Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David D. Smith

{{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)

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)

: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)

{{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)

::@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)

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)

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)