by itself, especially for DOBs. See, for example, the discussion two sections below. BLP rules are very clear, and very strict about the level of sourcing needed for DOBs. (ie: not just reliable, but multiple reliable sources). It's nice to have DOBs --when they are very readily available-- but they are really not necessary for understanding the subject. It's a special interest item, and as such there will always be people with special interest in them (numerologists for example), but in the grand scheme of things, like all special interest items, it's trivia. Great for questions on Jeopardy, but not really necessary to define the subject. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This idea that dates of birth are "trivia" is such a bizarre argument to me. Just because some people are not interested in something does not make it trivia, and dates of birth are just as significant as places of birth, parents, spouses, etc. Those writing about public figures may well want to know the age when someone became, say, a member of parliament; without a DOB, that can only be an approximation. The vast majority of information included in articles is not strictly "necessary to define the subject". It is odd and rather disconcerting to see people treating a date of birth as some kind of ultra-private thing; I obviously agree that digging through birth certificates etc. would not be appropriate, but where the information is on an official parliamentary website, however out-of-the-way the section of the website may be, it's out there. A parliamentary website clearly does not come under the terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY.

That said, this particular source clearly has some issues. The difficulty of accessing it is a valid point, but I would say the official nature of it counterweighs that to a degree. The accuracy issues are concerning, and it seems obvious that a better source would override this one. I also note that the House of Commons profiles on their website appear to include no personal information whatsoever in any capacity, so that better option is not necessarily available. As for demonstrating that it's OK with the subjects that this information is out there, the fact that plenty of MPs' birthdates are not included in this data is a pretty clear sign that it's possible for them not to have this information listed if they prefer it that way, and consequently that the information is drawn from what they themselves have provided. Accordingly, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" (WP:BLPPRIVACY). The source seems OK to me to be used, though with caution. If further clarification is needed, though, I wonder whether an email to the House of Commons website team may be useful. I'm sure they can clarify where they're drawing this data from.

I am glad to see agreement above, though, that a standard parliamentary profile would be sufficient here. I can see the arguments against this particular source; I can't see the argument requiring additional sources where a DOB is clearly published as part of a parliamentary profile. Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that we need o be sure that it's fine with the subject if we publish the date. If it's in an official gov. profile, then that pretty well confirms that the subject is ok with it being made public. So, I see no problem with a gov. profile. For other types of sources, like magazines for example, it's not always so clear that it was published with the subject's approval. If, on the other hand, it's published in multiple RSs, then we can reasonably assume that it is ok, or else the subject would have complained and any RS would simply redact the info. That's why multiple RSs are needed, unless there is a clear indication of approval from just one source (like gov. profiles). And the only reason I find those acceptable is that politicians have less expectancy of privacy than your average citizen.

In the matter of what is trivia and what is not, well, that's a matter of information type rather than personal likes. The question I'd ask myself in this case is, does the information really tell us anything about who the subject is as a person? In other words, if we omit the information, will we still be able to understand the subject? Have we really lost anything of importance? I say that because it's not such a big deal if we can't find one. It's not worth going out a digging deep into primary sources just for a number. That's what makes it trivia, not much different from weight, height, favorite color, or other statistical data. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D, for your comment, which sheds more light onto how consistently unreliable the source is. I think you don't intend to @ me though, as I'm also arguing against use of the source. — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Alan Mikhail

Several editors are obviously biased and only add negative materials. This should be neutral. Facts only. Not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakistan4ever (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing dates of birth from tweets by subject

The Dream (Youtuber) article has a lot of drive by edits to add the date of birth, sourced to unreliable sources, including recent repeat additons by the user TBM Red sourced to the blacklisted Famous Birthdays [15] and "influencermarketinghub.com" [16]. All of these sources just appear to be copy pasting each other without providing a source of the date. The ultimate source of the date (as cited on their Wikia article) appears to be two tweets by the subject on two separate accounts. The first essentially states "its my birthday" dated August 12th 2020, while the second is from the same day and is a picture of a cake with "21" on it, captioned "yummy". In my view, taking from this "August 12, 1999" as a birth date is a novel synthesis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly right, and, like the above DOB discussion, this has come up here before many a time. Twitter is rarely, if ever, a reliable source on its own, and many tweets are far too open to interpretation. People routinely lie about their birthdates, or celebrate them on the nearest holiday or weekend, or celebrate "rebirths", etc... Anything short of a direct statement along the lines of, "My birthdate is..." is going to reek of synth. I'd stick to the "technicalities" on this. If it's not found in multiple reliable sources, then we should err on the side of caution and remove it. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Austin Theory

Austin Theory is a professional wrestler currently working for WWE who was accused of sexual assault as part of the "Speaking Out" movement that took place over a period of weeks and months in 2020 -- as tends to be the case with both accusations like these and accusations regarding celebrities, few actual facts are known and the most that should be said on the topic is that he was accused. As of right now, the only mention of this is a sentence attempting to draw a specific conclusion by referencing tweets from a completely anonymous account whose express intention seems to be to defame the accuser. Whether or not whomever is editing the page believes this is warranted or not, I don't believe the manner in which this topic is being referenced is at all appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. They also seem to have repeatedly attempted to insert almost the same sentence and references into the Speaking Out movement page along with other equally as badly-sourced claims that seem to be in various states of removal from the page. The bit about Theory is still in there though.

For now, I've added a better source needed template following the aforementioned sentence and references both on Theory's page and the Speaking Out page.

--50.100.77.106 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Austin Theory is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so the proper analysis is determining whether the allegations are cited to reliable sources and presented neutrally rather than make a determination whether the accusation is true. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Charles Allen Dyer

This page dies not say disputed. This case is greatly contested. The wife lied on the stand because she was being divorced for illicit sex acts. She looked up how to win custody at all costs. Her computer had all the evidence however never presented in court.

Further your article places a minor child in danger and by stating who the alleged victim is. This is grievous!

All your articles are biased, this one is out right wreckless and dangerous, promoting anyone with minamal effort to be able to harass and harm any persons involved in the case.

This article need to be removed in Its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:101:3D00:B9FC:6083:B777:DF27 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. There is no Wikipedia article called Charles Allen Dyer. Please give us the exact name of the Wikipedia article in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you are talking about Charles A. Dyer. His felony conviction is well documented. Any problems you have with the article should be discussed at Talk: Charles A. Dyer. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tulio Capriles Mendoza

In the article TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA there are several incorrect references use as “realible public sources”. The books cited are not in ANY way related or mention the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA. So by mistake they were use in this article as citations. Both text and citations should be removed.

The text says...”Tulio Mendoza is the publisher of the Spanish-language newspaper El Siglo, who formerly served as Venezuela's Minister of Public Information under the presidency of Hugo Chávez.[1] Reference #1 “ Carroll, Rory (25 February 2014). Comandante : myth and reality in Venezuela. New York, NY: Penguin. ISBN 978-0143124887”,

The reference is incorrect and misleading to the fact that the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA is NEVER mention in this book. Mr. Rory Carrol never talks about newspaper EL SIGLO. Moreover, after carefullly reviwing the book, the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA not only does never appears in the whole book but it never talks about a minister of public information at all or relating to HUGO CHAVEZ.

Moreover, the name Hugo Chavez is synonimous to dictatorship, criminal, and against human rights among many bad connotations to be related with. It can be libellous.

The text in the article TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA says....”Unafraid to use the information if opponents didn’t back down or join the team, he became known in Venezuela’s political circles as a ruthless campaign operative. His feared techniques were often referred to as the “Tulio guillotine."[3] Another incorrect reference is #3 Young, Jeff C. (August 2007). Hugo Chavez : leader of Venezuela. Greensboro, NC: Morgan Reynolds Publishing. ISBN 978-1599350684.

After reviwing the book by Mr. Jeff Young, again the book NEVER mentions neither TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA nor the term “Tulio Guillotine”. So again this reference is UNSOURCE by mistake.

According to this information provided, we suggest this ARTICLE MUST BE REVIEW INMEDIATELLY, if the reference are not confirmed by the author to mention TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA the whole text is 100% unsource. In addition, due to the fact is relating a person to a very bad image of a politician as Hugo Chavez is also potentially libellous. According to the Wikipedia policies, unsource information should be removed immediately.

Please see my comment on the article talk page. GSS ^💬 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, yes. This is indeed distressing. As far as I can tell by searching google books, not one of the five sources even mention this person's name even once. I'm not sure about source 2, because it's a dead link, but none of the books do. Further more, a quick google search shows no reliable sources on this person. I don't know if blanking the entire article would be a good choice. Probably best to just put it up for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I left a message at the talk page as well. Although, according to our article, this person is long dead and is not subject to BLP, I still think another set of eyes would be helpful. Unless I'm missing something, this is a completely unsourced article making some very bold claims. That is, there are some good sources on Hugo Chavez yet not a single one mentions the subject's name. I'm not sure if this is for real, or a hoax, or just someone with a grudge, or maybe I'm missing something entirely. Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Millie Perkins

Millies biography states she only appeared in 4 episodes of ANY DAY NOW. According to IMDB, she appeared in 14 episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:6224:DE00:C935:76C5:805:D55D (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but IMDB is never a reliable source. In fact, they get a lot of their info from us, even sometimes copying vandalism and our mistakes. Please find a reliable source for this and perhaps we can help. Zaereth (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Sentis

This pwrson has created his own wikipedia pahe. He is self promoting his pwrson portrayinghimself as a world leader. He uses wikipedia for his own promotion and has uploaded the version of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.171.45 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, that article is terrible. It's just a few days old, and I would say it reads like a resume, except even a resume has some sort of context. This is really just a list of jobs. The sourcing also looks bad at forst glance, although I haven't had time to go through them all, what I have seen are basically primary sources like company profiles. I would say this looks like a likely candidate for AFD, but a part of me is thinking it may be better to just speedy it as no indication of importance, as, beyond the fact that he has had a lot of prestigious positions, there is just nothing written in the article to indicate what make this person noteworthy.

Someone with more time should really look into it deeper and see if it's worth salvaging or if it should be deleted one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox

Hello, Regarding the entry concerning Robin Lane Fox, I do not understand the need to indicate at the end of the article about him that he is an atheist. I do not see any sort of similar description (of religious preference or lack of it) in the other biographical entries that I've read on Wikipedia (admittedly I have not read everyone of them). I do not see the importance or need for it here and if it's needed here then it's need in all bios. There is precious little in the article about him as it stands, it needs more but not that. If I knew more about him I would add it, but I don't that's why I looked him up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob em (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger Friedman

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

I'd appreciate an experienced pair of eyes on this article. To my way of thinking, it's somewhat relentless in its negative portrayal of the subject, especially with the level of detail and the quotes appearing in the "Fox News; termination" section. I realise that if coverage of the subject is uniformly bad, then the BLP will most likely mirror that; at the same time, I have to confess I usually write about dead musicians or defunct music acts so I've got very little experience with BLPs. I've added some details just now, so it's perhaps a slight improvement compared to a few edits back.

I was alerted to this issue by IP user edits at other articles, all zeroing in on Friedman or his (non-RS) Showbiz411 website, and labelling him a gossip blogger by profession (eg, at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the latter's talk page, and Knight and Day). Perhaps I'm wrong about the tone and detail at the BLP – again, my inexperience in this field – but if someone could look at it, that would be great. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Stacey Dooley

Stacey Dooley's birth name is not Anastacia. See below:

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=8782&h=11889319&tid=&pid=&queryId=ea6fd710323819750b9c3bf5193f228d&usePUB=true&_phsrc=Ibq75&_phstart=successSource

This was put about probably as a joke by Kevin Clifton, and has been inserted into this page when it is in fact incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOwl1970 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)