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.

Seeking help correcting page re Stan Rose

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

---

• Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm the subject of this page: Stan Rose

There are two notices, and I believe both have been resolved or are no longer relevant, but have no idea how to get the notices removed. 1) "reads like an advertisement" - I don't believe this is the case. It follows the guidelines and reads similar to other biologist/entrepreneurs; 2) "lack of references"- there are many references cited. Thanks for your help reviewing the page and hopefully removing the tags Srose39 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That article has zero independent, in-depth sources. It should be put up for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Each statement in the page is referenced with a link to a published article, either from well-established independent sources or the URLs of well documented entities. If one is missing it can be added - or the statement deleted Srose39 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The references are a collection of company statements and press releases, many of which don't mention the article subject at all. The article doesn't show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. If this is the best sourcing available we're going to have to delete the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be replacing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be deleted 2601:18E:C101:1340:5166:970D:BDA1:4846 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose, it would be helpful if you logged in before each post or edit. Keeping only one account is also the best practice for an inexperienced editor. If you forget a password, it can be recovered instead of making a new account or editing logged out. Also, you should stop editing the article about you. See WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Otherwise, more time would not bring your autobiography up to standards required by WP:BLP. Several editors are looking for good sources on your behalf in the deletion discussion, and are coming up empty handed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. As I just posted in reply to -- Random person no 362478479, I am new to this. I appreciate you pointing out these issues (logging in, COI, not editing). I hope the new references are helpful, as I was simply trying to assist in bringing this article into compliance - but others should handle. Going forward I will make suggestions here if I think they may be helpful, and not directly edit. Srose39 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Srose39 Based on your username I assume you are the subject of the article. If that is the case you should also read these: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Autobiography, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and make sure to declare your conflict of interest (see: WP:DISCLOSE on how to do it). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I am new to editing. I happened to read the article (which I did not create) and wondered why it was tagged. The first thing I did was to note that I am the subject of the article (see top of this thread). I now see there is a process WP:Conflict of interest, which recommends noting the COI in the Edit Summary. I have tried in good faith to be transparent and helpful, but now understand that other editors should handle this. There is another good source I found that may be useful, but will leave that to others: https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/?terms=%22Stanley%20Rose%22%20CEO%20&match=1

The Capital Times,

22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57 Srose39 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The article was created by Pioneer28, who in their total of 55 edits only edited Stan Rose and no other Wikipedia articles. Are you Pioneer28 or know the person who operated that account? DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

no, I'm a scientist and 3 time CEO who is widely known in my field (DNA analysis and genomics), saw the article was tagged, and naively tried to help improve it to be compliant. I now understand that proper procedure would have been to suggest changes here and allow editors to consider them, and appreciate everyone's help Srose39 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose both states and insinuates not to have created the article under the User:Pioneer28 account ( "I'm new to this (...) have never sought personal publicity"; "I am new to this"; "I did not create (this)"). But Pioneer28 submitted a closeup image of Mr. Rose for the article, stating it was Pioneer's own work in the copyright info. Mr. Rose later updated the closeup as his very first edit. Pioneer28's edits end on 25 March 2022. User:Srose39 started 29 July 2023. Both are WP:SPAs. The likelihood they don't know each other is zero. The likelihood this is a new or different user is also close to that. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand everyone is trying to be helpful, but I'm not that other user. The old photo you're referring to has been widely circulating for many years, and used in PR pieces by various companies. I did/do not own it. The picture I provided July 29 is one I do own and is more current (taken in 2022) Srose39 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pioneer28 claimed the copyright to that close up photo of you. According to its metadata, it was taken on 22 December 2008, Pioneer28 created your article 3 weeks later and uploaded the photo on 30 January 2009. It's highly unlikely that Pioneer28 simply scraped it from published sources just a month after it was taken. It's just as improbable that they, without any connection to you, decided to devote the entirety of their Wikipedia editing to your article. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The current version of User:Pioneer28, as in the identity of the editor, is just a wikilink to a redirect to the subject's article. I'm not sure how this doesn't also claim Pioneer28's identity as the subject, all edits considered. I plan on watching this space after the article is deleted. This promotional project started in 2009. It's quite long term. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but I'm not that user, and never ran a "promotional project." Apparently my naive efforts to be helpful were ineffective. If the editors feel an article describing my work as a scientist/entrepreneur doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's beyond my control. Thank you for an informative experience regarding the nature of this site and how it is administered. Srose39 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Stacey Plaskett

Just wanted to get some extra eyes on this, since accusations of associations with Jeffrey Epstein are very serious. This article has been receiving increased politically-motivated vandalism lately. Recently, an IP added a section called "Ties to Jeffrey Epstein," which read to me as slanted because of the key details it left out and the unnecessary details included. It's not the first time this topic was inserted, but it was previously reverted outright. I didn't think it should be removed wholesale since this is a real issue that has received mainstream so I made an attempt to rewrite it in a more factual style. I am still not sure it even deserves a whole section header.

In addition to the Epstein-related edits, there were two other recent additions from IPs of negative material: [1] and [2]. These are still live in the article, and should also be checked out for WP:RS/WP:UNDUE. Dominic·t 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lee Fang and Business Insider are not appropriate sources for this type of contentious material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed most of the content related to Jeffrey Epstein as it was only sourced to Lee Fang's Substack i.e. an SPS; and Business Insider which isn't a great source so should not be used for contentious matters concerning a living person. It's possible better sources are out there on this material but someone needs to find them before adding the content. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! We're on the same page, I just was less bold. :) The part you left in was what I had added with a RS to balance it out. Dominic·t 19:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim Goetz

First thing, I should disclose that I represent Mr. Goetz. And while I recognize WP:BLPEDIT permits direct editing to remove unsourced information, we still prefer to bring questions to the community and avoid making COI edits.

The issue in question is the infobox, which lists a spouse and children. No source has been provided. Even if one can be found, WP:BLPPRIVACY indicates that the "standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". I believe the circumstances here warrant its removal.

Other than these infobox listings, the article is otherwise entirely focused on his business endeavors. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE suggests to include "only material relevant to the person's notability" when the person is not well-known, and indeed Mr. Goetz generally keeps a WP:LOWPROFILE. He has not held a leadership role at his VC firm for several years, and grants few interviews. In fact, a columnist for the Missoulian of the same name has many more Google News hits.

For these reasons, I'm requesting an uninvolved editor to consider removing the mention of spouse and children from the infobox. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced spouse and children from the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, thanks very much. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And thank you for coming here exactly how you did. Too few do. I've watchlisted the article as I'm sure some others here have and will do. Again, thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again ScottishFinnishRadish and JFHJr. A few days after our discussion, another editor, Edwardx, edited the page for the first time to add information about Mr. Goetz's marital status and number of children, which of course I had made the case for removing. I reached out to see if they would reconsider, although they declined, stating the material was properly sourced and uncontroversial. I understand this view, although my interpretation of BLP policy is that when family members are not public figures and they have no relation to the subject's Notability, the subject's wishes for privacy on these details should be observed. As always, I will not directly edit the article, but I hope I can contribute usefully to the matter in this thread. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The argument can be made that disclosing the names of Mr. Goetz's children and spouse is violating WP:BLPPRIVACY, but mentioning that he is married and the number of children may be of interest to readers and appear to be public information. I don't know if there is a policy violation per se. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with noting the marriage and the number of children, while leaving out the names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Have added a little more info from Goetz's own page at Sequoia Capital and his NED page at Intel. All standard stuff that our readers would expect for any business bio here. I have very extensive experience on business BLPs over many years, and this being my first time editing the article should be a positive. As an experienced volunteer, I can be more objective than someone who is paid by the subject. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I accept I am not going to prevail on this point. Still, I appreciate the time everyone has put in to respond. So I have a different question now. Mr. Goetz is in fact no longer married, although there are no secondary sources confirming this. What's the best course of action? (I can provide the case number to locate relevant the court record; perhaps this is something to contact WP:VRT about?) I'm reminded of the recent Emily St. John Mandel situation (see: cheeky Slate interview, lengthy talk page discussion) and I'm hoping this has a simpler fix, even if just removing the marriage reference and leaving the children. Very interested to hear what you all think. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, WWB Too. It is disappointing that you are drip-feeding us, rather than being full and frank at the outset. Also, Goetz appears to live in Miami now, rather than Los Gatos - will you be you asking for us to change that too? All I can find when searching for "Jim Goetz divorce" is a page on UniCourt (looks like a scraper of primary source data) that he "filed a Family - Marriage Dissolution/Divorce lawsuit" in November 2021, and "The case status is Pending - Other Pending." Are they actually divorced, or just separated? The general rule is that we go with what is published in reliable secondary sources, Forbes in this case. Perhaps you or Goetz could contact Forbes to ask them to update their page? Edwardx (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Edwardx, I'm sorry you feel this way. As noted above, Mr. Goetz prefers to keep his private life private, even as his business career has made him a public figure. Since his marital status and children are not relevant to his Notability, my hope was that others would agree it didn't need to be here at all.

Regarding Forbes: because it was accurate for the time, I think it unlikely they will change it. That would be asking them to make information incorrect there; I think it would be preferable to make information correct here.

FWIW, the court record can be found via the Santa Clara county superior court website by searching the case number 21FL004073; it is not detailed, but it is apparent the matter has been carried through to its resolution. I think it is possible I could obtain a copy of the decision itself, though it would be inappropriate to share on a public page, hence my suggestion about reaching out to VRT. Any thoughts to add, ScottishFinnishRadish or Kcmastrpc? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Forbes is one of their numerous undated profile pages, not an article, so it is a simple matter to request an update. Please see Contact Information. The Santa Clara site is down. Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WWB Too, your best bet will likely be going to VRT or getting Forbes to update their profile of Mr. Goetz. While I have no reason to doubt your claim, this is a sensitive subject where policy has not been changed even with the Mandel kerfuffle. I was not able to load the case number you provided either, but even if I could, I believe I would be reverted if I made that edit with the court document as the only citation. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, I too am having trouble with the superior court website this morning. Odd, it worked fine yesterday. As for Forbes: the profile is from the 2020 Midas List, as the page says just below the short biographical sketch. The text is not evergreen; the last line mentions that he joined the Intel board "in November", meaning November 2019. In any event, like Ms. Mandel, I realize this is sort of thing Wikipedia's verification standards make difficult. Thanks for your time, and I will explore my options with VRT. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Mini Ladd

Can I ask someone to review whether this very serious allegation is properly-sourced and if so how we should treat it within bounds of WP:UNDUE etc. [3] Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's possible there is some merit to include mention of the Twitch ban, but definitely not anything like that. It looks like an IP has removed it along with their earlier even more problematic change. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sattai Duraimurugan

Can someone please take a look at the mess that is Sattai Duraimurugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and figure out what the heck to do with it? It isn't at all obvious that the individual (an Indian YouTuber) meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and even if he does, we certainly don't need the edit-warring that is going on, or an article containing badly-sourced and poorly-written content about 'charges' that seem not to have resulted in convictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created an Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sattai Duraimurugan - SUN EYE 1 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the text about the legal issues since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the AfD needs to consider the basis of his notability; that he keeps getting in trouble due to his political speech. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Those were WP:ROUTINE coverage and I would have added that in my Afd rationale if that section was not removed. - SUN EYE 1 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the AfD, multiple RS reporting of prosecution of political speech is not routine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Greensboro Massacre

@Stix1776 and I are looking for someone to weigh in on a BLP issue in the Greensboro Massacre article.

In the lead, it currently states: "Again, all of the defendants were acquitted by a jury that accepted their claims of self-defense, despite reports of 'vivid newsreel film to the contrary'." This is sourced from a contemporary opinion piece published in the New York Times. In my view, this violates BLP:CRIME by qualifying and casting doubt on the acquittal (suggesting that a crime had indeed taken place despite the lack of conviction) without enough sourcing (one line in a single op-ed).

Stix disagreed based on the article not being a biography and questioning if BLP applies, suggesting that removing names of some of the shooters would nullify the need to remove the qualifying of the acquittal, and that the sourcing is adequate.

Currently looking for someone to give input on these points. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Without offering an opinion on the content: WP:BLP is clear that it applies to all material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia. Assuming the people in question are identifiable and alive, the fact that the article is not a biography and/or does not name them does not mean BLP policy does not apply. (Also note that per WP:BDP, we presume that people are living and thus BLP applies unless they were born more than 115 years ago or their death is reported in a reliable source). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Caeciliusinhorto about when BLP applies. As a practical counterpoint, this case doesn't come close to the likes of the Death of Caylee Anthony, where the mother was acquitted and the article is impossible without naming her. But here, I think not naming possibly living people does resolve the problem. BLP still applies even when people are unnamed. In this case, keeping names out while retaining reliable sources seems fine to me, absent identifying prose (that also can be removed). We don't have to repeat every detail even from good sources, and BLP means we remove names of individual acquitted defendants from a massacre unless the accused were already notable (see: Robert Blake (actor)). JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to KiharaNoukan for tagging me. I feel like removing the names from the article might be ideal, as it's not really adding any relevant information to the article, since they're not famous.

Sorry to be skeptical about this originally. I've personally never seen BLP applied to historical non-biographies, and I wanted some advice from people that specialized in this matter. I do appreciate the opinions of editors who volunteer on this noticeboard regularly.Stix1776 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

For the point on names, as it has been mentioned, BLP applies while people involved are unnamed. From what I understand on JFHJr's post, we can retain the source and other info from the sources that provide names. I understand that point, and the article does rely heavily on the same sources that provide the names. That being said, the naming of individuals occurs outside of the quote in focus, in separate sections, and the source utilized is not the same one that provides us with the names of individuals involved. This is a general question for noticeboard contributors: Let's say the article strips out all mention of names. Would inclusion of skepticism on whether an acquittal was in the right, sourced from a single op-ed's objections to it, be in line with BLP guidelines, and if so, should that belong in the lead of an article? KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll speak only to this case. See CNN, Black Past, and Politico who all make a point to report the "all-white jury". Yes, this casts aspersions on the process and result. Rightfully. BLP means we also don't name the (some of the) same defendants who lost or settled civil suits including wrongful death. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@JFHJrI agree, there are plenty of good sources that talk about the all-white jury. I have no issue with it and it's been well-sourced. However, I am referring to "vivid newsreel film to the contrary," which is sourced from a single line in a single op-ed. I would be very surprised if that is enough to go past BLPCRIME threshold for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning the newsreel footage. It's reasonably sourced. There's no reason to think it's not reliable because it's an op-ed. There are already correctly aspersions on the process and resulting acquittal. This source doesn't support a stand-alone criticism of the trial, just one line within a well established all-white jury context. The newsreel doesn't make me question the acquittal any more than the jury itself. Withholding names is enough for BLP concerns in this article. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I triple checked sources on this and I was able to find mention of footage from a news piece that might work better than the op ed: NYT (News)

"It has attracted national attention in the four and a half years since the shootings, in part because videotapes of the event made by television news crews appear to show Klansmen and Nazi members methodically firing at Communist demonstrators and others on a Greensboro public street."

However, with relevance to the trial, non opinion RS still do not describe the footage as "contrary" to the defendants' claims or their acquittal in their own voice, instead opting to present POV of prosecutors, jurors, and defense. Example: Above mentioned NYT and Washington Post.

@Stix1776 As a compromise would it work to mention the footage in the context of attracting national attention in the article in lieu of "despite vivid newsreel film to the contrary" in the context of acquittal? Possible inclusion: "The incident generated national attention after video from TV news crews appeared to show Klansmen and Nazi members 'methodically firing' at marchers." This would better reflect how the footage is described by publications that mention it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No particular source is required to establish that the acquittal verdict was contrary to and despite newsreel coverage. It just is. It's nice that the op-ed used the word "contrary" though. See WP:BLUE/WP:PEDANTRY. There's less of a BLP issue saying "contrary" than describing particular and detailed actions of the accused in the video as you have proposed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is hardly a WP:PEDANTRY issue if multiple RS refuse to describe the footage in that manner, and instead opt to give weight to the opposing POV.

From the Washington Post article:

"Indeed, the evidence -- from dramatic videotapes of the shootout filmed by TV crews at the scene and testimony from 132 witnesses, including FBI acoustics experts -- clearly showed that both sides were firing 'at each other,' said Lackey. He felt the defendants acted in self-defense." KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

However, more cites in the article to these sources would be awesome! No reason to jettison the op-ed though... a contentious claim like this should have more than one reference anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the op-ed should keep WP:RSEDITORIAL in mind: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Tristario (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Stix1776: Thus spake the current live version: "Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Amen. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Tony Hinchcliffe

Hi, an ip hopping editor is edit warring to add unreferenced material to this article here and here.The youtube video they have linked does not include any rebuttal by Hinchcliffe and the accusation of racism at Pang is just the editor's own opinion in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Eduardo Vítor Rodrigues

This page has been vandalised consecutively. It is even currently blocked due to excessive vandalism. According to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, the information in articles cannot be supported by tabloids. All the information in this article is supported by tabloids. Furthermore, the content on this page only concerns court cases. This content is biased and, once again, goes against the policy on biographies of living persons, more specifically against the principle of impartiality. The content should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almeida Luísa (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion at the Teahouse, [4] this relates to a biography on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and thus is out-of-scope for discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Camp

Page: Garrett Camp, an early co-founder of Uber that was only involved in the early days

Content: A section called "Complaints by Uber Workers"

History: This section has been removed three times by editors. It is restored each time by @Chisme: in September 2019[5][6], October 2019[7], November 2020[8], and now in July 2023[9]. The section was deleted most recently by @Tristario: in response to my prior BLPN post. You can see Tristario's explanation regarding WP:GUILT here.

Context: I work for Mr. Camp. Chrisme says I am whitewashing the page but I have not edited it. I have disclosed my connection, expressed my concerns at BLPN, and proposed a less promotional rewrite here that has not been approved yet. The rewrite does not include Chrisme's section about criticisms from Uber workers because that section was not on the page at the time. I am not aware of any other criticisms the draft would remove that would give rise to an accusation of whitewashing.John Pinette (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your disclosure and restraint. I haven't checked out your proposed version. But I did combine the undue complaint section into the wealth section, since that's the actual topic. Certainly, a stand-alone complaint section is not merited in this biography. JFHJr (㊟) 22:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chisme If you are going to edit the articles of biographies of living people, you need to make sure that your edits comply with WP:BLP and the other policies of wikipedia. This is something that has been repeatedly removed by other users. Instead of accusing other users of whitewashing, you should consider the concerns they raise seriously.

In this case, issues with your edit include WP:WEIGHT, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:GUILT. This clearly doesn't deserve its own section per WP:WEIGHT, but I also don't think this even belongs in the biography per WP:GUILT since it's actually more about complaints about the conduct of uber than Garrett himself, and it doesn't meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE since this "allegation or incident" hasn't been reported by multiple sources. Tristario (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett was criticised probably because he was still on the board of directors at that time. Protestors even camped out at his mansion so they blame him along with the other execs.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate protest isn't it? And it's just a brief line about people protesting at the homes of Uber investors. And neither article says he was on the board of directors or even give any specific allegations about the conduct of Camp himself (besides buying the house). This doesn't seem like biographical information to me. Maybe we could have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity, although that still somes somewhat trivial to me Tristario (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GUILT is not applicable under a plain reading of WP:GUILT. There's no crime here. There's no third party either. On the other hand, I support Tristario's notion that less prose about the topic is merited in this biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GUILT does not specify crime, it just uses the terms "negative information" and "conduct", and the third party is Uber. I think the general guidance it's giving is applicable here because we're including complaints about Uber and implying they specifically apply to the conduct of Camp, when the source doesn't actually make such a specific allegation about the conduct of Camp himself.

But maybe the right move here is to just have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity? Thoughts on that? Tristario (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The (2019) record-breaking home purchase does seem noteworthy to me in due weight. I added a second ref about it from Forbes. WP:GUILT is still about third parties, as in guilt by association. It doesn't apply at all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If we're saying "Uber does this bad conduct" without actually having a source that specifies what Camp's involvement in that bad conduct was, or even that he's still actively involved in Uber, I think that's guilt by association, and I think including that in a biography is questionable, especially based on a single source. I do think your edits are an improvement though. I agree including the home purchase is noteworthy. Tristario (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...And I've pared the criticism down to half a line. How's it look to you? JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that seems to be fine Tristario (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Naw, it's basically still the same protest about the disparity between the driver's pay versus the wealth of the investors and founders. He was the chairman of the board of directors at the time of the protests[11] so I have no hand-wringing concern about an undue perspective of whether he was really "responsible" for what they are protesting against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well having a source that specifies that is an improvement. I think I'm fine with what's currently in the article but I do think we need to be careful with things like this, for the reasons I explained above. Tristario (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Morbid and Tristario: BLP-wise, how does the current revision of the article look to you? I've taken a scalpel to some parts and sutures to others. I didn't talkpage any, but I left edit summaries. I found the page had further problems. I think if we can form a consensus on the article as far as sourcing and weight, we can move on to other stuff. JFHJr (㊟) 05:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the article did have a fair bit of low quality sourcing so it is in need of a cleanup. Per WP:RSP#VentureBeat, VentureBeat seems to be a reliable source, though, so you could add that back in Tristario (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. JFHJr (㊟) 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Garret Camp's PR man complains and asks to have news reports about a protest by Uber drivers in front of his house removed from Wikipedia. There is obviously a conflict of interest here on the part of Camp's PR man. He should recuse himself from contributing to this article, as he quite plainly has a personal agenda here. It seems a compromise has been reached wherein the purchase is included in the article with the words "drawing criticism from Uber drivers struggling for improved wages and working conditions." So be it. I still maintain we should be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be a free PR platform. You may note the Garret Camp article at present includes all kind of falderal detail about Camp: the "50 Best Websites" list, the"50 Must-Have iPad Apps" list, ranked number 6 in Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies, etc. etc. etc. We even learn which actor portrayed him in the movie "Super Pumped." It seems to me several PR men have worked over this article in the previous years. As editors of Wikipedia, we should try to maintain high standards. Chisme (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out another instance of undue weight in this biography. I've addressed your valid concern by removing the prose and the references, plus another that didn't even mention the subject. The biography should not slide into a collection of non-noteworthy corporate detail. If the details belong anywhere, it's on the article for the company. JFHJr (㊟) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...about your other concerns:

1) User:John Pinette did an excellent job of disclosing his conflict of interest, and sought attention in the correct way. He never touched the article; he made a proposal; he responded to feedback; he sought help here. I can't speak for any other editors on the article. Please remember to assume good faith when you disagree.

2) A criticism section in this non-public figure's WP:BLP presents undue WP:WEIGHT; consensus here is half a line is okay. It's just not a big part of this human being's life, encyclopedically speaking. Its prose should be congruently small.

3) As long as they were reliable sources, no news reports were removed. In fact, there are now two references supporting the criticism you support.

4) The actor ref is solid, and the show is apparently notable. So it's noteworthy here, one line looks fine. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So, the above points aside, and just considering the current state of the article, would you join a consensus that the WP:BLP policy-related issues have been addressed? And if there are remaining issues, what are they? JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JFHJr for vacuuming some of the fluff out of the article. I appreciate the time you took to examine it. I have no issues as long as the protest by Uber drivers remains in the article. Yes, PR man John Pinette disclosed his conflict of interest. I was aware of that. Ny point was, because Pinette has a conflict of interest, his edits and proposed edits should be viewed skeptically. Chisme (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand and thank you. Please note, I haven't put any time into JP's proposed edits or asked him for any consensus or feedback on the BLP edits for the same reason. If his proposals make it into the article, they'll still need to be BLP compliant. I think you can let go of JP. He's not a disruptive editor. JFHJr (㊟) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's important that biographies of living people on wikipedia comply with WP:BLP, and if another user raises concerns, whether they have a conflict of interest or not, you should seriously consider those conerns. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading through WP:BLP Tristario (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Sanda Dia

Requesting more eyes on this article as an IP is trying to add names of accused, but with sourcing problems and giving out more info that appears to be in the public domain. CT55555(talk) 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

List of conservative artists

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservative artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are some serious BLP violations on List of conservative artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I'm not sure how to fully address on the article's talk page. A glaring one is the inclusion of names, identifying them as conservative, without proper sourcing and/or with notes containing subjective explanations. It's also strange to see at least two registered users that only created accounts in the last few weeks heavily editing that article, which raises suspicions about socking. Please advise. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, there's a whole bunch of things going on there, none of which is good: entries which probably could be sourced but are not (e.g. there are surely plenty of sources discussing Walt Disney's politics); entries where there are sources but they don't necessarily support the inclusion in this list (Morrissey is famous for saying politically controversial things, but is it meaningful to call him a conservative? The sources cited don't!); entries based on original research (Roger Daltrey is included based on a source describing him as critical of the EU; Jeremy Corbyn would be very surprised to learn that being critical of the EU is a conservative position!); entries which are just highly questionable on their own merits (Dwayne Johnson appears to be included purely on the basis that he gave an apparently entirely apolitical speech at the 2000 RNC; he also appeared at the DNC in the same year and has since endorsed Obama and Biden for the presidency, so even if he did once hold conservative views it's not at all clear to me that he still does).

I suspect the issues with this article all boil down to the inclusion criteria, or lack thereof. The current inclusion criteria suggested by the lead seem to me to be completely meaningless: "artists who held politically traditional beliefs [or] were associated with conservative politics" suggests that any artist who has ever held conservative beliefs or been associated with conservative politics is eligible for inclusion, which isn't super useful. People's political views change, as does what is considered "conservative". Possibly a meaningful list of conservative artists could be made if there were strict criteria on inclusion and it was actively maintained by editors aware of the dangers of it becoming "list of people some random wikipedia editor thinks have conservative views", but this article is not it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Without any specific sources for each entry that explicitly demonstrates that the bulk of the media considered the person a conservative artist, this list fails BLP. There is probably some relevance of a topic "Conservatism in the artistic field" or something like that, and where a few well-known examples could be mentioned, but a full list is hugely subjective and shouldn't exist on WP Masem (t) 12:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Caeciliusinhorto-public and Masem said. It's a hulking mess. Everything that's unreffed about a living person should be removed, then all that fail V. Then cn for all the dead people with no refs. I don't have the time now but might get to it in a day or two if nobody else does. And I hope someone does... happy to provide backup, time allowing. JFHJr (㊟) 00:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservative artists. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bi-State League

The article Bi-State League lists the league's presidents. The name of one such president is Jake Wells, listed as league president in 1936. The name in this article is a hyperlink to an article about Wells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Wells), but that Jake Wells died in 1927. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.66 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Shrawan Kumar (geneticist)

This is about the Wikipedia page, Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), that was submitted in November 2022. The comments made by DoubleGrazing on July 23rd have left me feeling very disappointed and disagreed with. It's possible that they didn't have the opportunity to evaluate each line of the article and the scientific merit of all the references provided in this article. However, I totally agree with first (TheChunky) Wiki editor’s comment or rejection of the article on January 5th as he pointed out some peacock terms in the article and he had no issues about references. I greatly appreciate his comment and the article has been completely revised in line with his suggestions and submitted in March 2023. Although at that time – many pre-internet era references link was missing. I took great effort in finding those very valuable research papers (references from 21 to 38) and link of each published papers are provided. Wikipedia readers now can access all those papers just by click of a button.

Coming back to the issues raised by current Wiki editor/reviewer that “there is far too much unsupported content’ which is not true. On the contrary, I provided way more references of every topic mentioned in this article. If someone is reading first paragraph about Kumar’s research interest such as molecular genetics, forensic science, biological anthropology, and population genetics – there is no reference provided in the beginning of that section. However, the reference of molecular genetics research work is provided in the same section below (reference number 8 through 19). The reference of Forensic Science research work is provided from references 21 through 28. The reference of biological anthropology and population genetics is provided from references 29 through 35. The BOR gene discovery reference is provided from 1 through 11 and 17, 18 and 19. The reference of PKD gene discovery is provided from 12 through 16. Reference of Kumar’s personal theater work (picture link in Wikimedia Common) is provided, line 6, in the section Education and Early Life. Reference of Kumar’s current work and career pathways – online PDF link is provided in line 15 of the first paragraph of the article. His work on the Onge population; the link is provided from references 36-38 and picture file is in Wikimedia Common – line 6 in the section education and early life. Reference of his current work is provided, available online, line 15 of the first section. NIH funding information is provided as reference number 39. The reference for serving in the editorial board of South Asian Anthropologist is provided (copy of the picture -in Wikimedia Common), line 9, in the section research and career section. The human chromosome workshop reference link is provided from 40 through 42. Also, if you review the history of editing of this article when this was submitted in November last year, several Wikipedia editors made very constructive comments and researched internet and added references about Kumar’s NIH funding source and his human genome project research work. I did not have those references.

The other concern this Wiki editor had is that “do not pile all the citations at the end as it does not make clear which source supports”. Again, if you review the subject and source all the references are for the same subject. For example, line 11 in section Education and early life eight references (number 21 through 28) are provided after the word Forensic science. If you click on each reference all are related to forensic and serology work; similarly, it is true on the next line seven references are linked after word population genetics and all research papers are of population genetics. I can understand the confusion as it is rare to find the geneticist who had interests and research publications on so many different aspects of genetics. I tried my best to provide as many references as possible I can get for each subject for the benefit of the Wikipedia readers and fixed the concerns related to first rejection – now again- this appears unending process, therefore this request.

In summary, many Wikipedia editors have already edited and added some missing content and references to this article, when submitted in November, 2022, making constructive contributions. I am grateful to them. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more references to add. This article is already supported by extensive references compare to many biographical articles I see in Wikipedia. In terms of notability, the discovery of genes is very impressive and great contribution to genetics which will be great for Wikipedia readers. Based on the facts, provided here, I request to Wikipedia administrators to examine the article and make the necessary editing/changes if needed and move it to an appropriate place. I would also like to inform that recently I noticed this biography is available in many other wiki pages such as Wikitia etc. I did not submit this article anywhere in the world except in Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.102.4 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I took a look, and there are many problems with this draft. First, the tone is all wrong for an encyclopedia article. It appears to be written by the subject or by someone very close to the subject, because there are many things in there that only the subject could possibly know. Things like "...he showed a keen interest in acting...", "...he was interested in medicine...", or "...continued his zeal to do research...". People don't write that way about other people, because it implies an ability to read his mind. (See: Third-person omniscient) That's how people tend to write about themselves.

There is far too much technical jargon, especially in the lede. Private individuals like spouses, parents, and children should not be named. Then there is quite a lot of WP:Puffery. But the biggest problem is that nearly all the sources are his own research papers. These are WP:Primary sources, whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we rely on WP:Secondary sources for our information, which are things like newspapers, books, and magazines. The question is not one of how many papers he has written, but how much attention has his work received from others outside his specialized field in the scientific community. That's what we mean by independent sources, that is, sources which are reporting on him but are not connected to him in any way. Those are the kinds of sources we need to determine notability.

Notability is not determined by how many papers someone has written, but by how much they got noticed and picked up by the media in general. That's not to say that his accomplishments are not noteworthy, but notability requires that people outside his field took notice and decided to write about him. Those are the kinds of sources we need, and without them, it is highly unlikely this draft will ever pass muster and make it on to mainspace. I hope that helps explain, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The relevant draft is Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), for easier reference. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nelson Bocaranda

Discussion at ANI#Case study and ANI#BLP vios continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo

User stated he can do "whatever the fuck he wanted" and restored unsourced negative commentary about a living person here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169403375&oldid=1169403171

Please assist. I methodically read EVERY source and updated the article before the vandalism began with a large number of small edits, each citing the evidence and sourcing.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&action=history

Please help. Live version seems to be a big BLP violation and not neutral at all. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That comment was in response to the claim that I couldn't unilaterally undo My name is not Alexander Hamilton's edits to the article, which is obviously untrue to anybody whos edited Wikipedia. My reversion could not reasonably be construed as vandalism. My name is not Alexander Hamilton is a SPA who has almost exclusively edited this article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton's editing had the collective effect of removing any negative commentary from the article. None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced. Some of it many be undue, but that's something to be decided at the talkpage or at this BLPN discussion.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced."

The one I highlighted in the talk page just now is literally a lie based on the source cited. The other user just also violated BLP here. I don't care how many edits you have. User here attacked me and intentionally violated BLP. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced."

Are there rules for how someone is supposed to begin? Am I supposed to edit a bunch of random stuff first before finding something interesting to focus on? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding rules, I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Vandalism. Reverting your edit was not 'vandalism'. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it vandalism to restore BLP violations? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to drop the hostile attitude. This is a content dispute, and you aren't going to win it by rule-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy says to remove all violations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged

"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."

That is what I did. Is that rule not binding on all of us no matter what we think? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the underlying issue, which seems to revolve around whether Elizondo was actually a director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, as I understand it, this has been questioned in credible sources. Other sources state it as a fact, but that in of itself may not be sufficient to do the same. I'd suggest that people start by finding relevant sources and citing them here, since this discussion is going to get nowhere without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a load of bunk. It's not about "AATIP", it's about the literally opening line in the article as an example of the broader problems.

Right now it says:

Elizondo claims he was a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program...

And cites a 2019 article that CONFIRMS from the DOD that Elizondo worked at Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence but had no "responsibilities at AATIP".

See here: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/

My version is BLP compliant as seen here and cites a later dated, updated source from NBC News, which has more veracity than Intercept:

My version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&oldid=1169403775

It says: "Luis "Lue" Elizondo is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence."

^ that sentence is incontrovertible.

NBC News describes him:

Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

This is the cornerstone of the article. People are wildly cherry picking articles to make every single solitary reference question this living person and to make them look bad. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Here--this is a simpler example of what's wrong with a huge number of passages in the article.

Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking for both sides in a dispute to provide sources is not 'bunk'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The 'bunk' is unilaterally restoring BLP violations. I know some 'wikipedians' edit by political moves but I'm not going to. I removed BLP violations. According to everything I've ever read the BLP policy is basically God and the rest of are irrelevant against it.

So that edit, what's wrong with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555 My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

While WP:CLAIM is a word to watch, using it is certainly not a BLP violation. It's, at worst, a violation of WP:NPOV, but if what is being stated really is a claim and not substantiated, it cannot be WP:ASSERTed as fact either which makes the violation more of a WP:MOS issue. I do not think The Intercept is considered the fact-checking juggernaut of all fact-checking juggernauts when it comes to who had what role in the US government. Indeed, it is generally considered a biased source. jps (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Pentagon flat out said he worked there. Why would we say claimed? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They verified his directorship? I must have missed that. jps (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They verified he worked at a specific office. You're the second person now who seems to be misunderstanding and conflating unique topics.

See here for expanded context: Talk:Luis_Elizondo#Requested_edit_to_remove_BLP_violation._BLP_violations_do_not_need_talk_page_consensus. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but they did not verify his directorship. Too bad. Well, if and when they do, fortunately Wikipedia can change wording to confirm. Until then, I see your options as saying that he worked in a certain office or attributing his role as director to the person who said that this was his role -- namely Elizondo himself. jps (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep going back to that AATIP Director topic, which is not the topic at hand? Are you engaged in some futile attempt to bait me into something? It will never work, so save yourself the mental energy. Whatever game this appears to be, it's a waste of time.

Do you have anything to contribute to my proposed hyper-specific edit here? Talk:Luis_Elizondo#Requested_edit_to_remove_BLP_violation._BLP_violations_do_not_need_talk_page_consensus My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that you made this edit. That seems to be a problem to me. Do you agree that it is a problem? jps (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cited source: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/ufos-are-make-way-us-senate-know-rcna973
• May 19, 2021, 10:53 AM PDT / Updated May 24, 2021, 2:59 PM PDT
• By Denise Chow and Gadi Schwartz

"Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program."

One writer at a local newspaper and the Black Vault (?) site that compiles FOIA requests seems to dispute all that. Why would that one tiny news source outrank the aggregate weight of all others, including the New York Times and NBC News? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRUTHMATTERS. We should not be asserting things which may be false. We don't seem to be able to verify this solidly. But, fortunately, Wikipedia is not going to run into problems by being cautious here. If and when better and solid sourcing emerges, we can update the page! Until then, it is not great to change disputed information into bald statements of fact. It's not the end of the world, but it isn't good practice. Maybe the best thing is to remove the whole "director" thing entirely until it is sorted out. There is no deadline to finish the article, after all, and I'm sure that as time goes on things will become clearer. And even if they don't, well, it probably is best for Wikipedia not to get into the mess since we are under no obligation to include absolutely everything. Make sense? jps (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are "essays" binding?

What "policy" authorizes us to dispute multiple news articles from major news sources about minor details of a persons personal history? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) The topic at hand here is whether the Elizondo biography is WP:BLP-compliant. All of it, whether in its present state, or as it was when you'd completed your mass edit. There seem to be good grounds to suggest that while you removed one WP:BLP violation, you added at least one too. Accordingly, I'd advise you one last time to cut out the hostility, before it backfires on you. You aren't going to win arguments that way. Stick to discussions over content, cite sources, and give other people a chance to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: hostility -- I saw the troll who attacked me was chastised by some Administrator, so that is fine enough. I assumed we just went at each other here after that persons unhinged reaction, but that's nice that we don't.

I am happy to engage in strictly policy compliant editing, but I will not toe any ideology for any UFO woo-woo types or any skeptic/debunker ideologies either. I'll just follow the rules of the site.

Apparently a lot of the fringe on both sides dislike this Lue Elizondo for different reasons. Now that I have read about Wikipedia:Good_articles, I think I will get this article to that level and work to get it on the Front Page of Wikipedia on principle. If that takes a thousand absurdly documented edits, cool. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

In regard to this first issue, currently the article states:

"From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo claimed to work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon."

This is sourced to [12]. However, the source specifically says "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017". Therefore, adding "claimed" based on that source appears to be a BLP violation, as it isn't a claim so much as a fact if it has been confirmed by the Pentagon that he worked for the OUSDI. There is a separate statment, that he claimed to be the director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, and that seems much less certain so the "claimed" seems warranted. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I was warned this entire topic (why?) would be contentious, but that doesn't matter to me. That's why I edited each line, by line. As you say, this edit request is INCREDIBLY narrow. I will happily quintuple or decatuple source every sentence. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Andy. As an outsider who knows nothing about this, you could either gain my support or turn me right off, and hostile attitudes are a major turn-off. Maybe it's just me, but it reminds me of one of my brothers, who will argue vigorously with people --even as they are trying to agree with him! It makes me think, "Whoa, I don't wanna get involved in this mess." In most instances, on Wikipedia or otherwise, you'll never convince the people you're debating with, so at a certain point it's not even worth trying. But debates are never about convincing your opponents, and I think people often forget that. Who you should be talking to, and trying to convince, is everyone else watching this page. People who haven't already made up their minds. People like me. But that will never happen if you don't remain composed and civil. Does that make sense? Right now, you are your own worst enemy if you can't get out of your own way.

Now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because many people don't realize just how strongly their emotions come off to the reader in writing. The general thought seems to be that "people can't see my face or hear my tone so they have no clue what my emotions are", but the opposite is actually true. Emotions come off far, far stronger to the reader because we don't have those facial expressions or vocal tones to augment them. (For more, see User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Connotation and tone) So my advice is, tone it down if you want to get others to look into this and maybe even get involved. I hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Brilliantly said Zaereth. Sgerbic (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"My name is not Alexander Hamilton" has been indef blocked by Courcelles. I have no strong opinion regarding the "claimed" regarding the OUSDI or other agencies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

To provide some additional context here for those that are confused: Elizondo is fairly well centered in the current tempest-in-a-teapot that are happening with respect to UFOs. The media has not been exactly stellar in their accounting of all this (unfortunately following a WP:SENSATIONalist playbook). Elizondo is not the current focus of much of this clamoring, but the sources that focus on Elizondo are all from the last dust-up that happened in 2017. There is an ongoing internecine spat between Elizondo and a tabloid journalist named Stephen Greenstreet who did a deep dive trying to verify Elizondo's story and has concluded that there are misrepresentations in the stories that he has told and that have been repeated uncritically by a variety of media outlets. For example, it is uncontroversial that Elizondo was in the employ of the DoD, but the precise nature of the AATIP (including even what the acronym even supposedly stood for) is not well attested to by anyone other than Elizondo -- and almost all reporting on how this program supposedly works traces back to statements he made. Meanwhile, there is somewhat strong evidence that the program was operating more-or-less as an arm of Robert Bigelow's flight of fancy including such fantastical elements as ghost hunting on a haunted ranch in Nevada. The implication is that this is something of a men who stare at goats situation all over again with a decently sized, unsupervised government budget running amok on a wild goose chases. Greenstreet has really only self-published his allegations, so I would be very uncomfortable using them as sources in any BLP, but it is undeniable that the independent verification of Elizondo's claims has only happened for a select portion (like, we can confirm that videos and pilot testimony exist, but a lot of the other stories Elizondo is repeating right now have never been backed up with anything but his own say-so). Given that the entire subject is something of a WP:ECREE game, for obvious reasons, I would argue that Wikipedia has good cause to be extremely cautious about all statements about Elizondo that are being reported in even otherwise upstanding media. Unfortunately, the incentive in this area seems to be to publish stories quickly for the views/revenue rather than making sure the facts are right. Careful journalism does not seem to be the concern even among sources we would normally consider beyond reproach. Again, WP:SENSATION. I think the best thing Wikipedia can do in this scenario is to drag its feet enormously. Points that we would otherwise not bat an eyelash about should be looked at carefully for independent corroboration (not just a repost of another source's reporting or a parroting of a subject's statements made in an interview). Rather, I think Wikipedia would be wise to apply a standard like strict scrutiny to basically any proposed "fact" out of an abundance of caution. When in doubt, leave it out. There is no risk of a BLP violation for not saying something. If we only include points that are clearly corroborated by independent sources and make sure that points that are attested to by only one person are attributed to that person, we will be fine. Stories will continue to be published that take certain claims at face value and repeat them without a clear explanation of how they were vetted, and we should preference those stories which explain exactly how a particular point was confirmed and only state it in Wikipedia voice if that confirmation happened through independent and reliable means. This is especially important practice when churnalism is taking over (as was the case back in 2017 with the Pentagon videos). Without independent corroboration, it is irresponsible for us to use the normal arguments of, "oh, this reliable source has said that XXX is true so we can WP:ASSERT it in Wikipedia's voice". Unfortunately, in the area of UFOs, the normal approaches do not necessarily lead to a decent accounting of the situation. jps (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Shellyne Rodriguez

On Talk:Shellyne_Rodriguez, one user suggested reporting the Shellyne Rodriguez article because it needs mediation. That's true now. And next Monday (Aug 14), she has two court hearings, so depending on what happens in those two courts (on one day!), the article may need even more mediation next week.

The issue (from my perspective) is that the honest efforts of Reliable Sources to cover a news story that the Unreliable Sources dishonestly created with a cell phone camera are doomed to failure. Honestly reporting someone's dishonesty repeats their dishonesty.

As someone who taught at CUNY colleges for 16 years, I read both the Reliable and the Unreliable Sources with an entirely different perspective.

I'm curious to hear yours.

Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That article has and had serious problems. I've removed a lot of content [13] as it was sourced to unsuitable sources especially primary sources like court documents, exam schedules and Students for Life America. Even some of the secondary sources were used in an almost primary source like fashion and they are also not reliable sources like New York Post and Fox News. I left in the use of New York Post in one paragraph that I saw because the rest of the text doesn't make much sense without it but the article needs to be re-worded to only cover what has been reported in reliable secondary sources, not anything that is solely sourced to primary sources or other unreliable sources; so that paragraph needs to be fixed to remove anything relying solely on NY Post as a source replacing it with anything that was reported on secondary sources and removing it where it's not covered. To be clear this includes anything coming directly from the video or anything about what the reporter was told or said which is not covered in reliable secondary sources. In other words, we can report the machete incident but we have to be careful to only report the details on that which we covered in reliable secondary sources. Probably the text can be simplified to how a NY Post reporter approached her at her home and she threatened them with a machete and was fired or something of that sort. Note that while you are free to read unreliable sources for your own interest, they are of very little relevance to what we should cover in our article whatever you perspective. If there is new material from secondary sources tomorrow we can cover that as it happens but we cannot rely on primary source, unreliable sources and editor WP:OR in the meantime. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes. You noticed the issue. On the one hand, the rest of the text does not make sense without the NYPost article. On the other, the NYPost manufactured the narrative. A pamphlet-splilling is not newsworthy. Why were journalists covering this "news story" at all?

And now that anything Prof. Rodriguez says "can and will be used against her in a court of law," she cannot tell us her side of the story. Instead we all have to wait for a judge.

So given the inevitable one-sided nature of any writing about what the NYPost did, it would be better to just delete the whole "Legal issues" section than to exclude information necessary to her public defense. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to note that User:Eryk Wdowiak may have a conflict of interest. They have tried to synthesize a narrative using uploaded screenshots from the university website. It appears Wdowiak works for the same university system as Rodriguez. @DMacks: any thoughts about this? Thriley (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur with possible literal WP:COI, or at best a massive WP:NPOV fail. Self-described attempting to Right Great Wrongs and help get the word out or provide a different side or weight of perspective not based on published reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see that the BBC re-reported the NYPost's story before ABC7? The British Broadcasting Company reported on events in Manhattan before the American Broadcasting Company's channel 7 in New York City. Look at the dates. The BBC reported the NYPost's story on May 24. ABC7 reported it on May 25. I propose a return to 1776. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: "I propose a return to the Spirit of 1776." Before historians remind me of what happened to the Americans who defended Fort Washington in 1776, I wish to make clear that I prefer the Americans' triumphant re-entry into Manhattan in 1783.  ;-) Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As Eryk Wdowiak has repeatedly thrown around loaded terms and has now explicitly said we should make an editorial decision to "help Wikipedia avoid a defamation lawsuit",(edit summary) I have issued an NLT warning. I don't think this specific one actually crosses the bright line, but has the appearance of chilling intent. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This from the man who talks about "your behavior." What I said is that editors like you, DMacks, have made contentious edits that may cause Shellyne Rodriguez to take legal action against Wikipedia. For balance, I included some positive, well-sourced information about her in the article. It was quickly deleted.

I find it a shame that you cannot say anything nice about her. Instead of pointing your index finger at other people, maybe you should look your own other fingers pointing back at you. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the comparison. Between 01:39 on 01 Aug and 20:31 on 09 Aug, DMacks and his team removed everything that Prof. Rodriguez could use in her defense, citing "policy" as the reason. That's not policy. That's defamation. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That is utterly absurd. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Articles aren't evidence. What is or isn't in an article here has no bearing whatsoever on anything 'Rodriguez could use in her defense'. And I'd strongly suggest you drop the 'defamation' crap, before someone decides you are stepping over the line into explicit legal threats, and blocks you. Trying to win content disputes through such tactics doesn't work, and it would be a desperately poor day for Wikipedia if it ever did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Her legal defense? I am certain that her attorneys have 1000 times more information than we do.

I'm talking about her public defense -- the one in the court of public opinion. If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law.

And again, why do certain people here find it so difficult to say something nice? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And for what it's worth ... While editing the article, I read every single source. After taking an honest look at all the information, I found myself admiring Shellyne Rodriguez.

I hope you all will admire her one day too. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the above further reference to "a court of law", I have started a thread regarding Eryk Wdowiak's behaviour at WP:ANI: [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was looking back to my experience in journalism and remembering the advice that my editors gave me. It's very simple: "If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Eryk Wdowiak has now been blocked indefinitely. Could I ask those experienced with WP:BLP policy to take a look at the article though, since we need to treat this with care. I've removed a citation of the 'Students for Life' YouTube video, as it didn't seem appropriate, and anything of relevance was cited to secondary sources. Further editing may possibly be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "Hunter College videos" section should be rewritten to not directly cite the New York Post at all. If the details of how the incident allegedly played out can be attributed to more reliable sources that assessed the Post's claims, then those sources should be used; otherwise they should be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Tamzin. As Eryk pointed out before they were banned, the story was run on ABC7 which I would consider to be a relatively reliable source. That said, it's regrettable that other news sources didn't run it (I can kind of understand why), and the only other sources I can seem to find through Google search are all advocacy/opinion sites. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Bernard Looney

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

Hello editors, I'm Vishal and I work for bp. I wanted to bring to your attention some recent edits made to the Bernard Looney article by Kirkylad. The content additions made here relate to a protest campaign by Global Witness, a group which Kirkylad is affiliated with, according to their user page. I don't believe these additions are appropriate in the Bernard Looney article, particularly in their scale and scope.

I think the most applicable policy here is due weight. There was almost as much content added about the protest campaign as was in the rest of the article combined. Most of the content added is not related to Bernard Looney. Only the first two sentences are directly related to Looney, and the second paragraph briefly mentions him but is more about what Global Witness did and said than it is about him. The images added also do not do much to help readers understand more about Bernard Looney. This seems to me like a pretty clear cut example of undue weight and inappropriate "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery." The content added would be appropriate, I think, in the Global Witness article, but not in the article about Bernard Looney.

There are also some sourcing issues. The new content cites Reddit for information not related to Bernard Looney, which appears to be a self-published source by Kirkylad on a social media site. My understanding is self-published sources shouldn't be used in biographies of living people unless the article subject is the one who wrote the source. It also cites Metro, which is a tabloid and barred from use according to the reliable sources list and an irrelevant-to-Bernard-Looney BBC article.

The only source added with this content that both meets Wikipedia sourcing standards and mentions Bernard Looney directly is an article from The Independent, which states that "Global Witness bought out three advertising slots around London to comment on the pay package of Bernard Looney, whose earnings went from £4.5 million to £10 million last year." This seems like a load of content to add about three billboards.

I would propose removing that material entirely. If editors feel some should remain, I would suggest that a single sentence be added to the prior content about Looney's pay package, to the effect of "Global Witness launched a billboard protest campaign against the pay increase in London in July 2023."

Please let me know what you think. As I have a COI I haven't made these changes myself and am instead seeking thoughts from others. Vishal BP (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts cut the stuff sourced to Metro, which is not a reliable source for BLP material; I further trimmed the stuff which wasn't directly related to Looney and moved the discussion of the protest to go with the other content about Looney's pay package. (diff). I also cut one of the two images of the billboards: one is surely sufficient! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC) fixing ping Morbidthoughts Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Reflecting the criticism of the pay award is fair game, but I don't think the stuff about the billboards is relevant at all. It's just a silly publicity stunt by a pressure group and will have no lasting significance. I know it was covered by reliable sources, but articles don't have to contain everything that a reliable source says.Neiltonks (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly have no particular commitment to including the billboards. Some googling suggests that while the controversy over Looney's pay is well reported (e.g. in the Guardian, The Times, Reuters, and Irish Times), the Independent is basically the only respectable source which mentions the billboards; everything else seems to be tabloidy junk. I certainly wouldn't object to anyone removing it entirely Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Unusual situation with Christine Lagarde

This discussion is likely of interest to BLPN. It's an interesting situation which should prompt some thoughtful reflection.

In my view, this is a classic example of why IAR is policy. We have a relatively unimportant fact in the biography of a living person (exact marital status) which we have factually wrong, per the subject. It has little impact on history really, but is still wrong. However, it is very well sourced. The explanation is that it was wrong in an early profile (1999, New York Times) and has been repeated many times in the press thereafter. I'm going to guess that at least some mentions in the press were reporters following our reports, but at least some of them pre-date us carrying the error. My view is that we should omit the claim on IAR grounds, while I encourage the subject to get a correction in a reliable source. In the meantime others are saying that we simply must carry it due to it being in reliable sources. I think that's not right. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that Jimbo Wales has tried the same at Will.i.am in the distant past, and at Matt Hancock recently, and in the first instance he was just wrong but refused to admit this, and in the second claimed that some factoid had originated on enwiki and was only then picked up by reliable sources, when in reality it was first posted by the National (Scottish newspaper). This IAR approach (doing the bidding of "powerful people" (as he calls them) he met, but where he claims to have no COI despite this has lead to problems and false claims each time, and wouldn't be accepted from any regular editor. The claim in this case that all sources got their info from the NYTimes, even French sources like l'Echo or well-resourced books like Routledge's "The Europa Directory of International Organizations", seems again very dubious and self-serving. Fram (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Now, here's an almighty can of worms, if ever I've seen one. If removing well-sourced content from a biography is legitimate in this case because it is 'factually wrong, per the subject', why isn't it legitimate more generally? Why should we IAR in this specific instance, rather than the many, many others where the same circumstances arise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a very minor involvement in this because I declined a semi-protected edit request on the basis that multiple RS supported the article's long-standing status quo, and even after this development I maintain the same position. The subject of this article could lie to any editor's face the same as she may have to Jimbo; he is no different from any of us in this regard. We follow RS, especially when an article's subject makes or requests changes without such support. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is, potentially, a dispute between a primary and secondary source. When such disputes occur, it's usually best to note them in the article, and there's plenty of biographies with notes to the effect of "Third-party sources say detail X is true of subject, but subject says it is not". The catch here is that Jimbo relaying Lagarde's statements does not constitute a reliable source. If Lagarde wants to put out a statement clarifying (her perception of) the record, her narrative can at least be given a footnote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Also though, is there a WP:BLPNAME issue here? Whether Lagarde has had one husband or two, neither is mentioned in the body of the article, so I don't see why including the names of two non-notable individuals is appropraite as a privacy matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if Lagarde made a verifiable statement then we could note that in the article, but Jimbo saying she made some comment to him at lunch is not exactly verifiable. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Emily St. John Mandel situation, although a little less straightforward – in that case, the claims about Mandel's marriage had been true and just no more recent sources had published that she had divorced; here, Lagarde is apparently saying that at least since 1999 reliable sources have been saying something that was never true.

On the other hand, the fact that reliable sources have been saying it since 1999 makes it in some ways less urgent; if Lagarde was really concerned that she was wrongly being portrayed in the media as having married someone she didn't, she probably wouldn't have waited 25 years to mention it and only then because she happened to sit next to Jimbo at lunch!

On the gripping hand, I agree that it's unclear why we need to name Lagarde's husbands in the infobox at all, as they are apparently not notable and are not mentioned in the body of the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is written with a high level of uncertainty: "Her first marriage, in 1982, to a financial analyst called Wilfred Lagarde, produced two sons, but seems to have ended badly a decade later, for all mention of Wilfred has been expunged from her biographies. She then married Eachran Gilmour, a British businessman, of whom even less is known, and is now being romanced by glossy-haired Corsican entrepreneur Xavier Giocanti, with whom she goes scuba diving in the Mediterranean." Denaar (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

J. Michael Bailey

Hello editors. I am seeking input on the acceptability of sources and the notability of an event. Psychology professor J. Michael Bailey recently had a controversial gender dysphoria paper retracted. I was trying to include a sentence or two on the retraction, something like: In 2023, Springer Nature announced they would retract Bailey's 2023 paper on the controversial Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) hypothesis due to their editorial policies around consent. This followed an open letter asking Springer to fire the editor and retract the paper.

One editor said they did not want to give attention to the Bailey article because of a tweet where he said he wanted to 'Streisand' the retraction (I felt Bailey's tweets had no relevance in deciding to include it or not).

My two sources are:

• MedPage Today
• and this Medscape an article (republished from retraction watch, Medscape has an agreement to publish some of their articles at their discretion)

Other potential sources include:

• This is the original Retractionwatch article. The same opposed editor has also claimed that because the Medscape article has republished content from RetractionWatch, the Medscape article is not due?
• An opinion piece authored by Bailey about the retraction, on the more controversial Unherd website. I felt this may be acceptable on his own biography as a living person, although the other editors insisted it was not acceptable on the talk page.

Other links:

• The retraction notice and original paper

Currently, things are unclear and I would appreciate input. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the medpage citation is adequate to include this given that the subject does not object to this controversy being publicised which addresses WP:NPF concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A note that the article itself received coverage before its retraction.[15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Any retraction is a significant event in a scientific career. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Bulat Utemuratov

Hi, I have a Conflict of Interest and I wanted to raise an issue concerning a recent set of changes made to the article on Bulat Utemuratov. The changes in question are subheadings which are not in line with NPOV.

On the Talk page I have described why I think the content these new subheadings emphasise should actually be considered for removal (some was added by an apparent paid editor), and why arranging the format of the article to emphasise it is inappropriate.

Recently, Wuerzele rearranged the article and created a new section which I considered in violation of WP:CRIT and WP:SYNTH out of pre-existing text. I accordingly made a COI edit request to remove this heading and move the content so it was once again just part of the main Career section, which Spintendo answered. Spintendo made the call to introduce new section titles instead of the old, inappropriate one, but I consider the new titles to still be undue emphasis on the two events in question.

To be clear, I do not think either of the recent editors have acted in bad faith, and I appreciate Spintendo’s efforts to respond to my request, but the combined result of their recent additions has resulted in an article that does not hold to the ideals of NPOV or BLP. I would appreciate a second opinion on this. Podsought (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lil Tay

Unusual situation with Lil Tay, who had a brief burst of viral fame 5 years ago. Her family has recently reported her deceased, but the relevant authorities have no record of her death. Her article (which was only created after the supposed death was reported) treats her as if she's still alive, which I think is the correct call for the moment. Just thought I would post here to get second thoughts. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the apparent confusion in normally reliable sources, we should absolutely be treating her death as unproven, and being careful to use the most reliable and up-to-date sources for anything related to it. Some googling reveals e.g. The Telegraph saying uncritically that she died (but only that the instagram announcement was "apparently by a member of Lil Tay’s family"), but on the other hand The Independent talking about "reports of her 'death'" (scarequotes original). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have an article? Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The page was create-protected back in 2018 [16], presumably because people thought it wasn't a good idea to create an article about an internet famous 9 year old that had risen to prominence after being manipulated to act obnoxiously by her parents and brother. Arguably the coverage that was generated back then probably didn't pass WP:SUSTAINED. @Ingenuity: was the admin that removed the protection, presumably before doubts started to come out about the veracity of her death. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)