Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Adolf Hitler Uunona

{{archive top|WP:NAC: {{done}}. Organister, thank you for posting here! JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Likely autobiographical, and potentially overstated in nature.

A short summary is below:

The article asserts that Heywood is "the first Australian musician in history to live as a professional concert organist", yet cites few sources (reputable) or otherwise? The cited sources are newspaper/magazine articles about one of Heywood's concerts in a concert hall, town hall, cathedral, and festival respectively.

Additionally the "Concert Organ International website" listed as the first External link, is run either by himself or his wife. While this isn't listed as a source for the article itself, it seems that the entire article is likely used more as a free autobiographical advertisement, as opposed to a biography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Organister (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:"{{tq|the first Australian musician in history to live as a professional concert organist}}"

:If that claim is unsourced, then it can safely be removed. If you think the article could use some copy editing for improvement, and/or additional sources, then go ahead. As for the external link, "Concert Organ International", it can safely be removed as well per WP:ELNO #5 - web pages that primarily exist to sell products - which is what it looks like to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've reviewed the article. I'm putting away my cleaver now. But I removed promotional content that wasn't nailed down, or that misused a source. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've done a WP:PROD here. Itchy cleaver after further searching. JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Recently there was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor%20Lorenz/Archive%203 RfC on whether or not to include Taylor Lorenz's comments about the murder of Brian Thompson in her article.] The RfC was closed by Chetsford. The closing comment stated, in part, {{tq|there is a consensus to exclude mention of Taylor Lorenz's comments on Brian Thompson's murder}}.

There was an uptick in coverage about Lorenz after she gave a CNN interview, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Luigi_Mangione_comments which led to the suggestion her comments be added once again].

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor%20Lorenz&diff=1286743865&oldid=1286454377 Ultimately, the quote was added]. To me, this looks like it's ignoring the RfC, but I am not sure if that's the case, or how to proceed. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Should be removed until a new RfC is held or a very high consensus is reached. 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Consensus can change. The RfC was four months ago (and in that RfC, I !voted to exclude the comments since they were clearly UNDUE at the time). With this April CNN interview, Lorenz mentioned that she {{tqq|saw the biggest audience growth that [she has] ever seen}} due to her comments/posts about the killing, which I find noteworthy as it demonstrates the effect her comments have had on her journalism career. All I did was make a bold edit; you're free to remove my recent addition--I don't mind. I'm waffling a bit between inclusion and exclusion anyway. Feel free to participate in the discussion on the talk page, which you already know about since you linked to it here. Some1 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Consensus can change but with BLPs you should make sure consensus is for inclusion before making a bold edit. 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I’m watching the conversation play out. I posted here because, as I said, I’m not sure what the procedure is post RfC. I have no problems with bold edits. i know you're a dog (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We still have to remember that it is a BLP. Being bold is not an excuse to go off like a bull in a china shop. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What’s that in reference to? i know you're a dog (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the talk page I didn't see any new discussion related to the content. Certainly consensus can change and if there has been new coverage of the topic it may be worth revisiting. That said, absent some talk page discussion why the content should now be included, specifically why things are different now vs a few months back, I would say the material should be excluded based on the previous closing. I'm not saying the burden to include is high, only that more/new evidence than is presented at the article/article talk (which is currently zero evidence) is needed to disregard the prior close. Springee (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Springee hasn't had their coffee yet. See Talk:Taylor Lorenz#Luigi Mangione comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure of how to proceed with this or how notable of an event it is so I wanted to bring it here for additional opinions.

I would imagine the two named individuals who were also in the car with him should not be named per WP:BLPCRIME.

Awshort (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Juan_Carlos_Lopez-Gomez&diff=prev&oldid=1287129167 removed] the material under BLPCRIME shortly after posting here, which was disputed by the original editor (pinging {{ping|Iknowyoureadog}}) who added the names of two people that were arrested with Lopez-Gomez. Relevant talk page discussion is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detention_of_Juan_Carlos_Lopez-Gomez#Deletion_April_23 here], but I advised them to take it to BLPN if they felt the names, or material should be included prior to restoration.

:Their reasoning of {{tq| Three people were arrested because of a law that has been blocked by the federal government from enforcement. You removed that. If I read the article now, I would think it is only one person. That is in no way, shape, or form preserving my hard work IF BLPCRIME even applied - which it does not. Please work to restore that information.}} as well as {{tq|WP:CRIME allows for the inclusion}}, and their edit summary of {{tq|re-add additional arrests given lack of effort to WP:PRESERVE. Added additional language to ensure it is clear they should not have been arrested, and ensure it is in compliance with WP:CRIME.}} when they restored show that they may not understand policy since it seems to be a relatively new account registered last month.

:Awshort (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Once again, please read WP:PRESERVE. You deleted the entire section and a section titled SB 4-C and clearly made zero effort to preserve it. It is endlessly frustrating to have other editors wholesale delete my hard work, though you might not know that as, based on your edit history, it looks like all you do in mainspace is delete other's work. I went ahead and restored the information without the other two names. i know you're a dog (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors,

I am writing to request the immediate review of the article on Jeanette Wilson, which contains numerous factual inaccuracies and appears to have been influenced by a coordinated defamation effort.

I am a spiritual teacher, healer, medium, TV personality, and author with a longstanding professional career in New Zealand and the UK . The current article includes serious errors and false claims:

• I did not become a medium after my grandfather died (he passed away when I was six).
• I am not anti-vaccine; I support good science and responsible health dialogue.
• I do not promote unproven supplements or offer dangerous COVID-19 advice.
• My sessions do not involve spirit possession or humming,> I have never claimed to cure arthritis.
• I have never spoken to John of God, he is not my mentor.
• The timeline of events is inaccurate (the 20/20 episode aired before the TV3 series).
• There is no mention of my SY TV series Spirit Medium;Jeanette Wilson
• Several of the quotes attributed to me were taken not from a public event but from a private session Susan Gerbic posing as Joanne Nielson, tried to set up a sting. Susan thought she was joining me on an event where I passed on messages but she came in on a session where people meditated and connected with their own loved one. Frustrated by this she was determined to get me for something else as it was 2am in the morning (all of this is on the video I can send you)

Additionally, quotes from known skeptics Vicki Hyde and Michael Marshall are present in the article. In the video I have, it is said that Michael Marshall had contacted all my UK events to stop them happening. The individuals who edited the page are part of a group who were planning and discussing actions to damage my reputation and sabotage my public events in the UK. This undermines the neutrality of the article and calls into question the integrity of its creation.

I respectfully request this article be nominated for deletion or, at the very least, be heavily edited under neutral oversight. I am happy to provide my video evidence and supporting documentation through appropriate channels.

Thank you for reviewing this.

Jeanette Wilson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.96.209 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion, per the longstanding precedent that "{{xt|... subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests"}}. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Wilson. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that AfD has closed as "keep" -- has the rest of this stuff been addressed then? jp×g🗯️ 09:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This page is autobiographical by user 'Faktmagik' and is written with a biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon of Destruction (talk • contribs) 14:31, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

See: BC Fourteen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon of Destruction (talk • contribs) 14:32, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

Dallas Wiens died from cardiac failure near the end of September 2024 - his family have contributed announcements and even a funeral stream about it. The only problem is that all our sources are blacklisted and can't be used, including from Facebook and GoFundMe. I don't want the page to pretend that he's alive and aging, but what can be done when Wikipedia doesn't let us use it? BOTTO _(T•C) 00:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I suppose the question is: can we use the Facebook announcement from his widow as a source, as there are no second-party ones? BOTTO _(T•C) 00:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::It would be best if a member of the family get in contact with a local newspaper from where he was last living, and then have them publish an obituary, which then can be used. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Reply|Isaidnoway}} I reached out to a handful of publications that covered his benchmarks over the years, to see if they'd cover his death. The question is: are we able to use Facebook as a source in the meantime, until someone acknowledges his death? BOTTO _(T•C) 13:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't use Facebook since it is WP:UGC. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Social media posts cannot be used to make claims about other people (per point 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{Reply|Ponyo}} Thank you for your input. You've always been an administrator I've always respected, so when I hear your input, I know the course is set. He's dead, but no third-party/non-blacklisted sources say that, so should we return the page to the current tense, as if he's alive? I hate considering Facebook, which is why I've never done that, but I know coverage of him stopped several years ago. And, for some reason, other pages like Beta Test (film) remain intact, despite being built upon Facebook - not to invoke whataboutism. BOTTO _(T•C) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Our policies are imperfect (both in creation and application) but they're all we have to help protect against disinformation. Some reliable source will ultimately report the death given the scientific interest in the subject.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|WP:NAC: There is no WP:BLP or WP:BDP issue raised. JFHJr (㊟) 00:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I have found, and removed, several violations in this BLP of a convicted criminal with significant international media prominence. However, I have also found that several relatives are mentioned multiple times within the article text. Sanitising the article to comply with the prohibition against mentioning or discussing relatives of BLPs, and particularly high profile criminals, will require a major effort to almost entirely rewrite the article. IMHO the article is at signigicant risk of inadvertently libelling several univolved people. Thus I think cleanup is quite urgent. Please also see my post at Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell#Multiple_BLP_violations?

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Her parents Robert Maxwell (who was also a criminal) and Elisabeth Maxwell are both now dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Even if BLP applied to her parents (which it does not, because her mother died more than a decade ago and her father died more than 30 years ago), I do not see how naming her (otherwise notable!) parents is in any way a BLP violation. It is not libellous to name Maxwell's family members in her biography. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Naming notable relatives as being her relatives is obviously not a BLP vio. It's quite absurd to insinuate that it is. Every single person you removed has their own article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Also some of these people have been dead for actual decades. BLP vio - what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I'm concerned by repeated edits at Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein that seem to run afoul of our BLP guidelines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_and_Elizabeth_Uihlein&diff=1288053782&oldid=1287343689 Take a look]. Specifically there is content alleging that the Uihleins engaged in illegal activities. I don't see evidence of an investigation or conviction and this seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME. There is also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR happening and the article could use some more eyes. Marquardtika (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:What about that do you think violates BLPCRIME? We don't need an official investigation or conviction if there is good coverage, although depending on the circumstances we could choose not to cover it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am sympathetic to this tag you added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_and_Elizabeth_Uihlein&diff=prev&oldid=1287343485] but that does appear to be what the subjects are most covered for... Perhaps a stand alone Political activities of Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein page is due, especially as Uline is more or less a stand alone page for their business interests. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:The heart of WP:BLPCRIME states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. It is hard to cast Dick and Liz as "not public figures"; their political activities have generated much attention. As such, this doesn't apply to them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::We have in the article that the Uline business was engaged in an illegal scheme, and that "Elizabeth would have been aware of the program." The source is a [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/uline-mexican-workers-trump Guardian] article saying that an anonymous source said she was aware of the (allegedly illegal) program. How is that not a BLP issue? Just because she's a public figure doesn't mean we should be able to use anonymous sources to say that she was aware of illegality and did nothing about it. Not to mention that this is really about the Uline business, not about Elizabeth personally. Marquardtika (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not saying that there is no BLP issue, just that the specific invocation of BLPCRIME doesn't work well here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, it sounds like BLPCRIME doesn't fit this particular scenario. But WP:PUBLICFIGURE does, and we may be dealing with "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out...." Marquardtika (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Its hard to believe that the Guardian would run a feature on it and nobody else would pick it up... Were you really unable to find other sources when you went looking? Or did you never look? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We are not using an anonymous source, we are using the Guardian. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Right, the Guardian says that an anonymous source said that Elizabeth Uihlein was aware of the illegal scheme. The only other source I could find for this contention is [https://www.rawstory.com/liz-and-dick-uihlein/ Raw Story], which doesn't seem usable since it is rated "generally unreliable for factual reporting." The Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein article as well as the Uline article have been heavily edited by an WP:SPA who is adding a lot of unencylopedic seeming things like screen grabs of columns Elizabeth writes for the company newsletter (which looks like WP:OR) and things like a random long pull quote from a Politico article (see Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein#Views and history. It's all giving college essay vibes. And there is clearly some confusion about what content goes at the personal article vs. the company article. Marquardtika (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see a number of other sources reporting on the story such as[https://www.chicagobusiness.com/manufacturing-logistics/uline-worker-immigration-policy-subject-guardian-probe][https://www.wortfm.org/sources-allege-uline-shuttle-program/]. It does seem to make more sense to put this in the broader context though, this is not the first time issues in that area have come up[https://www.propublica.org/article/while-trump-cracked-down-on-immigration-a-republican-megadonor-sued-for-a-special-visa][https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/uline-trump-mega-donors-underpaid-mexican-workers][https://www.propublica.org/article/uline-uihlein-election-denial] etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I will note that I got here via a user talk message, but I have also been a regular editor to the page and talk page participant in the past and had noticed activity on my watchlist but had been too busy to investigate. I think there are some pretty real issues on that article in its current state. I don't know why we're tracking every donation they've made that's gotten new coverage - it strikes me as UNDUE, especially when combined with the context needed to make the donations make sense. I don't think the diff linked with the wording {{tqq|In December of 2024 and February of 2025, the Guardian reported details of an allegedly well established scheme wherein Uline was bringing workers from their warehouses in Mexico to work shifts at their warehouses in the U.S without work visas and stated that Elizabeth would have been aware of the program.}} is a BLP violation. We're stating in-line who is alleging it (the Guardian) and not saying it was a crime just that it (allegedly) happened. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This article contains sensitive information on an ongoing investigation. The person in the article is a vulnerable person. His family ask that the information about his missing status is removed. This issue is ongoing and IS highly sensitive, despite what the people correcting it on the ‘talk’ might say. He is vulnerable, many of the details concerning this are NOT being made public by us, his family. And we would ask again for privacy and consideration and not media links from news articles who are NOT party to all the details. This is an ongoing situation and we are incredibly distressed by the insistent inclusion of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Targaryen1993 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Direct link to referenced talk page section: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Ruddock#Removals_of_paragraph_on_his_being_reported_missing] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Following up by pointing out for clarity that the article is :Sam Ruddock. I've dropped a note on the editor's talk page linking to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and highlighting the VRT e-mail address there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagreement on which pronouns to use for this 17 year old, please join Talk:Raegan_Revord#Raegan_is_not_non-binary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Alan Schatzberg

Some text on this page is outdated or provides an inaccurate and incomplete viewpoint:

Dr. Schatzberg is no longer the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Psychiatric Research, he is now Emeritus Editor.

The page currently states: "As the APA president in 2009–10, he was identified as the principal investigator on a federal study into the drug mifepristone for use as an antidepressant being developed by Corcept Therapeutics, a company Schatzberg had created and in which he had several million dollars' equity.[5]"

However, as documented in this article and other online sources (https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.43.16.0006), Stanford acquired a patent on mifepristone in the 1990s following NIMH-funded research, for which Schatzberg was principal investigator, on the biology of psychotic depression. The patent was then licensed to Corcept. Before the patent was issued, Dr. Schatzberg did not have any financial interest in this drug. Once he was aware he was going to have a financial interest in mifepristone, he disclosed it.

The page should be updated to reflect the facts around this topic in a more complete and balanced way. Past editors of the page have removed it completely, but others have added it back repeatedly without full or accurate information. This same phrase is on the American Psychiatric Association's page and is incomplete/inaccurate. The timeline of his APA presidency occurred after the news reports about the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4302:5940:D01D:47CB:CA17:953 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

in which case artist names should be capitalized or should not ? Taking note that the AC/DC page was using the band name all capitalized, and actually working on the CHINCHILLA artist page, which is also an all-capitalized band name (see: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/64595/chinchilla/ ), I therefore capitalized the CHINCHILLA band name. But, my work was reverted and flagged as "possible BLP".

I'd like to have more point of views about that. I also opened a discussion on the artist page. What is considered BLP in this case ? Cyrix Sòng (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is an article title dispute, rather than a BLP issue. Please see our policy on Article titles. Particularly, how do reliable sources refer to this artist? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::See also MOS:BIOEXCEPT. Note that capitalising AC/DC, as two initialisms, is standard English formatting whereas rendering CHINCHILLA in allcaps is stylisation, so you cannot really use the forme argue about how we treat the latter. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for both of your replies. It makes sense. I saw the same policy apply for general Capitalization so I could take a decision accordingly. Cyrix Sòng (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been doing a WP:DOB cleanup sourced to birth indexes per WP:BLPPRIMARY and past discussion on the noticeboard.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive212#Birth_dates][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive341#Kim_Myers] I keep getting reverted by Yankees10 at Kyler Murray, and they have made no attempt to fix the underlying issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I found a non-primary listing of his birth date (an ESPN database) and added that. I hope that clears the issue. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{la|Zhang Ziyi}} The three gate content in controversy section has no relieble soures, it's all tabloid sources. Should it be here? I removed them but got reverted. SimonWan00 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have no knowledge of the Chinese sources cited for the other controversies, but the "Donation Gate" section is sourced to the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal (albeit judging by its relative newness and lack of Wikipedia article, not the most significant academic journal going). It might still be the case that there's excessive focus given to these controversies in the article (I'm always suspicious of "controversies" sections, especially when the controversies are such weak sauce as her co-star said that somebody seduced him and some people in the media speculated that he was talking about her) but there are absolutely non-tabloid sources which would ordinarily be presumed reliable cited in these sections. (From what little I know of China News Service, I wouldn't expect that it would normally be questionable {{em|because it's a tabloid gossip rag}} either. I wouldn't want to see it cited for e.g. Chinese politics without awareness that it's a state-controlled source, but is it generally unreliable for celebrity news?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I agree with you that Wall Street Journal is relieble soures. The other ones, China News Service is one of leading news website in China and sina.com and sohu.com also are big internet company, but the source cited in this article belongs to Entertainment gossip section on those websites. So I think they're a bit of tabloid vibes. The reliability of the content is uncertain for me. SimonWan00 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Senior U.S. District Judge [Claude M. Hilton]

Someone added a profanity to his description.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6012:600:5D4E:3D46:F875:2ED7:48C4 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Appears as though the vandalism referenced has been removed. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 02:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:FYI, in the future, you can remove content like that yourself, without having to report it here, having said that, thank you for reporting it. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about the relation between WP:BLP1E and WP:1E at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#BLP1E is split into two pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

In Talk:Julian Assange#OkCupid Profile a self description for a dating site which has been quoted in many reliable sources. There has been an effort to remove it as trivial and even though it is quite short to trim bits that editors don't like about it. Is it trivial information that should not be in an encyclopaedia? NadVolum (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:This kind of does look like trivia in context to me. Like it seems to come down to the question of whether it's encyclopedic knowledge that Julian Assange was a little bit cringe 19 years ago. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::We have had our say, it is time for fresh eyes to have a look. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry but was this directed to me? Because I've made one comment here and one comment at Julian Assange that was in response to seeing this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::All of us, lets not litigate this in two places. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:It strikes me as entirely trivial. The article is already very long – the current revision, without the OKCupid text, is 13,372 words/83kB! Why does it matter that he used the pseudonym Harry Harrison? What does that tell the reader? At best, {{em|maybe}} the fact that he self-described as a {{tq|"passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who was "directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project"}} might be worth mentioning – but the article already discusses in much greater depth his activism before this point, so even that I'm not super convinced is that important to include. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Its clearly not trivia (it received feature coverage), but that doesn't mean its due. IMO this discussion would go much smoother if we focuses on whether or not it was due rather than bickering about whether its trivia/trivial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::That doesn't mean it's {{tq|clearly not trivia}}. Evidently numerous editors rightly perceive it as a trivial detail in the longer term of events. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And I insist that those editors would be better served to argue that it is an undue detail in the longer term of events because that is a much stronger argument that accomplishes the same ends if I am not mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Undue is part of Neutral point of view. How do we measure that except by coverage in reliable sources? If you look at the OKCupid business we have coverage by Forbes, NBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Time Magazine, The Times, CNN and lots of other sources. I don't remember anything particular about his trial that got such coverage except his marriage in jail during it which even the BBC reported though it completely ignored everything else. Anyway the Guardian profile [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/30/julian-assange-wikileaks-profile] is something to check 'undue' about. NadVolum (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The bio and information for Dr. Austin Lane is inaccurate and libelous. Please include the correct information from his bio on the southern Illinois university site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:af81:7100:df7:f542:1ec1:6499 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:You will have to be more specific. Also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:(link: Austin Lane) Is it libelous to say there was a scandal or controversy? The present wording assigns no blame to Lane personally. —Tamfang (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's not defamatory. It is, however, a WP:COATRACK. It should be nuked per WP:BLP1E. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe we have a problem at Sam Hyde. I am no authority on Hyde, having never seen any of his work, but all I get from reading his page is that a Wikipedia editor doesn't like him very much, with repeated edit warring to put negative material in the start of the lead, with added primary source refbomb. I have read some secondary treatments of Hyde, and understand he is a controversial figure, but I think this needs a bit of guidance on writing with neutral point of view. requesting more eyes on this please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like you and {{u|Fred Zepelin}} have been going back and forth since October. Framing a long-term content dispute as "a Wikipedia editor doesn't like him very much" doesn't seem the most neutral way of attracting additional attention. That said, some of the claims on the page do look sloppy. e.g. {{tq|Hyde in particular has often been described as using antisemitic, racist, anti-LGBTQ and anti-women tropes in his comedy}} - "often" but with one source. And inserting "alt-right" in the first sentence of the lead, even though "heavily linked with the alt-right" is in the very same paragraph. I don't think most of these claims are all that controversial in the context of reliable sources about him, but it's written a tad aggressively, yeah. My $0.02 anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Fixing ping. {{u|Fred Zepelin}}. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, but it is certainly a mischaracterisation to say this is a back and forth between me and Fred Zepelin. The sequence, as I can see it from the page history, is thus:

::*Text was reverted by {{U|FMSky}} May 2024, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1224361796&oldid=1223555413], reverted right back by Fred Zeppelin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1224714525&oldid=1224361893]

::* Removed by {{U|MisterWat3rm3l0n }} June 2024, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1227047611&oldid=1227020936], reverted by Fred Zeppelin in September [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1246435760&oldid=1246416464]

::* Removed by {{U|DvcDeBlvngis}} September 2024 (the following day) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1246493431&oldid=1246435760], reverted by Fred Zeppelin the same day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1246583614&oldid=1246493431]

::* Two days later DvcDeBlvngis and Fred Zeppelin do a go around [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1246902589&oldid=1246732483] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1246732483&oldid=1246625125]

::*And again on 22 and then again on 23rd September. Sorry, can't be bothered to paste all the diffs.

::* FMSky and Fred Zeppelin do a go around on 2 October and again on 3rd October.

::* My first edit was to remove the controversial material and cite BLPRESTORE and ask this be taken to talk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1249221261&oldid=1249218876] Fred Zeppelin reverted this, I reasserted BLPRESTORE and asked it be taken to talk, and at last we got to this talk page section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Hyde/Archive_1#%22Sam_Hyde_is_an_American_Alt-Right_Comedian%22_+%22and_he_has_a_fanbase_that_is_known_for_favoring_white_nationalism_and_anti-Semitism.%22] (now archived). Also relevant is this talk page section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Hyde/Archive_1#The_lead_-_Hyde_being_described_as_incorporating_racist,_anti-Semitic_and_homophobic_themes_in_his_comedy.]

::So by my count, that is Fred Zeppelin edit warring with four different editors (and he was also edit warring with at least two others over the "alt right" text. I came in at the end of this, not the beginning. The issue went quiet and appeared resolved (but sadly with no main text improvement) until last week, when Fred Zeppelin again asserted the same text, without further participation in the talk discussion, nor anything approaching consensus for his much reverted text.

::You may also have thought my interaction was greater because of this revert of 23 October [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&diff=1253002865&oldid=1252996277]. But in that case my revert was in support of Fred Zeppelin and what appeared to be a nascent consensus on the talk page. I did not revert Fred Zeppelin there, I reverted in favour of Fred Zeppelin's text.

::There is a behavioural issue here, but I didn't want to make it about that. To me the real issue is that the Sam Hyde page, as it stands, does not do what an encyclopaedic article should do. It does not neutrally inform and educate the reader about the page subject. The problems are not all about the lead edit war. There is a wider issue, and I have started a discussion on that in the talk page there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Fred Zepelin has a long history of attempting to insert strongly negative material about right-wing to far right figures he dislikes, edit warring against consensus to insert this material, and personal attacks: e.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive360#c-Firefangledfeathers-20240316032500-Talk:Douglas_Murray_(author)#Request_for_Comment] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#c-Marquardtika-20240307193400-Fred_Zepelin-20240307145100] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive363#c-Tamzin-20240923065900-Traumnovelle-20240922050300]. At this point enough is really enough, and I would recommend making a post ANI (I don't think the far right is under any useful CT except maybe AP2). Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Given this conversation they had in 2023 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1149564813#BLP_violations_and_misrepresentations] and their later 2024 complaint [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive363#c-Tamzin-20240923065900-Traumnovelle-20240922050300], perhaps {{Ping|Tamzin}} will have some thoughts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. For ease of reference, this is the version of the page as of when I opened this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hyde&oldid=1288633921]. I and others have made edits since then. I am not sure if I want to take this to ANI - it was really the page content I was concerned with. I'll have to think more on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the ping. Given the two previous disregarded warnings, I have imposed a TBAN under WP:NEWBLPBAN from living and recently deceased persons involved in right-wing political movements. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask for some eyes on Barrett Brown? It looks like a real mess of WP:UNDUE. Further context at WT:ATF#Request for Review of My Page. -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{la|Paul Beynon-Davies}}

Apparently WP:BLP, WP:V and the rest have now been deprecated for academics in favour of WP:H-INDEX. Alas, this does not necessarily lead to a neutral article, so if anyone can find a single source talking about Paul Beynon-Davies that isn't a directory or his own work, I would be grateful if they could add it to his autobiography. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Good evening, fellow Wikipedia editors. I am submitting this on behalf of my friend, Heather Boushey, for your review. Given my personal connection with the subject, I decided to post to the forum instead of making the edit directly.

We want to challenge a portion of Heather Boushey's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia provides significant and important guidance on the type of content that should be included in biographies of living persons (BLPs). We feel a portion of the biography contradicts the guidance on one of the core values: A neutral point of view.

The section up for discussion is labeled: Criticism from staff

First, the section states, "After Boushey's role in the Biden administration was announced, Claudia Sahm, a former employee at Equitable Growth, accused her of mismanagement. Sahm claimed that she had been pushed out of her job after publishing a blog post regarding racism, sexism, and elitism in economics that Boushey took issue with. Equitable Growth denied Sahm's account."

We believe this contradicts the BLP guidance, which states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

The "Criticism from staff" section has raised concerns about Heather's management style in professional situations and affected my career. This person is the only one who has publicly accused her of anything of the sort. We also believe it is "sensationalist." The text is biased in that it does not include the words of other former staff who went on the record to say that this one person's account was not an "accurate depiction” of Heather's management style.

Furthermore, the blog referenced above — on which the other two "secondary sources" rely — has been [https://macromomblog.com/2020/12/01/economic-truly-is-a-disgrace/ deleted].

Regarding the edits to the section: The date and time of the December 2020 edits were approximately three hours after the former employee posted her blog, which seems coordinated, as they were made before the Bloomberg and Politico stories were published (the "secondary sources").

This user initially added the section in 2020. It is the only edit this user has made.

One user made updates to the section on July 8, 2022, and hasn't made edits since that month. Unfortunately, they are listed by IP address, but if you look [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/174.52.130.249&target=174.52.130.249&offset=&limit=500 here], you can see that the user was flagged for making edits that were erroneous or labeled as "vandalism."

It should also not have its own header. Wikipedia guidance says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."

Throughout Heather's years of management, this example is the only one of its kind. Again, this person is the only one who has publicly accused her of such a thing. It is also not referenced on the former employee's Wikipedia page. If her performance had been a genuine concern, former President Joe Biden would not have chosen Heather to serve as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers nor two years later promoted her by appointing Heather as the Chief Economist for his "Invest in America" Cabinet, where she oversaw the work of a significant number of people.

If it is to remain, it should be placed under the career section for that position and given much less consideration.

Thank you for your time and for looking into this issue.

Obijuanelp (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've just trimmed the section and moved it into the main body. While some mention is probably appropriate, a broken out section as long as that was is definitely WP:UNDUE.

:Heather should consider creating an account so she can bring up issues in the future. If she does decide to, I'd suggest she bookmark/read WP:BLPHELP and WP:AUTOPROB. Also important is WP:COI, but you seem to have a good handle on that already by bringing it here :)

:I'd also suggest that you try to make any future notices shorter. Brief and straightforward posts are more likely to get responses than lengthy ones. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the advice, @CambrianCrab! She's an academic and wanted to be thorough, but I totally get it — will shorten any future notices :) Obijuanelp (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Just came across this article - https://www.billboard.com/pro/jay-z-lawyer-rape-case-edited-wikipedia-hurt-reputation/

Anything to do here? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not sure if it is DUE for inclusion (that's another matter), but the Billboard article says: {{tq|Jay-Z’s attorneys write in the amended complaint. “Users with an IP address directly linked to the Buzbee Firm made over 100 positive edits to Buzbee’s Wikipedia page.”}} I looked at the last 250 edits to Buzbee’s Wikipedia page, dating back to December 2019, and there are only ~74 IP edits, mainly trying to remove the Buzbee DWI material, and they were all reverted. So it's unclear what "positive edits" the amended complaint is referring to. Buzbee's article doesn't look overly promotional or "positive" to me, and it seems unlikely to me that any IP edits are going unnoticed. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Far-right publisher and internet influencer, issues have been raised and content removed which are critical of his online activity/extremist rhetoric. Discussion on the talk page, which appears to be going around in circles between two directly involved editors, and edit warring (I am guilty) hasn't been productive. Listing the recent content removals and why I don't think per our sources any BLPVIO is to be seen for justifying wholesale deletion [from the talk page discussion].

Addressing each line that was done in the mass revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Keeperman&diff=1289209836&oldid=1289209256 here] using sources currently present in the article:

• Removal of Keeperman as far-right/fringe ("Jonathan Keeperman, also known by his pseudonym "Lomez" (stylised L0m3z), is an American far-right publisher who leads Passage Publishing, also known as Passage Press, a far-right and "new right" publishing company."): [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed], [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/doxxing-far-right-influencers-anonymity/678645/], [https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2024/05/17/extremism-headlines-pelosi-attacker-atomwaffen-plot-far-right-university-lecturer], [https://www.vox.com/politics/368884/online-right-l0m3z-jonathan-keeperman-interview-razib-khan], [https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/06/unabomber-american-right-ted-kaczynski], [https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/05/americas-dime-store-nietzscheans]
• Addition of Passage as "prominent" (the above being changed to "Jonathan Keeperman, also known by his pseudonym "Lomez" (stylised L0m3z), leads Passage Publishing, also known as Passage Press, a prominent American far-right and "new right" publisher." also changing the focus from Keeperman whom the article is about): Firstly while Keeperman is indeed called prominent in the online New Right (United States) and Radical right (United States)/far-right by the Guardian and [re-stated from the Guardian] Vox, most other sources don't ([https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/05/americas-dime-store-nietzscheans], [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/doxxing-far-right-influencers-anonymity/678645/], [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/opinion/right-wing-masculinity-culture.html], [https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/05/americas-dime-store-nietzscheans] (calls the L0mez account influential), [https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/06/unabomber-american-right-ted-kaczynski], [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-the-neoclassical-reactionaries/]). Note this is about Keeperman/L0mez himself Passage is barely described as such [in passing by the [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed Guardian] and [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/trump-wordplay.html Times], the latter calls Passage Press influential among conservative intellectuals)]. This hardly justifies the Wikipedia:Puffery for inclusion in the lead in wikivoice (we barely do this mainstream conservatives or writers regardless of influence let alone fringe online personas).
• Removal of Passage printing fascist and reactionary tracts ("Founded in 2021, Passage publishes works from online personalities, reprints and new translations of fiction and nonfiction from historical fascist and reactionary authors."): Let us go to the sources themselves:

{{talk quote|Like many other far-right publishers, Passage’s list is bolstered by reprints of out-of-print or public-domain books by historical fascist and reactionary writers. These include books by radical German nationalist and militarist Ernst Jünger; Peter Kemp, who fought as a volunteer in Franco’s army during the Spanish civil war; and two counter-revolutionary Russian aristocrats, White Russian general Pyotr Wrangel and Prince Serge Obolensky. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed] ...
Keeperman runs an outfit called Passage Press, which releases tomes from right-wingers historic (like the inter-war German radical Ernst Jünger) and contemporary (aforementioned neo-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin). ... Tucker Carlson once blurbed a Passage Press book, a collection of essays by writer Steve Sailer, who promotes the debunked belief that racial inequalities are biological. [https://www.vox.com/politics/368884/online-right-l0m3z-jonathan-keeperman-interview-razib-khan] ...
His company, Passage Publishing, has printed books from a German nationalist, anti-democracy monarchists, and white supremacists promoting “human biodiversity.” [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/doxxing-far-right-influencers-anonymity/678645/] ...
I’m referring to L0m3z, the founder of the edgy imprint Passage Publishing, home to, among others, the racial-hereditarian guru Steve Sailer. [https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/05/americas-dime-store-nietzscheans]

}}

A look at https://passage.press/ should make it clear that the Guardian's framing is correct, the exact wording appears in our body. Absolutely no reason to gatekeep what Passage publishes from the lead, a major contributor Keeperman's notability [the page was moved from the publishing company to cover him directly]. Though per the concerns raised that this isn't entirety of its backlog, I agree the wording can be changed; perhaps "Passage has published works".

• Twitter activity: Keeperman was barely notable before being linked to the L0mez online persona. That the account itself is notable in its own right is highlighted by the fact that half our sources are about it and do not mention Keeperman ([https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/05/americas-dime-store-nietzscheans], [https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/06/unabomber-american-right-ted-kaczynski], [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-the-neoclassical-reactionaries/]). Its link to Keeperman and extremism being a major factor in his media coverage and notoriety is firmly established by [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed], [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/trump-wordplay.html], [https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/05/americas-dime-store-nietzscheans], [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/doxxing-far-right-influencers-anonymity/678645/], [https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2024/05/17/extremism-headlines-pelosi-attacker-atomwaffen-plot-far-right-university-lecturer], [https://www.vox.com/politics/368884/online-right-l0m3z-jonathan-keeperman-interview-razib-khan], [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/opinion/right-wing-masculinity-culture.html]. To exclude this account's activity and views (things which Keeperman's proudly accepts) is not in anyway Wikipedia:BLPVIO. Coming to the content itself "He used the Lomez identity from 2012 to 2014 in the comment section of Steve Sailer's blog posts, and then on Twitter accounts since around 2015. The account was criticized for using slurs to describe gay people and Asians and for proposing the lynching of journalists." was changed "The account was criticized for using slurs to describe gay people and Asians." and inexplicably moved down. The Sailer connection is noted by both [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed Guardian] and [https://www.vox.com/politics/368884/online-right-l0m3z-jonathan-keeperman-interview-razib-khan Vox] as is the advocacy of targetting/lynching of journalists including by [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/06/doxxing-far-right-influencers-anonymity/678645/ the Atlantic]. [https://www.vox.com/politics/368884/online-right-l0m3z-jonathan-keeperman-interview-razib-khan Vox] notes "He casually references white nationalist memes, conspiracy theories that Barack Obama is gay, and something called “retard strength.”" Please assist as to how this is to be included in our article within the 'The account was criticized' line above as the exact phrasing has been questioned.

Please provide your inputs. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:My recommendation: never edit war. Even if the other party is entirely in the wrong there's no reason to go above 2 reverts absolutely ever. Next time hit the noticeboards first. I've looked at the edits and your version does seem more appropriate, as such I did one revert there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand why you felt the need to bring this to noticeboard, before any other editors had a chance to weigh in on the article's talk page. I've agreed that most of this content should be included in some form, but more care needs to be taken in writing in a responsible and unbiased manner, preserving the meaning and the proper context from the original sources. Stonkaments (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you're objecting to sources on a basis of WP:BLP then this was an appropriate course of action for them to take. Can you please advise what you see as a biased use of sources? Because if it's the removal of adverbs that mostly serve as emotional intensifiers such as "prominent" then I'd say that's not a real BLP vio of any note. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)