Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carla Baron

{{archive top|WP:NAC: OP is a sock. JFHJr (㊟) 01:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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}}.

[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)

{{archive bottom}}

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)

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)

:::::I didn't say that either was a strong argument, the coverage is pretty overwhelming but they seem to want to try so should give it their best shot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 9 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)

:I've started writing up a list of specific issues on my entry on the talk page here. BarrettLBrown (talk) 23:36, 8 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)

::@Isaidnoway Thanks for being on top of this! MaskedSinger (talk) 05:16, 8 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)

Ronald Heifetz, while undoubtedly a notable figure from historical news coverage I've found of him on google news [https://news.google.com/search?q=Ronald%20Heifetz&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen], is not particularly well written, and has quite a bit of unsourced content that should be cleaned up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. Looks like the too-common situation of "student and/or niche fan of obscure academic writes a glowing fluff article indistinguishable from a CV." --Animalparty! (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Are there any academic articles that don't look like CVs? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's a problem for articles on academics in general due to WP:NACADEMIC: if someone {{tq|has been an author of {{em|highly cited}} academic work}} [emphasis original] then they are considered notable, even if there are no in-depth independent sources about them which would demonstrate they meet GNG. In these cases it's virtually impossible to write an article which isn't a CV! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do think that unlike a lot of academics, there does seem to be quite a bit of news coverage of him specifically, including in profiles in magazines, etc e.g. [https://www.inc.com/magazine/19881001/5990.html], [https://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/230841224/lessons-in-leadership-its-not-about-you-its-about-them] [https://www.ft.com/content/b44ce45a-4027-11de-9ced-00144feabdc0]. There's also some stuff in the Harvard Crimson [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/11/10/harvard-kennedy-school-leadership-course/] , but that's a student newspaper and I am not sure whether that's BLP acceptable. Whether somebody would be motivated to improve the article on him is obviously another matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Austin Metcalf was vandalized in its lede, and as a result, it was cached to preview the vandalism despite revdel. This problem has happened on other articles since at least 2019. See Phab:T235346.

To remove vandalism cached in previews, purge and then make non-zero dummy edits or real edits to the WP:LEDE between manual purges. And give it time. A non-zero difference in the intro.

I am sharing this here so that even if no discussion occurs, someone can find the answer archived if they look. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to raise a concern regarding the use of the term "fugitive" in the lead of the Mohammad A. Arafat article.

Under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, content must be written with a neutral tone and avoid language that carries implied judgment or legal conclusions, especially in the lead. Terms like “fugitive” are highly charged and can be unduly inflammatory, unless they are central to how the individual is publicly known.

Wikipedia's tone guidelines advise against using labels that suggest guilt or criminal status unless that characterization is undisputed and broadly accepted, and even then, such language should be used with care and proper attribution.

I would like to formally request the removal of the word “fugitive” from the lead, in accordance with Wikipedia’s BLP and NPOV policies.

Thanks for helping maintain responsible and policy-aligned content on Wikipedia. TahiHasan (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've removed fugitive from the lead and few categories per WP:CATDEFINE and WP:BLPCAT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I would say "fugitive" falls under MOS:CRIMINAL. The four labels listed in that guideline are not an exhaustive list. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::The word 'fugitive' has been added again. Please check. TahiHasan (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the fugitive word is necessary in the article. He is being charged with very serious crimes and law enforcement is actively searching for him. Has an arrest warrant for these serious crimes. He hasn't appeared before courts. So he is evading justice/prosecution. I believe that is enough for using the word fugitive. I did include reputable secondary sources referring to him as such in a recent edit which was reverted. Arknights12 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To be a fugitive, you have to not just be sought for arrest or questioning, you have to actively flee. We have statements that he is sought for arrest in the article, but none that he has fled. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::in that link it is mentioned A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person, can be a person who is either convicted or accused of a crime and hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest.

:::::He is hiding from law enforcement. They have raided his residence and couldn't find him. Hasn't been seen since the fall of Hasina's government. Many of the article have referenced him as fugitive/পলাতক(meaning fugitive in Bangla) Arknights12 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia policy is very clear that we don't put a label like "fugitive" on an otherwise notable living person who has not been convicted of crimes and whose notability is not centralized around such a status. As such, calling him a fugitive is inappropriate on Wikipedia regardless of whether Bangladeshi police are capable of finding him. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ok. Thanks. Arknights12 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

should the line "Yunus has faced criticism over government approvals and legal case dismissals during his tenure as chief adviser." be included in the lead of the article Muhammad Yunus? The sourcing is based of only one newage article which bbc referenced. These are not more widely criticized topics about yunus and have little evidence of his direct involvement/abuse of power. Seems like it has been given undue weight. Many such controversies have mired yunus with far more criticisms as mentioned in the controversies section that have not been mentioned in the lead. Why should this one be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arknights12 (talk • contribs)

I have added the following summary to the lead section of the Muhammad Yunus page: "Yunus has faced criticism over government approvals and legal case dismissals during his tenure as chief adviser."

The purpose of this edit is to highlight well-documented controversies during his time as chief adviser, which have been widely discussed in reliable sources. One example is the approval of Grameen University and the tax waivers granted to Grameen Bank, as well as the dismissal of labor law violations and money laundering cases against Yunus during this period. These points have drawn significant criticism related to potential conflicts of interest and lack of transparency.

Could you please provide feedback on whether this addition is appropriate or if any changes are needed? I appreciate any suggestions to improve the edit. TahiHasan (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have added a summary to the lead section reflecting not only the dismissal of the case against Yunus but also the controversies that followed his appointment as chief adviser. During his tenure, several institutions affiliated with him, such as Grameen Bank and its subsidiaries, received notable government approvals and benefits. These included the approval of Grameen University, tax waivers for Grameen Bank, a reduction of the government's shareholding in the bank from 25% to 10%, a license for Grameen Employment Services to export manpower, and permission for Grameen Telecom to launch a digital wallet.

:These developments have drawn criticism in the media, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest and lack of transparency. I believe summarizing these points in the lead helps provide a more comprehensive and balanced context of the recent public discourse surrounding Yunus. I’ve tried to ensure neutrality by relying on verifiable, reliable sources. Feedback and improvements are welcome. TahiHasan (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• He's a politician, yes? Then of course he's going to face criticism. It's completely unnecessary to add that in the fourth sentence. Remember that per WP:BLPCRIME, we presume that people are innocent until they're convicted, and accusations—much less criticism—are not a conviction. Woodroar (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :should that line be removed? Arknights12 (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I think it should be removed. I'm hoping @TahiHasan will see these comments the next time they're online. Woodroar (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{articlelinks|Vladyslav Yakubovskyi}}

I have reverted edits to the article by {{userlinks|Mantan Kali}}, who has been globally locked, possibly for being a sock of a globally banned editor, and associated IPs. They attemped to remove some of the critical content from the article, following a failed AfD nom. The AfD participants, however, noted some questionable content in the article.

Very recently, an IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladyslav_Yakubovskyi&diff=prev&oldid=1289606549 reverted] my revert of the glocked editor. It does seem like a sock edit, but I am not sure if it is a good idea to revert it (BLP reasons), and I would be very glad if someone more familiar with the BLP policy, and possibly with Ukrainian topics, looked into this. Thank you very much.

—Janhrach (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The page on the president (disputed) of the country of Georgia has long had a personal life section with a bullet-point list of his children, with full names, places of birth and until recently, entire birthdays.

On 5 January, this was removed by User:Clariniie per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This was restored 13 minutes later by User:LeontinaVarlamonva with the summary "his politician spew anti-Western statements so fact that half his children are born in the West is useful informations and "appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic" as that policy states". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikheil_Kavelashvili&diff=prev&oldid=1267546401]

The children's details was added into the infobox by User: and then removed on 10 March by [[User:Lasha-george and removed minutes later by User:Tahomaru under WP:BLPNAME. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikheil_Kavelashvili&diff=prev&oldid=1279742148] There is a talk page discussion on 15 March started by User:Labrang [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mikheil_Kavelashvili#Names_+_date_of_birth_of_children] in which LV repeats the reasoning that "Subject has virulent anti-Western rhetoric, so fact that half his children born in West is indeed "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" because it forms complete picture. It is similar to Russian oligarchs who send their children to West for education and living good life while saying terrible things. Readers have right to see full picture." Having not been involved in the edit dispute, I left the last message on 25 April, just to add that I disagree with LV's reasoning. Instead of responding on the talk page, LV adds the details again, that are reverted by Tahomaru who says there is consensus on the talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikheil_Kavelashvili&diff=prev&oldid=1287513818] On 9 May, LV adds the details again, sans exact date of birth. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikheil_Kavelashvili&diff=prev&oldid=1289516197] I am not reverting as there is a talk page discussion with only three voices so not a strong consensus.

I am coming to this board as this edit warring has gone on long enough and it concerns living people, not just a president but people related to him, including a minor. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I removed the details of Kavelashvili's children because Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. It also counted towards WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:FAN. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I recorded the data of the president's children about where they were born, but they were later deleted. I think it was possible to indicate only the first names in the president's Infobox, as is usually indicated if there is no need to indicate the short biographical data of the children.--Lasha-george (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have removed the personal life section as the only sourcing is some broken link to a government document. It can be reinstated with citations to independent RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The editors of this page are having trouble coming to a consensus on the use of the term "philanthropist" with regard to the subject and could use an outside opinion. The talk page contains the back-and-forth for and against the use of the term. Thanks in advance.

81567518W (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Fadi Akiki}}

Could use some extra eyes on this BLP. I don't edit enough in this topic area that I am familiar with this judge. At first glance, it kinda appears to be a potential borderline WP:ATTACK. To me, it looks like a handful of cases he was involved in were cherry-picked to portray him in a negative light. Like I said, I'm not at all familiar with this judge, or how many total cases he has handled in his tenure, but should we just single out those cases that are allegedly controversial or he has been criticized for. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|WP:NAC. This article was deleted at AfD. Please repost in case of problematic recreation. JFHJr (㊟) 22:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This article is at AfD and looks to be headed for deletion, but in the interim we're seeing persistent additions of unsourced or poorly sourced details - eyes would be appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WifiSkeleton&diff=prev&oldid=1290085500 this AfD comment] for a reason this apparent snowball might melt into a keep (per OP) or a redirect (my response). More BLP-related insight would still be helpful at this deletion discussion. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

In the reference stating that he married his wife Angela in 2016, it links to an IMDB page for Angela Reed. I'm not sure of his wife's maiden name, but the Angela Reed IMDB page linked is a different woman. Angela Oakley's IMDB page is here https://www.imdb.com/name/nm16138757/ 184.105.83.43 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please don't use IMDB. See WP:RSNP for its listing. JFHJr (㊟) 23:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Christopher Mellon, there is a discussion about whether to include descriptors, including Nazi affiliation, regarding the ancestor of a living person. More BLP eyes would be appreciated at the talkpage discussion (it's apparently not an RfC). I am replacing a previous post by @Very Polite Person that was ported to WP:ANI for other concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I need my name off of his page as a divorced wife. Sarah Dianne Goins Haskins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.26.9 (talk • contribs)

:I've removed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried to edit this bio to be accurate and positive.

Someone created this profile who obviously had a personal problem with Mr. Evans.

They have created a bio that is demeaning, incorrect and embarrassing.

His family deaths are not to be shared with the public - it is a private and painful event.

The work history is inaccurate and inappropriate.

I keep getting responses back from Wiki that my edits are a conflict of interest. However I would offer that whoever wrote this damaging bio is the person who has a conflict of interest and is simply trying to defame Mr. Evans.

If you do not allow an accurate and appropirate profile we will ask to delete.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabemil (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Courtesy link Charles Evans Jr. Knitsey (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:This user restored content added by an IP user who admitted that the content was created by them and the article's subject as noted on their talk page, which is a conflict of interest. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Evans_Jr.&oldid=1290391464 The edit] also includes no sources and was described by another editor as turning the article into a resume[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Evans_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1252499238]. ScottishFinnishRadish has just removed some of the content that I assume this user had a problem with, which hopefully alleviates some of the issue. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I removed an WP:UNDUE standalone charity section that had no reliable sourcing. It also smelled like a self-interested insertion. More eyes on the prose would be helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Clearly notable, but can we use their Facebook and X pages as sources? Also, is the "netizens" thing ok? Seems a bit fanboy and ephemeral (and a bit confusing). Doug Weller talk 07:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Facebook and X sources are apparently both announcements by the Pakistan Air Force. Assuming these actually are from official PAF sources, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't use them in the same way as we would use any other official announcement e.g. on their website or in a press release. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks. I just wanted that confirmed. Which leaves the Netizens issue. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|WP:NAC. Perhaps explore Articles for creation. There is no BLP problem here, so BLPN is not the correct forum. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Babalola Oluwasegun Michael Olashina, known as Hollarziko, is a dynamic Nigerian artist and songwriter celebrated for his vibrant afrobeat tunes. Originating from Akure, Ondo State, and currently based in Lagos, his musical journey is a testament to the rich cultural tapestry of Nigeria. Born in October 1997, Hollarziko draws inspiration from life's experiences, infusing his tracks with authentic rhythms and captivating lyrics. Hollarziko (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Article does not exist. This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people policy to article content. You can always request an article to be written, but please keep in mind that the article must be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles must be about notable topics: those that have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We have a fairly precise definition of what is considered a reliable source, as well as detailed inclusion guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

There is a dispute over the correct handling of the name of Julia Barretto. She is a Filipino actress and there are editors who insist that Filipino names have to follow a specific format which includes the father's family name. I feel that this does not trump WP:COMMONNAME or the fact that Barretto herself clearly does not wish to be associated with her father's name (for understandable reasons) as described at Julia_Barretto#Legal_actions. Even if it is true that the father's name is a part of her legal name I don't think it should be overused and certainly should not be the first name we use (in bold!) in the opening section of the article. We are not beholden to legal names in the same way that government records are. Obviously, we should continue to cover it in the section about the legal dispute and it could also go in the infobox as her birth name, if validly sourced, but I think that anything more than that is overkill bordering on (unintentional) cruelty. My attempts to make this point have been met with responses that are not based in policy here, here and here. None of this sits well with me. We wouldn't treat a trans person like this and I think that this is a rare situation were a cis person needs the same type of consideration. I think this would benefit from examination from those more versed in the intricacies of BLP policy than myself, particularly if they have some experience with handling Filipino names, to determine the correct balance between factual accuracy and respect for the identity of the subject of a BLP. DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:COMMONNAME is about the article title: the article is currently titled Julia Barretto and so far as I can see there is no dispute about this point. It says nothing about whether we should include or exclude alternative names for the subject from the body text.

:As for the lead sentence, MOS:FULLNAME (part of MOS:BIO, the same guideline which contains MOS:DEADNAME) says {{tq|While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, {{strong|the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence}} (including middle names, if known, or middle initials). Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but {{strong|the article should start with the complete version in most cases}}}} [emphasis mine]. As written, MOS:DEADNAME applies only to {{em|former}} names of {{em|trans or nonbinary}} people; Barretto's birth name is still legally her name and she isn't changing it for gender reasons, so DEADNAME doesn't apply. Similarly, WP:BLPNAME advises caution in giving the names of people who aren't the subject of the article, and low-profile figures – but as an actress and the subject of the article I think you are going to struggle to make the case that her name is private here. Similarly, I see on Talk:Julia Barretto there's some discussion of WP:V, but the article cites at least two sources ([https://www.sunstar.com.ph/more-articles/julia-barretto-to-change-surname-to-prevent-confusion], [https://mb.com.ph/2021/6/6/julia-barretto-still-carries-real-surname-of-father-dennis-padilla-sources]) which support that this is in fact her legal surname. I don't know enough about Filipino sources to comment on their reliability - perhaps they are insufficient for BLP claims - but they are used elsewhere in the article.

:I agree this is the kind of case where it would be in the spirit of the rules to omit the birth name if she has genuinely never been professionally known by it and she wants to no longer be associated with it – but as I read the rules currently they {{em|do}} encourage inclusion and it's up to you to persuade editors of that article that we should exclude the name. It might be worth bringing up expanding MOS:DEADNAME at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography if you feel strongly about it – it has been discussed on that talkpage before, though the most recent proposal got no traction. I'm also not sure how good this specific example is as a test case. You say that Barretto "clearly does not wish to be associated with her father's name", but one of the cited sources quotes a statement by her representatives that the change of name is purely "to prevent confusion" and she "continues to recognize and respect Dennis as her father". Whether or not we believe that's the whole truth, she's apparently not saying publicly "I don't want to be associated with Dennis Padilla"; her public position is that this is a name change for purely professional reasons. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Olivia Jaimes should be merged/redirected to Nancy (comic strip). Literally all the article says is that we don't know anything about her and that she may be someone else's pen name. If nothing about her is known, and she's done nothing other than Nancy, she should be redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I posted this on her talk page but didn't receive a reply so am trying here. In a speech in parliament, she says "As a solo parent..." which makes me think that she's no longer married. Is this sufficient to update the article accordingly? But there is no timeframe on when this in fact happened. Thoughts? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's unclear if this WP:ABOUTSELF declaration overcomes a government transcript aka WP:BLPPRIMARY. No secondary source has reported on this? Also there is some OR to presume she's not married. She could be separated and be a "solo parent".Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your reply @Morbidthoughts. You bring up some great points! I looked for a secondary source - couldn't find one. This is a tricky one - hence me bringing it to the community for discussion. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would think it's to ambiguous to change anything on her article. They could be divorced, or just separated, or there is some other situation we haven't thought of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The article Laura Ingraham inexplicably contains the phrase "abusive alcoholic and Nazi sympathizer" TWICE, once in the section "Early life and education" and once in the section "Homosexuality". Both times, the only source cited is WP:DAILYBEAST, which says "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Ingraham#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_29_April_2025 Multiple] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Ingraham#Burying_the_information_on_an_alcoholic_parent requests] by two different users to remove the content were ignored by {{User|Wuerzele}} who added the content 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:496D:73D8:2EE6:1805 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some context might help. It's not a statement of fact. It's a brother describing their father, who is not a living person, in a tweet reported by the Daily Beast. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is a "fact related to living persons" (from WP:DAILYBEAST). It's from a weak source. It's in the article twice. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:1123:887F:C94D:2CF2 (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not a fact that the father was an "abusive alcoholic and Nazi sympathizer" and Wikipedia does not say it is. It is an attributed opinion of a sibling. LGBTQ Nation is an alternative source[https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/09/fox-news-host-laura-ingrahams-gay-brother-calls-monster/], but that is just reporting on the reporting of a social media post. That source is used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=www.lgbtqnation.com 1490 times] in Wikipedia. Whether the brother's opinion belongs in the article seems like a question of due weight. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)