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.

Kris Kristofferson

• Kris Kristofferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello there. Additional opinions might be needed on the Kris Kristofferson article regarding his 2016 Lyme disease diagnosis. The current discussion can be found at Talk:Kris Kristofferson#Lyme Disease - revisited. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Since no one's responded, I go ahead and give you my two cents. This isn't really a BLP issue as much as it's an NPOV issue. Now, if it were a case of people speculating someone had a disease, it'd be a different story. For example, if we tried to put in his article that so-and-so said, "Biden's poor performance in the debate was the result of mental illness." that would be a big no-no per BLP policy. In this case, the source of the information is the subject himself, which the article makes clear, so we can simply take that for what it's worth. Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it a misdiagnosis? Doesn't matter. It is simply what he said.

The bigger question is: is it DUE? We have one source, Rolling Stone. The other two sources are simply regurgitating the Rolling Stone article, which they freely admit. (This is a reliable source's way of saying, "We're not taking any credit or blame for this. We didn't do any fact checking. This is all on them.) Is this one source enough to show that this is due weight, or is it just trivia?

One thing that strikes me is how very little this tells us about the subject. As someone who's never heard of him before (yes, I've been living under a rock... rock n' roll) the sentence in question made little sense until I read the sources. Without knowing any of the background info, I was like, so? Who cares? People get lyme disease, so what? It wasn't until I got the background information that it began to show some significance in his life, and this is what's missing for the average reader to be able to understand. When we summarize a source, we need to summarize the whole source, not simply pick parts of it and leave the significance of it all a mystery. Of course, if we do that it might make it even more undue given the lack of independent sources.

The one thing that really stands out is the next sentence, and I quote, "Noting that the diagnosis was facilitated by an alternative medicine doctor, David Gorski commented that Kristofferson had become a victim of chronic Lyme disease quackery." That one is poorly written in that it could have several different meanings, depending on how you look at it. Is this Gorski his alternative medicine doctor? Why use the word facilitated? People don't talk like that except when they're trying to sound smarter than they really are. Does this mean he was diagnosed by an alternative medicine doc, or that an alternative doctor passed along this info from another doctor? What is "lyme disease quackery"? Does this Gorski think that lyme disease is not real? (Please, God, don't tell me you expect me to click the links to find out, because that ain't happening.) This really reads like it was tacked on by a lyme-disease denier in order to make some vague point known only to themselves. but all of it is lacking any of the necessary background info needed to make it understandable and significant to people who don't already know it, that is, the average reader like me. Not to mention "quackery" is a colloquialism and shouldn't be used in formal writing. Oh, and the source is both a blog and an opinion piece.

To sum it up, I see no BLP violation here, but y'all need to have some serious discussion on the talk page regarding NPOV, due weight, and wording. We should only include information that shows some significant impact on his life and career, but we also need to convey that significance to the reader. Otherwise it's pointless. Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• The trouble is there's lyme disease (the all-too-real thing) and "lyme disease" (sometimes also called "chronic lyme disease", a made up disease which often "diagnosed" as part of a medical fraud in which the fraudster can then sell lucrative unnecessary treatments). In the latter case, often the victim will believe some deep underlying problem in their body has been found and evangelize for the very quackery they've fallen prey to but which "conventional medicine could not find". Don't know about this particular case but Wikipedia needs to make damn sure it's not mixing things up. WP:SBM is a generally reliable source, particularly on medical fraud. Bon courage (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but only after reading the sources. It wasn't clear at all from reading our article, in fact, I had to read that sentence a few times before it began to make a little sense. And I would have had to go down a couple of rabbit holes to really understand it, which I really hate having to do. The sentence itself needs to be rewritten; gaps need to be filled and questions answered. But I still don't know if any of it is DUE. Has the subject gone off on some campaign to promote this, or is it just this one interview? I mean, it's always good to try and debunk some quackery, but that also has a WP:Don't stuff beans up your nose effect. Often it's better to give such things less weight, not more, unless there's a much deeper story and public interest in it. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Has the subject gone off on some campaign to promote this, or is it just this one interview?: I think it's probably just the one interview with Rolling Stone, since I didn't find any evidence of the subject going off on a campaign to promote it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• As I stated on the talk page, if the article subject has stated that he thinks he was diagnosed with xyz, even if he was only diagnosed with quackery in real life (how would we editors even know) then we should cover it at face value in the article. If it is disputed, we can always note that in the text. Sjones23 here removed it crying BLP in their revert of ScienceFlyer, but how could that be relevant if the subject stated it himself, it cant therefore be controversial. I dont understand the issue, but wondering if we might have WP:TE here. Lord seems to think the very mention of a diagnosis is worthy of some sort of additional analysis (and WP:OR) on the part of us editors to figure out if the dude really had it or not. Confused what is controversial. If the subject had a dream and woke up and thought he was now a donkey, we would include that...So whats the issue here? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that saying somebody was 'diagnosed' with a fake disease gives credence to that fake disease, so Wikipedia needs to add some context for NPOV. If no sources exist on the particular case that's hard. Best just to omit; Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the Lyme claim by the subject covered in RS? I recall there were WP:RSP green sources for that. Correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a ScienceBlogs piece from Gorski.[1] which is solid on the quackery as you'd expect. But using that for a BLP would be problematic. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Not impossible though. It would just need attribution rather than be used as a definitive third-party source. WP:EXPERTSPS has some guidance on that to never use such sources third-party sources about living people. With otherwise poor sourcing though, just leaving the lyme mention out entirely may be an option too. KoA (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Above says RollingStone, that is more than sufficient for a BLP. We aren't stating that the subject has or had Lyme disease in wikivoice, we are stating that the subject said he thought he had lyme disease. Big difference. MEDRS doesnt apply to this. Also this scienceblogs is not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You're correct in that we don't need MEDRS sources for this. Now, if this were something like the Biden example I used above, we would need MEDRS sources, but not for this. This is not an issue that falls under BLP policy.

However, it still falls under NPOV policy, including BALANCE and WEIGHT and the WP:10 year test. As an encyclopedia, we summarize the key points about a subject, and by definition summarizing means cutting out all the trivia and boring details, and whittling it all down to the nitty gritty. Not everything in a reliable source is worthy of inclusion. For example, if a subject said they had a dream they were a donkey, we would most certainly not include it unless it became something significant to their career. If they said their favorite cereal is Fruitloops, we probably wouldn't include that either. That's just trivial nonsense with no point.

The biggest problem with the disputed content is it had no point. That's just a problem with poor writing. Scientists invariably write for scientists, not for the general reader, so unless you already know what they're talking about, nobody understands what they're talking about. Same with fans. Fans write for other fans, so they automatically assume everyone else has the background knowledge to understand what they said. It's a very common problem. People always understand what they mean, but conveying that in a way so that others will get the point is very difficult. If we include it, it needs to have some point to it, and that's going to take a lot of clarification.

Weight is another big issue, which helps us separate the wheat from the chaff. Especially for celebrity articles, otherwise everytime Jennifer Aniston went to the bathroom it would be part of her Wikipedia article. Weight is how we gauge public interest in the information. This is basically a simple math formula in figuring out percentages. By comparing this one source to all the other sources that exist on this subject, how much space in the article would it deserve? 50% of the article? 40%? Less than 1%? In other words, does it need a full section, a paragraph or two, a single sentence, or would even one sentence be too much? (I'm leaning toward the last one, but then again I'm not familiar with all the sources.) Weight and balance are best discussed on the article's talk page between people who are familiar with all the sources, not on a noticeboard like this. That's for y'all to come to a consensus on yourselves. Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. NPOV cannot be swerved, in particular WP:FRINGESUBJECTS which says "Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included". Thus if Wikipedia is airing the idea of a chronic lyme "infection", it needs to point out it's not a real disease. ScienceBlogs is RS for this, but the BLP aspect makes its use problematic. The best solution is just to leave this stuff out. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the last sentence: it primarily seems undue weight to mention this at all. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's also this interview with Lisa Kristofferson (the subject's wife) on The Lyme Times back in 2016. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  We definitely don't want to go anywhere near that. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see. As for Rolling Stone, it is considered a reliable source for culture matters per WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE. However, RS is unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 as per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Deciding whether the articles are accurate or not would also be considered original research on our part. I hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Deciding the accuracy of articles is part of what we do. For example, the dogfight article used to say the term came from pilots who would constantly turn their plane's engines on and off during combat, which made them sound like dogs barking. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that was complete bunk. WWI fighters didn't have starters. You had to get out and turn the prop by hand, which is a little hard to do in combat. The source was a tour guide for some town on the East Coast of the US, which probably was a perfectly reliable source for tourist information, but a lousy source for aerial combat. It wasn't hard to find better sources.

Let me ask you this: is the fact that the subject said he had lyme disease the main point of the Rolling Stone article? That's like summarizing the movie Avatar by saying only that the main character was in a wheelchair, and nothing else. Never mind the blue aliens and the greedy corporation trying to steal all their unobtainium. There's nothing really special or significant about someone contracting lyme disease; it happens all the time. By itself, it's like saying the subject said he caught a cold, or that his favorite color is purple, which begs the question, "So what?" If we're going to include this, we need to tell the reader what it's all about. We need to answer the "so what". Yet doing that will most certainly require more than a single sentence, giving it even more weight. Doing that opens the door for those who are critical of this as being pseudoscience, so then we need to add even more weight.

Then the question becomes, does this one Rolling Stone article have enough weight of its own to warrant us giving so much weight in our article? Personally, I hardly think so. One RS article for a celebrity doesn't add a lot of weight, plus Rolling Stone magazine doesn't carry a lot of weight itself, even for the information it is reliable for. (Far better sources exist.) Now, if he was promoting this pseudoscience and going around preaching this to anyone who would listen, and started getting a lot more sources to do their own independent interviews, then we would have evidence of a greater public interest in this whole thing. We would then have the weight needed to include it in the necessary detail for the reader to get the full picture. Lacking that, I think it's best just to leave it out entirely. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, reasonable concerns. To give an example, reliable sources from WP:RSP such as CBS News, CNN, HuffPost (where Dana Parish's 2016 interview with Lisa Kristofferson originates from), Variety, USA Today and the BBC can mention how a subject's health problems impacted their lives (such as the aforementioned Lyme disease, which previously was the subject of a discussion on the Justin Bieber article). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect here. Kris K does not have the 'health problems' he thinks. He's being conned by quacks. Chronic Lyme disease is a fake condition. Wikipedia isn't going to play the game of giving it credence. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from. As a side note, there were some previous discussions about the Lyme disease situation on Kris K's talk page: one in 2016, one in 2019, and one in 2023. Taking the above statements raised here by Zaereth and Bon courage into consideration, I also think we can simply leave it out for now pending further feedback; we can also reach a potential consensus on the talk page if it's needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a comic strip that an editor User:Wehpudicabok is intent on repeatedly adding a paragraph[2] of negative opinions about the artist's mental health that is sourced to a single unreliable self-published blog. Talk page discussion I've started at [3] seems to be going nowhere and I'm about to hit my third revert. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The section as it was written on Wikipedia was entirely about the comic, not its creator. Admittedly, part of it was sourced to Kleefeld talking about the artist, not the comic; I removed that portion. The portion that is about the comic itself should stay, as it's the result of community consensus, as I have repeatedly mentioned (and been persistently ignored about). Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See here for some background and the consensus for the current (as I type this) version of the disputed text. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good news: Talk page discussion has resulted in removal of about half of the BLP material sourced to a self-published blog,[4]. However, bad news, there is a continued effort to now take a portion of the blog post saying the artist is allegedly "on a downward spiral [from] nerd [to] extremist" and insert that in the article as instead a passage about the artist's work rather than the artist themself. I've just removed it again.[5] I'd rather be editing other things, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You have put words in quotation marks that are not in the post being used as a source; it actually says "To quote Ryan Broderick, who wrote a summary of everything you need to know about Ishida and the downward spiral of Sinfest not long after Kaella's thread ...," which is unambiguously a statement about the downward spiral of the comic strip. I don't know where your not-a-quote comes from. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I finally figured it out: your "[from]" replaces one sentence of Kleefeld plus four sentences of something that Kleefeld is quoting; "nerd" and "extremist" are then words not of Kleefeld's but from the end of the quote. This is rather misleading! You are correct that Broderick's comments about Ishida, as quoted by Kleefeld are not usable in WP; luckily, no one seems to have been using them, and the assertion that Sinfest has experienced a downward spiral is manifestly not a comment about Ishida (neither in our article nor in Kleefeld's article). I see that at least four or five other people have made this point on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go to the article talk page and address the points made there that the contested content is a description of the comic's themes, not of the author (about whom little is known).Daveosaurus (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Apostol Tnokovski

The page of Apostol Tnokovski should be deleted because:

1. There isn't enough independent coverage to pass the General notability guideline.
2. It is very poorly sourced. Some sources can't be verified, others are broken links, and the ones that work are from small blogs with no authority on the subject.

This is a self promotion page from an aspiring designer. A simple Google search shows that his designs have never been turned into products for him to be considered a Product Designer as the opening line suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar.pm (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than here, as this is a page for handling issues related to how to cover living persons, not whether to have articles on them at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa, Talk:Jason Momoa, Lisa Bonet, and possibly other pages

For some time now, a mostly dynamic IP user has been trying to add information about Jason Momoa having a new wife. I'm not sure how to describe this situation without violating WP:NPA. If this fantasy relationship exists, no reliable source has ever mentioned it. Page protection is simple, but what can we do about the multiple nonsense edit requests? --Onorem (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:RFPP Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa is about 30 days into 90 day semi-protection. Where is the recent disruption occurring? Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple edit requests/comments (4 at Talk:Adria Arjona and 13 at Talk:Jason Momoa yesterday) demanding that wikipedia be updated to say that Nicolle A. Morea is Momoa's wife. The attempts to add that name to Momoa's article began last September. This is the obsessive fantasy of a person in Germany. Her "source" is her post on Medium which explains the "sign" that Momoa has given in a photograph to validate her fantasy so that the "relationship" can be updated on wikipedia. Short of a project-wide edit filter blocking edits that include the name "Nicolle A. Morea", I don't know what else can be done to tamp this down. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the person in question isn't notable, I don't see why that couldn't be done. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Started an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moreamomoa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Southasiapress

[6] What is the reliability of this source and the news site overall for exceptional claims being made about deaths squads and human rights violations? Other than being a non notable source, it also appears to be an op-ed and questionable source making claims about multiple living people allegedly running death squads Axedd (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The best place to post this inquiry is probably WP:RSN. Once a threshold determination is made on reliability, it's easier to apply that consensus to relevant WP:BLP content. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP issue at History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

As happens with a lot of these lists of crime articles, there are some BLP issues with BLPCRIME and lack of sourcing for perpetrators. Additional eyes would be welcome. Currently there is an attempt to add a name without any evidence of conviction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Only the perp's name needed removed (so I did that). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This absolutely did not warrant a discussion about this, ScottishFinnishRadish. I have stated before and I will state again, you really should read LGBT and Wikipedia. Thank you, EvergreenFir. 9t5 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@9t5: While we have to ensure our coverage of LGBT issues is good, in no way shape or form can this override BLP. And sorry but any editor who thinks it does should voluntarily desist from editing anything concerning living persons or they should expect to be topic banned. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not acceptable on the English wikipedia and it's especially not acceptable when it comes at the expense of BLP. Note while I won't give a formal alert for contentious topics, BLP and gender and sexuality are both contentious topic areas meaning editors need to be on their best behaviour. Treating BLP as being overriden by some desire to fix problems perceived with the world or wikipedia, is most definitely not that. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, while I'm not opposed to EvergreenFir's fix, BLP definitely means that if there are no or insufficient sources for any of the names, removing the entire entry is preferable to leaving it in. Any editor who reverts to keep the material without fixing it is solely at fault for the BLP violation that results. (To be clear, the editor who introduced this change is also at fault for their violation, but their violation doesn't excuse any editor also violating BLP by reverting an attempt to fix the problem.) While it might have been better ScottishFinnishRadish to implement the same fix, their actions were perfectly reasonable especially since such lists are always very tricky since it's unlikely that the list should have every single alleged act of violence that is reported in one or two sources so it's an open question what level of coverage we require before including an entry. (Frankly I hate lists of non notable cases.) This case happened long enough ago that sustained coverage should be demonstrable by now, so if it can't be, I think there's a good question if it belongs. Note that while removing the name reduces the harm to the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator, it doesn't actually eliminate it. Early reports can sometimes be misleading or incorrect, and of course the details of crimes can be disputed, and it is imperative we don't claim stuff happened in wikivoice when there is dispute. Note also we have to consider any living victims, which applies to the victim in this case. It seems the victim in this case voluntarily put their name out there which reduces concerns, still we need to remember victims may sometimes do stuff they later come to regret, so we do at a minimum need reliable secondary source coverage before including it and I only found this on IIRC the fourth source so it's easy to see it can be missed. More to the point, my earlier commentary comes into play, being fair to the alleged perpetrator means we may have to report any dispute over what happened, especially if it was never resolved e.g. via a legal case which can affect victims. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

When editing via desktop-on-mobile it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to edit a large section in the source editor, so sometimes a revert is the best tool available to deal with blatant BLPvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The current listing of every crime against LGBT ever done does not serve the purpose of being an encyclopedia. IDK about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but listing like this makes the page less informative and likely buries the gist of info for folks looking into the history of LGBT violence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It took me about two minutes to spot a gross violation of WP:BLP policy in that list. [7] There are undoubtedly more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot sourced to a defunct LGBT hate crimes wiki, too. I spot checked a few, and luckily that wiki has decent sourcing. The whole thing needs a thorough check, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I found three more blatant violations, in less than 10 minutes. The article is a disgrace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested on the talk page that the list be pruned down to Wikipedia-notable events and people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A list article full of non-notable examples of anything is mostly meaningless. Worse about people. Worst about crime. The article could benefit from either WP:TNT or a re-write with a more constrained scope. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar problem at List of people killed for being transgender, where it is common for additions to be made without any source saying that the victim was killed for being transgender, rather than being a transgender person who was killed. I don’t think that, even if accurate, this type of ‘list’ article serves any encyclopaedic purpose. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue at every List of some sort of crime or victim or criminal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

While I heartily agree that the list should be limited to hate crime cases (rather than simple murder cases lacking transness as a motive), that page is useful for anyone digging into transgender history. The history of trans people across the world includes the history of violence against them. The history of groups and the hate against them is fundamentally different than something trying to document the "history of murder" -- it is about the group being targeted. Is List of regicides also in your sights? List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots? These are useful pages. They should be well-maintained to improve quality, but Wikipedia stands to be a useful source of historical information for readers of a history of violence that is otherwise largely not compiled and remains underdocumented. AmityCity (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia is not here to support the underdocumented. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports only well-documented topics. We are not a research repository of the non-notable. Especially when it comes to people and crimes. JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course -- and no entries should be added without multiple clear and reliable sources. These events are notable; my reference to an "underdocumented" part is the void of encyclopedic collection of these events were these pages to be removed. Absent a list like this, there would be no clear way for a user interested in learning about the topic to go from Chanelle Pickett to Murder of Shelby Tracy Tom -- despite the deep parallels between such events. AmityCity (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And if said list remained congested with a collection of non-notable cruft like the amalgamation that presently exists, would that not hinder the casual user in seeing the relationship between notable events? And since this is still BLPN, I'll additionally ask how inclusion of names and events that apparently fall short of WP:BLP1E is justified on a scale that defies WP:WEIGHT as to notable or even noteworthy examples of the titled topic. Imagine for example Bhutanese refugees (or any other categorical victims) listing non-notable people in a separate section of the article. The long list of non-notables needs to go. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For that purpose, I think it reasonable that the LGBT list take a similar bent as the transgender list -- and specifically limit to individuals targeted for their sexuality. I agree that the list would be more useful without random domestic murder cases. AmityCity (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is they never stay limited in any way. List articles like these become magnets for anyone who wants to add whatever they think fits the criteria of the title, no matter how remote the connection may be. We don't have enough people to police all these lists from here to eternity, so I think the benefits of having them are far outweighed by the potential harm they can and often do cause to living people. Zaereth (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

On the article talk page, so far it looks like 5 experienced editors (with the combined editing experience of several decades) have agreed that notability should be the bright line for inclusion. Others at BLPN might care to chime in there. JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the policy that these types of articles should have relevant blue links for each entry to show they are notable? – notwally (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s that they should have clear inclusion criteria and be notable as a collection , see WP:NLIST. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Although the full policy details seem to be more complex than that, e.g., "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." I would argue that these crime lists are very broad subjects and that the BLPCRIME considerations warrant excluding non-notable entries. – notwally (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree -- but it's not as simple as "there's a policy that dictates this outcome". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

John Clauser

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive 91 § CO2 Coalition, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 94 § John Clauser

Rationale: I am submitting this BLP report based on an edit I've restored due to the use of WP:EXPERTSPS. See also: Talk:John Clauser#Recent deletion of Sabine Hossenfelder.

Summary: John Clauser is a Nobel prize-winning physicist who joined a leading climate denial organization shortly after winning the award, gaining some currency in right wing media circles for promoting climate denial. For what it's worth, Clauser's odd behavior is not entirely unexpected. People who win the Nobel prize are susceptible to Nobel disease, a common affliction.

Recently, fellow physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder evaluated Clauser's claims on her YouTube channel, stating "Clauser starts with a made-up definition, suggests that climate scientists miscalculate an uncertainty by forgetting to mention how it’s actually calculated, suggests that they lie about something that’s clearly stated in every single paper on the topic, presents a self-made hypothesis that climate scientists have told him since last year is trivially wrong, and to top things off calls everyone who has actually works on the topic 'dishonest'." Hossenfelder's opinion is considered the mainstream consensus viewpoint, so there's nothing controversial here.

Editorial behavior: User:Kbahey recently added Hossenfelder's analysis to Clauser's biography,[8] followed by User:Panian513 removing it based on WP:USERGENERATED,[9] and my subsequent restoration of the material.[10]

Question: Was I wrong to restore this material? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Hossenfelder's video[11] seems sane, rational and good, but it makes statements about a person. If we could use experts' Youtube videos to debunk nonsense, Wikipedia would be far too easy. BLP is clear-cut about not using self-published sources for content about a person. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your position. But my position is that Hossenfelder is not commenting about Clauser, the person, but rather about Clauser's comments regarding climate denial, which are two different topics. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If that were true, you might (might) win a fight to keep it. But there are statements in the video describing him (e.g. as a 'climate changed denier') not just focussing on the bollocks he utters. Basically, this is clear-cut and bios are a WP:CTOP so trying to push it will just get you sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "push" anything. I'm trying to understand if the material Kbahey was acceptable. I thought it was, which is why I restored it. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to give a quick explanation - apologies if it isn't concise, as I'm just about to head to bed.

An important part was left out of your summary - I left a message on User talk:Kbahey explaining the policy reasons behind the removal. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. WP:UGC makes it clear, as video hosting services is defined as user-generated content. YouTube is especially perilous since it toes the line between a video hosting service and a social media site, which is another type of source which is generally unreliable. I do think that there should be mention of refutations of Clauser's claims, since they are considered fringe views, but as I explained on Kbahey's talk page, this should be a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed article from a reliable science journal. As you said, Hossenfelder's views are the mainstream views, therefore, it shouldn't too hard to find a journal article specifically refuting Clauser's claims.

In sum, the medium of a claim is important. Certainly, Hossenfelder's views are mainstream, but a YouTube video can't be peer-reviewed - only a journal article or a book can. Panian513 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My reading of it is that Hossenfelder views meet WP:EXPERTSPS. The question then becomes, can her analysis of climate denial be included in an article about a living person? Both you and Bon courage say it cannot, but I don't see any reason why it can't other than "Clauser is a living person and we can't use SPS" in a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's wrong to say Hossenfelder's views - it's more accurate to say Hossenfelder's medium of presenting her views. I'm not saying that her views are wrong, but that the medium of publishing the views isn't good enough for an article. Since YouTube is social media, by citing a YouTube video, it'll sound like the article is just commenting on Internet drama. If the article instead cited an article or another reliable source, then it'd qualify as a notable dispute in the scientific community. Panian513 04:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I see YouTube, as it is used in this case, as a distribution channel for Hossenfelder's show. YouTube is not being cited here, Hossenfelder's content is; nor are we citing the social media elements. I will revert my restoration as a show of good faith, but I hope this discussion continues. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

She's not a climate scientist, as she says; she relied on other people to pull the material together for her. Hossenfelder is a good egg, but pushing this is futile. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's the second time you've tried to say that I'm "pushing" something, when I'm not. I've already said I'm going to restore Panian513's version as a show of good faith. Clauser is not a climate scientist, he's a physicist, and his comments about climate science were rebuked by his peer. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you should not have restored the material per WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the material should not be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS and WP:EXPERTSPS. Even for non-BLPs, the subject-matter expert exception can be difficult to determine when to use properly and the policy requires editors to "exercise caution when using such sources". Further, the self-published content does not seem to be adding much. Instead, I would suggest pulling addition criticism of his views from The Washington Post article. The article notes that Clauser "has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change" and then quotes two climate scientists. I would also suggest removing what Clauser "believes" and "has concluded" from the article, as there seems to be no reason to give fringe views more exposure. – notwally (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal has been discussed many times, and the community chose to include what Clauser believes due to reasons. I have linked to some of the previous discussions up above, but there are more on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple or that black and white. See this discussion, for example. My reading of that discussion is that 1) there is an unstated implication that there are legal considerations at work that override the use of a reliable source in some cases, and 2) we should avoid creating a "he said, she said" situation where certain claims about living people can't be properly vetted or substantiated. My argument up above is that Hossenfelder is attacking what the living person said, not who they are. Further, if as another editor said up above, Hossenfelder "relied on other people to pull the material together for her", that's another form of vetting at work. In any case, because the unstated implication is that this involves legal issues, it appears that I am being asked to no longer discuss it in this venue, so I will end my participation at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's that black and white. So far, it looks like everyone you have asked here agrees that it's improper. Either the material isn't mean to say anything about the living person, in which case it doesn't belong in their biography; or it is meant to say something about them, and thus WP:BLPSPS applies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS can't be used in support of inclusion as it states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (bolding in original). Local consensus can't decide that doesn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Herman Brusselmans

Belgian author Herman Brusselmans has made stupid comments in his most recent column (he has written satirical and willfully provocative columns for some 30 years now), which seem to be willfully spun in the worst possible light by some Jewish sources and some editors. I should probably refrain from editing this further, so uninvolved eyes on this article (and especially the section "Alleged call for violence against Jews" / "Call for violence against Jews") would be welcome. Fram (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

anita vandenbald

Use of the word Hijacked in describing Status of Women committee actions is politically charged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8600:B850:748F:1115:87B8:551C (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Don Cherry

There is a discussion at Talk:Don_Cherry#Ron_MacLean_comments that would benefit from the experience of editors that follow this noticeboard. Andrew Englehart (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rene Gonzalez (politician)

I'm seeking clarification on whether the alleged/apparent paid editors of |Rene Gonzalez (politician) properly noted the public taxpayer funds used in the initial edits, per this https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-spent-thousands-in-city-funds-to-polish-wikipedia-page.html -- I saw they went through the COI process, which is good, but I'm not seeing where the campaign listed its paid contributors and that they used taxpayer money. Thank you for your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4700:F8E0:E432:9F37:9EE8:B49A (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're asking. The source you provided requires a subscription, so I can't read it nor assess its reliability. Are you asking if this info should be included in his article? That depends on the reliability of the source and the WP:Due weight, which is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Are you asking if the COI editor should be admonished for leaving out the fact that they were paid for their edits? I don't know what good it would do, but this is not the proper noticeboard for that. Maybe WP:COIN or WP:ANI, but I don't know what they could do after the fact. All in all, the discussion on the talk page shows that the editor made some rather simple and reasonable requests, some of which we accepted and many denied. (If that's worth $6400.00, then I'm in the wrong business!) None of it is really outlandish or white-washy, and the editor did declare their COI. Either way, this isn't something for this board to deal with, at least not this early in the news reporting. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OregonLive is the website of the Portland Oregonian, the newspaper of record in our state. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems details have been added and removed from the article, but there's no discussion of the content on the article's talk page. I would suggest starting a discussion there on whether the content should be in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a question for this noticeboard. Having said that, a clear COI was stated, including "I work with Commissioner Rene Gonzalez", which at least suggests the person is employed by the government. Even beyond that, the material was not actually posted by the firm that was the recipient of the government funds at issue in the newspaper article; they may have helped compose the edit request, but the request is the responsibility of the poster. Whether or not it was stated with perfect precision, it was clear enough to deal with the COI involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Austin Lane

THE WIKI AGE FOR AUSTIN LANE IS NOT ACCURATE AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR UPDATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixHouston (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is no age given in the article and hasn't been for some time. Black Kite (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You may be seeing a date when searching with Google, that date comes from Google not Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg

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

There is currently a dispute as to whether the phrase "far-right politician" belongs in the opening sentence of this BLP. Experienced editors are invited to weigh in on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Emma Barnett

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

Appreciate input to the thread I opened here: Talk:Emma Barnett#WP:BALASP. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Benji Krol

I'd appreciate more experienced eyes. I've noticed several issues with this article. It appears to divert attention from the sexual misconduct allegations to another individual, even though the sourcing doesn't do this. This has led me to suspect that the author may have a connection to the subject. The author, Joshbanana, is an almost-SPA for this individual and has confirmed some sort of connection with the management of the subject: its just that i was emailing with krol's manager and i wanted it to be perfect in this comment on their user talk page. I've discussed this with the author: User talk:Joshbanana#August_2024 but I don't know how to proceed. The AfD seems so strange to me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benji Krol. How should I proceed? Svampesky (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COIN should also be notified. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that too soon? That would mean having three discussions happening simultaneously: this BLPN, the user talk page, and now COIN as well. Svampesky (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah. probs.

I'm posting the appropriate template on the COI user's talk page to notify them of COI policies for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If talk page resolution doesn't resolve and COI user does not abide by WP:COI policies, you can probs report them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to find contact information for Benji Krol's management, and an email for his management isn't publicly available anywhere. @Joshbanana: how did you get this email? Svampesky (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDOUTING applies. Svampesky, you should not be interrogating Joshbanana about his email or email addresses he has access to unless if they disclose they do have the COI or if they continue to do suspected COI type edits.

Others can do the investigation if necessary. Just follow protocol and work on the page. :D Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware of that particular guideline. I'm going to step back from my participation in this matter; and observe and make notes how more experienced users handle it. Svampesky (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't actually think it's the subject writing the article himself. I was questioning the connection that the author has with the subject's management, per them confirming they have been in contact. Svampesky (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't think one COI notice was enough? You posted the exact same COI notice that had been posted by Svampeskly approximately 45 minutes earlier. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I was also confused about that. Svampesky (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• I removed the section on the sexual misconduct allegation as poorly sourced. We need high-quality sources for allegations of this nature, and Dexerto is not suitable for a BLP. See most recent RFC on Dexerto here in the archives. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

EC Stilson

Requesting mediation on edit made 19:23, 6 August 2024 "Information not relevant to this page"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EC_Stilson&diff=prev&oldid=1238992728 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The removal is obviously correct, given the terrible sourcing. Please consult WP:BLP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven't looked at the rest of this biography. All of it is terribly sourced and the entire bibliography is self-published. 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So propose it for deletion, then — the removal is appropriate regardless. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been proposed for deletion since January 2024 with no progress. 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif II

Talk:Imane_Khelif#2nd_lead_paragraph:_"public_scrutiny"_vs._"misinformation"

The main issue here is whether Khelif facing "public scrutiny" about her Olympic eligibility should be included in the lead. The term "scrutiny" is used in several reliable sources to describe the situation, but others have said the lead should only state that "misinformation" occurred (as it currently does).

I and supporters have argued that "misinformation" alone is not a balanced/complete description of the response to her participation, and that something like "public scrutiny... including misinformation" more closely aligns with sources. Opponents have argued that including the term "public scrutiny" is not appropriate because "scrutiny" would legitimize the misinformation or give it undue weight in a BLP.

The discussion is currently dominated by a small group of people – including myself :) – and consensus seems far, so I think it would be good for additional experienced users to weigh in. Thanks! JSwift49 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sharon Davies

AntiDionysius is making false claims about Sharon Davies over criticisms of two boxers in the Olympics, namely (1) that there is no evidence to support Davies complaints when they failed sex tests with the IBA and were not allowed to compete as women (2) (in the comment redoing the edit) that Sharon Davies claimed they were trans when neither article referenced mentions or suggests that.

Mentioning the controversy is fair, but the mischaracterization is potentially libelous. Davies is making claims about sex that are protected under British Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectionsClerk (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This quotes Davies as saying that the two female boxers are "male". GiantSnowman 09:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in simply repeating what Davies says. She claimed (amongst all the other stuff she has spewed in the past) that the Olympics were "allowing women to get beaten up by men" [12]. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no doubt she has described the two boxers as "male", but in the two sources provided there is no evidence that she has described them as "transgender". That's a quite separate matter from the question of evidence, but it's important to get these basics right. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

J.D. Vance Service Medals

Someone removed his medals from his profile. 63.131.188.140 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading from the talk page archives, they were removed both because secondary sourcing of them wasn't shown and also because the extra ones were just general "served in a tour" type medals that literally all US soldiers received, which don't meet due weight considerations, particularly if they don't have significant coverage about them in sources to support their inclusion. Silverseren^C 01:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And now they appear to have been added back in by Avraham without talk page discussion and linking to a primary source regarding them. Silverseren^C 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And appears to have added them in with a reference to a Twitter post (complaining about their removal on Wikipedia) that Avraham then "fixed" with a removal just now. To cover up that that was the source and not an actual link to even the primary source in question. Silverseren^C 01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The DD-214 is a reliable and verifiable source. Not every source needs to be on line. That is what {{cite document}} is for. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a primary source that you aren't even linking properly anyways because the link you had added was to a political Twitter account. Silverseren^C 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We should not be using a public document to support claims about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows reliance on a primary source "to a lesser extent" (See first sentence of WP:PSTS). The reason we do not prefer primary sources is that they are "…close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That does not apply here. The absolute authority on the awards a US veteran has received is the US Department of Defense which lists them on the DD Form 214. There is no possibility of "misinterpretation" or partiality. Furthermore, as per the continuation of the aforementioned paragraph, there is no interpretation being performed here. Merely transcription of the US DoD form. We are using it to make a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone can get the DD-214 with a properly filed FOIA claim, and many have. Requiring that some other source literally quote the DD-214 word for word just to make it secondary is solely bureaucratic in nature and not required as per our policies I just listed. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is JD Vance and there are complaints at Talk:JD Vance. However, this is not a BLP issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is neither a trial transcript nor a court record. Moreover, this is not an assertion about JD Vance. This is the absolutely most authoritative and least partial document listing the awards he received. We are not claiming he was guilty of X or innocent of Y or accused of Z. We are merely listing the awards that the US DoD has confirmed were given to Vance. Moreover, one may even consider the DD-214 to itself be a secondary source. The primary source would be the actual citations that were delivered with the awards, would they not? -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know why the link was changed to the Wikipedia article, but I've scan-backed his specific form and changed it into a cross-Wiki-link to that. As to the sourcing issue, this is not a prohibited source; it is not a "public document" as defined above because it is not a document filed in a court (which, while publicly available, do not reflect judicial determinations nor objective "facts" but instead merely reflective the subjective viewpoints of the participants in the lawsuit). There is nothing subjective in this document, nor is there anything which could bias the stance of the person writing the document. The document is, in fact, a neutral, non-political document which simply describes his term of service and the awards which he has received. It is the best source for such information. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• That's at least an improvement, but doesn't address the due weight concerns I brought up initially. Particularly when the removal of the routine medals was decided in this discussion by a consensus of 5 different editors, all in agreement. They thought, at most, the Good Conduct and the Marine Corps medals should be mentioned, but none of the rest. Silverseren^C 02:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Silver: I don't really think it's appropriate to weigh the importance of his various service medals; that's an unnecessary, and perhaps unduly editorial, function. In any case, I think it's a discussion best suited for the article's talk page; I don't think it's reached the level where it needs to go to a noticeboard. (The start of this discussion by an IP led to more discussion here than is necessary.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    Non-primary WP:RS weighed the importance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I made this [13] comment at the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but why the fuck is anyone even thinking of using a primary source as the sole source of info for JD Vance? The dude is currently running to be vice president of the United States, on the ticket of one the major political parties. And even more than that, he's running with Donald Trump someone with an extraordinary high profile, during an extremely contentious election cycle. And he himself has significant attention due to the perception he's been a questionable choice as VP candidate which has harmed the chances of Trump winning for a variety of reasons including his public comments; and also questions over his past comments of Trump. To top it all, he has been the subject of significant shitposting memes. I'm 99% certain you can find many secondary sources for all I've said. All this is to say, if you cannot find secondary sources for whatever it is you're trying to add, then clearly it's irrelevant nonsense that none of the many many many thousands of sources out there talking about JD Vance thought was important enough to talk about so is so far into WP:UNDUE territory, it's not even funny. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PUFFERY. It's for cheap vainglory, nothing else. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Avraham did you actually see the Form 214, and not what some rando twitter account says is the Form 214? nableezy - 23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Riswold

• Jim Riswold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two IPs edited Jim Riswold earlier today to claim that he died. Since there were no sources cited in support of these claims, I reverted them. I tried searching for sources myself, but so far have only found this. Is that good enough for Wikipedia's purposes or is a better source needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, so I don't think so. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ad Age seems to be a trade publication so I'd suggest using with strong caution on anything BLP, but IMO it probably good enough for a death report [14]. Frankly though, we could likely also just wait. Riswold seems to have been active recently enough and their profile is sufficient that I suspect something better will emerge. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ad Age is a trade publication, but it's a very well-established one; basically, it's the paper of record for the advertising industry. For factual news related to the industry, it's definitely an RS. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Eva Poumpouras (self-)promo vandalism

I have recently started adding content within the article about Evy Poumpouras, first under the IP address 80.187.66.38 and now under my newly registered account TRVTHSERVM. However, two users (not sure if they are actually the same person), one being 35.140.144.82 (a US IP) and now someone with the name Isabelle Belato, keep reverting those changes without giving any reason whatsoever as to why. I have given my reasons as to why I have made those changes on the talk page as well as in the "View history" page, but instead of replying those users just keep deleting those changes to "beautify" Ms. Poumpouras article of anything that is critical of her claims as well as the sources given. In fact all the sources in that article are tabloid papers using Poumpouras' own claims as a source, which would count as a questionable source. I have added the template "better source needed" as there are no official documents or independent, third party confirmations proving that Poumpouras actually worked as a so called "special agent". Same for the USSS Valor Award she supposedly received for being a 9/11 first responder. 9/11 first responders are one of the best documented people in recent US history, but her name cannot be found in association with that award.

So to summarize: the article in question is repeatedly getting purged by a certain individual, or individuals, from all indications of unproven claims made by Ms. Poumpouras and template inserts to use more objective, reliable sources. The article prior to my edits to which those individuals keep reverting is, as far as I can see, nothing but a promotional piece instead of an objective, critical list of facts about a living person. It is not using provable facts, but mere opinions made by Poumpouras herself. Wikipedia is not an "about me" page but an encyclopedia. I am writing this here in the hopes to prevent an unnecessary and infantile edit war, which the individual(s) in question seem to want to provoke. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The top of this page notes "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. ". This issue started to arise less than 24 hours ago. Asking for help here is dramatically premature. Recommend archiving this and allowing discussion to continue at Talk:Evy Poumpouras. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All right, I'll wait a couple of days then and reply here again if the edit war continues. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Jahvillani

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

This article lacks notability, is almost entirely self-sourced or poorly sourced. Refs 15-50 are merely links to song promos on the same website. There is no page for the artist on All Music, the artists' official website is a parked domain on Wix, the artist page on the record label site is a photo, and nothing else; a mere 4 compilations appear from the same label on MusicBrainz and Discogs. I'm unsure how to tag the page for these things. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Chris Lintott

I'm requesting a reversion of an edit by an anonymous user to Chris Lintott which changed my job title from 'Professor of Astrophysics' to 'Research Fellow'. I remain a Professor of Astrophysics - see the Department of Physics webpages here. I think the confusion is that I'm a Research Fellow at New College, but this is not my main place of work. I'd revert it myself but am being cautious about editing the article about me. Thanks Chrislintott (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I just corrected the article. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Chrislintott (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Kabat

• Geoffrey Kabat (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An editor identifying as the subject of this bio has appeared on its Talk page to propose a rewrite as a "corrective" to the "egregious distortion" they say Wikipedia has in relation to an incident concerning the effect of the tobacco industry on a piece of published research they co-authored. Could use more eyes/opinions. Bon courage (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Anni-Frid Lyngstad

Some person keep inserting a false claim into the 'Early Life' section of the subject, based on a unreliable source which in turn has used discredited information. This has already been discussed and resolved before by those adding reliable information to that page.

To clarify, the subject was NOT a part of the Lebensborn program during World War Two. Respected and well researched biographies of both the Pop group ABBA as well as the individual involved have long debunked this rumour. The subject, Anni-Frid Lyngstad, was born six months after WW2 ended in Europe. The German military machine had evacuated out of Northern Norway even earlier. Hence, there was no Lebensborn program operating there during her mothers pregnancy. In any case, her mother and father had no connection with the Lebensborn organisation before the pregnancy.

The Lebensborn program was set up by the SS and was used by members of the SS, the paid up members of the Nazi Party and fanatical believers in that ideology. Anni-Frid's father was not in the SS. Neither was he a professional soldier but a pastry chef who had been conscripted into the Heer (German Army) during the war. In occupied Norway, German soldiers were encouraged to fraternise with the local women but this is separate from registering with the Lebensborn organisation in order to specifically produce racially 'pure' children . To have a child under that program, both parents needed to undergo tests to prove their racial 'purity'. Pregnant women gave birth in specific Lebensborn nursing homes where they also received pre and post natal assistance.

None of this happened in the Anni-Frid Lyngstad case. The nearest Lebensborn home had been 26 miles / 42 kms away in Narvik during the war. Anni-Frid Lyngstad was born in the family home in the small village of Bjorkasen. The midwife couldn't attend so the birth was assisted by her grandmother and aunts.

Many years later, it was discovered that Anni-Frid's father, Alfred Haase, had survived the war and was still alive. He denied any knowledge of Lebensborn. He also didn't know he had even fathered a child. They had a year long love affair and it's thought Anni-Frid's mother became pregnant when they spent one last time together before Alfred Haase was evacuated the next morning.

Anni-Frid, therefore is one of the many 'War Children' born as a result of relationships between military personnel and civilians during WW2. And she is mentioned under that Subject title. But she is not a product of the Lebensborn program. It is wrong to suggest it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bovis Messroom (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the term has become something of a catchall for "anyone born of a German soldier" which is most definitely not the case. I haven't looked specifically in to the case to see if the mother ever applied to the program, but what you've presented seems convincing so far. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The two links I posted are for the most respected and well researched books that have dealt with this issue. The first biography is 'Bright Lights Dark Shadows' by Carl Magnus Palm. This biography goes into depth on the lives of the four individual members who would form the Pop group ABBA. This book is regarded as the definitive biography on the band and Palm has become trusted by the group members, so much so that he has been granted access to unreleased studio recordings at the groups HQ in Stockholm. He has gone on to write a number of other books regarding ABBA.

The second link is probably even more noteworthy. This is for the biography 'Frida Beyond ABBA'. It was written only a few years ago by Remko Van Drongelen. In it, he explored specifically the life of Anni-Frid Lyngstad. He went even further than 'Bright Lights Dark Shadows' in exploring the archives, her family ancestry, quotes from her family members and interviews with those who knew her very early life. Anni-Frid Lyngstad herself helped provide some information to the author of this book. So whilst it's not an 'official' bio/autobio, it's pretty close to one.

In neither of these biographies is it suggested there was any contact with the Lebensborn program. Their in depth research has led both to conclude that Anni-Frid Lynstad was the result of a genuine year long love affair, the sort of which was happening between soldiers and civilians all over Europe during WW2. When Synni, Anni-Frid's mother, discovered she was pregnant in March or April 1945, it's highly doubtful that Lebensborn was even operational in Northern Norway by then. No evidence has ever been found to suggest any contact with it. Northern Norway was being liberated by Allied forces at this time while Germany itself was being invaded and weeks from surrender.

What is abundantly true though is that the Lyngstad family and mostly the mother and new baby were subject to the same post-war reprisals in Norway as those who were registered with the Lebensborn program there. It would seem they tried to 'ride it out' in their home village till emotions cooled but to no avail. Fearful, the mother, child and grandmother all left in May 1947 for a new life in Sweden.

Sorry for rambling on but I thought this issue had been cleared up before on the Anni-Frid Lyngstad entry and now somebody seems insistent on inserting an incorrect statement in her profile again. I don't know if they're doing it maliciously or not but it's wrong. Bovis Messroom (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

the issue isn't that information was changed, it's that you edited an article and did not indicate why, that is critical. Otherwise all the info seems to check out. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't recently edited anything in that article unless you mean by trying to delete the offending sentence. The person with the handle 'disco-spinster' is the one who has recently edited the 'Early Life' section by inserting that sentence implying Anni-Frid Lyngstad is a Lebensborn child which is false. That sentence is still there.

I'm not too clued up about the editing protocol on Wikipedia and therefore apologise if I didn't follow the right procedure. I just got a little annoyed seeing that untruth being inserted into the section again. I have already contacted disco-spinster, informing them of the known facts and asking them to withdraw their own edit but I've had no reply as yet.

Again, apologies for not doing things right. I'll endeavour to do so in future. Regards. Bovis Messroom (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Censored

Why was most of Vance’s distinguished military record erased? 2603:7081:1BF0:1190:6137:5728:C104:9AA (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this on the article talk page and to be as specific as possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)