Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before 2016, Yusuf used to do a lot of valid epidemiology research but he joined the cholesterol denialist camp in 2017 and allied himself with Nina Teicholz, authoring a paper that was funded by her Nutrition Coalition, a group known for promoting all sorts of pseudoscience. These-days much of his content is promoted by fringe figures from the low-carb camp and not on mainstream websites. Yusuf is in conspiracy theory terrority when he claims that Ancel Keys fudged his data [1]. That is a typical low-carb diet talking point that has been discredited.

Yusuf was the co-author of the 2017 PURE study (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) [2]. This is a flawed study that is widely quoted by carnivore diet proponents and those in the low-carb community to justify their belief that saturated fat is "good" in unlimited amounts and "all" carbohydrates are bad. As seen here the study had many methodological problems such as grouping all carbohydrates together [3], [4]. One study is not going to alter consensus dietary recommendations based on decades of research. As we can see on this link [5], Yusuf claims the American Heart Association's dietary recommendations are all wrong. He is arguing from an extreme position. I am not convinced we should remove sources from the article just because some of his followers may be upset with it. The article can be updated and improved, it is probably worth mentioning his involvement with the PURE study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pinging @Steven1991 and @Butterscotch Beluga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your direction. I did remove twice and it was put back twice. We reached no agreement on the Talk Page. I am seeking more help. Demsuz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an option for editors who want to expand on stories that stans have an obsession with and that’s to make a separate page. The average person cannot make sense of every non-essential story about him when trying to understand his life and perspective. Demsuz (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the material and while there may be some claims with dubious sourcing (I deleted one where the claim did not match the source), looking at the bulk of sources, I'm seeing both good general sources (Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Deseret News, the L.A. Times) and good music-specific sources (Rolling Stone, Spin, MTV News, Billboard, etc.) I'm not saying that absolutely nothing should be trimmed, but it is hard to assume that legal matters are not worth our attention when the are being covered in significant and reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Demsuz, I took a brief look at both the changes you made and at the article as a whole. You're correct, in an article about a celebrity it's really difficult to keep people from inserting every little bit of trivia they can scrape up, no matter how small. We have policies in place to keep this stuff in check, so pay attention, because this will help you with your talk-page argument.

The main policy we have to mitigate this sort of thing is WP:NOPV, and in particular WP:Due weight and WP:Balance. I'd suggest reading those policies very carefully. Outside of Wikipedia, "notable" means people are interested in it; that is, it's noteworthy. To avoid confusion between this and Wikipedia's definition, I'll use the synonym "significant" to mean this definition. If something is significant or noteworthy, people will write about it in reliable sources, because that's what they do.

I think a lot of people come here with a mistaken idea of what an encyclopedia is, and what one is for. An encyclopedia is not a place for excessive detail. They're quick references designed to give the reader the basic gist of the story without having to read the whole damn story. They're brief summaries, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty, focusing on the most significant aspects of the subject. Weight and balance is how we keep most trivia out of celebrity articles.

What weight and balance means is we take all the sources that exist about a subject and divide up the info like a pie chart. Things that get the most coverage are the most significant and deserve the most space in the article. Things that are less significant get less space, and those with the lowest significance doesn't deserve any. It all depends on the amount of public interest in whatever that thing is, which we can measure fairly accurately this way.

Balance in addition can refer to how the info is arranged in the article. It's like, if you load all the heavy cargo in the back of the boat it will likely sink, but if you evenly disperse the weight the boat will be better balanced. Similarly, putting all the bad stuff in a section titled "legal issues" is like putting all the heavy stuff in the back of the boat. Better would be to work these things into the timeline of events so it's more balanced throughout the article.

Weight and balance are best determined by those who edit the article regularly and are familiar with all the sources, so it's best to take this to the talk page and work it out there. If nothing else, throw down some good arguments for others to read, because once you do that, if you still can't come to a resolution, then you can try our dispute resolution process, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation and it’s written beautifully. This was very helpful and encouraging. I will reread this a couple more times and see about how that info can be integrated throughout the bio. I appreciate the kindness editors like you give when you share your wisdom and experience. Demsuz (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took your suggestions and put a notice on the Talk Page. I hope editors can rework the page to balance the biography. It has a GA rating. Demsuz (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The problem is Rolling Stone online will use click bait articles and opinion pieces unlike what they publish. Demsuz (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

i am Florentina Holzinger, a choreographer, theatre and opera director from austria. recently one of my shows, which deals with women in relationship to the history of the church, gets hijacked from the conservative and far- right movement. since then i am a victim of cyber hate and bullying and the tabloid press. i just detected that also my wikipedia entry (english) got altered recently as a consequence by an internet troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger The current describtion does in no way represent my artistic work. Please compare here the english and german versions:

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

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger

I ask you to urgently remove this offensive and wrongful entry about me and my work.

Thank you Florentina Holzinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.38.85 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors / Administrators

I am Richard Curtis's assistant. For 6 months now we have been trying to edit his page so that it is up to date, relevant and correct. Every time we have made adjustments they have been deleted and old notes reinstated. Richard is about to receive a humantiarian oscar and so its imperative his page is up to date and lists his campaigning achievements.

Please could you let me know how we can resolve this asap.

Account in question [Richard_Curtis] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portobellostudios (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made a request for changes at Talk:Richard Curtis#Updating Richards Page. That's in principle the correct way to go about this, but I suspect that particular request is not going to go very far – you seem to have suggested the removal of a lot of text, primarily that which might reflect poorly on Curtis, with no explanation beyond much of what is written is a little out dated or doesnt list his campaigning achievements fully. You'd do much better to suggest one change at a time, and give specific reasoning for it.

For instance, one of your suggestions is to delete the sentence While at Harrow, Curtis directed a school performance of Joe Orton's play The Erpingham Camp; this controversial choice was given the 'green light' by his classics master, James Morwood. Later, Curtis commented that Morwood's support had helped him understand that it was all right "to push boundaries and to be funny". This is supported by an article written by Curtis himself, and seems to have direct relevance to Curtis' later career; I don't understand what your objection to it is.

Other suggestions (e.g. that the entire "controversy" section be deleted") I do understand why Curtis would not want them to be included, but "Curtis doesn't like it" is not a compelling argument from Wikipedia's point of view as to whether they should be included. As it is it just looks as though Curtis wants to hide any record of potential criticism, which Wikipedia editors generally don't like. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion that may be of interest at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_15#Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent related to a previous BLP discussion here (Patricia Marroquin Norby) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Patricia_Marroquin_Norby . If you have the time and interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a strong, negative bias against Max Lugavere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:2EB0:9C35:3934:A6FF:3CB9 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into specifics, I'd merely note that it is entirely possible for a biography to be strongly negative, and still comply with Wikipedia policy, if the negativity is the consequence of following what published reliable sources have to say about the individual. Beyond that, you'd have to be more specific, if you want anyone to take action here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never heard of Lugavere before, but like many Wikipedia articles about dietary writers, this one has problems (although not the most egregious). It appears to use a pre-ordained framing to build references and structure, and sacrifices nuance for an urge to 'debunk' claims or overemphasize the fringe. First: the lead: it's top heavy, and over-emphasizing things that aren't mentioned in the body: "supplements to 'supercharge' the brain" are not mentioned in body, and nowhere in the OSS article is it explicitly stated that Lugavere's views on supplements are not supported by scientific evidence. Secondly, the Little Empty Boxes section makes the WP:SYNTH inference "was negatively reviewed by critics" apparently by simply cherry-picking two negative reviews (from outlets of dubious reliability). A few seconds of Googling finds several Tomato-meter Approved Critic reviews including a positive review from IndieWire, a positive review from an LAist film critic, and a couple more generally positive reviews (here's another) that are likely not Wiki-reliable sources, but arguably of the same caliber of "Movie Jawn" and "Loud and Clear Reviews" currently cited. What is needed is a good deep dive for sources, including print newspaper sources, to more fully and fairly describe the subject, his views, and productions, without giving undue weight to particular critics or elements. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An addendum, one of the major contributors to the Max Lugavere article and its talk page is also a major contributor to Lugavre's article on RationalWiki, which may explain the underlying tone I perceive, which is "this guy is fringe, so we'll go with that, even if the sources aren't around to call him fringe". --Animalparty! (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime? Furthermore, would it be a violation to refer to something as antisemitic if there were never charges or investigations into the incident as a hate crime, even if sources refer to the incident as antisemitic /potentially antisemitic?

Thank you in advance for your time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's sufficient sourcing for a label we can use the label. If there's not, there isn't.

Convictions really are a special better quality of evidence for accusing someone of a crime, so we certainly shouldn't be saying someone committed a hate crime without a conviction. But they're not necessarily the best source on the elements of the crime by themselves. So if sources agree a crime was antisemitic we can still say that even if that's not present in the original conviction. Loki (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the former, WP:BLP policy is absolutely clear: we don't assert in Wikipedia's voice that a living person committed a crime unless and until they have been convicted of such. Whether the events involve antisemitism or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I tend to believe much of the racism we see today is perpetuated by the media. It just makes a story much juicier if you can put a racial spin on things. There are incidents that are truly racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's not nearly as much as we're led to believe.

That said, "antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime. There must be more to the story that involves a real crime. Or incident. Because an incident does not necessarily imply a crime was committed. I find "incident" to be a rather overly-broad term here, because it could literally mean anything. I often find lists like these to be rather problematic because they become dumping grounds for anything that some editor even remotely believes fits the bill. As any good psychology book will confirm, at the heart of all racism is categorization. Categorization lumps real individuals under a narrowly defined label, or "stereotype". The title of the category is the sole, defining characteristic of anything placed in it, making it a very powerful propaganda tool, so great care must be taken when categorizing people. A list article like this is just a form of categorizing, and it's far too easy to become the very thing you fight against.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is when living people are involved. For example, the first one on the list names a non-notable person as being a part of this incident, and per things like WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, etc., we shouldn't be naming non-notable people like that, especially if the incident is a crime and they have not been convicted. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

""antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime"

This was specifically what I was trying to get at when asking this. Apologies for not making my initial question quite clear, I was struggling to find the proper wording.

According to WP:BLP policy, is it acceptable to refer to an "incident" as antisemitic, even if no one has been convicted of a crime? Is that acceptable or should it be treated the same way as WP:BLPCRIME? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a preponderance of reliable sources call an incident antisemitic, you have grounds to call it antisemitic. Hate crimes that lead to a conviction as hate crimes are much more rare than incidents that can be reasonably described as antisemitic. But that's not quite the same thing as calling a specific person antisemitic. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]