Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Max Lugavere

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

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

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

    We can see he’s been exposed for his bait-and-switch maneuvers on his website. “ He tells you that his book has “no bias” (an impossible task) and “no B.S.” He writes, “I’m not selling anything. (Seriously!)” Except he is.

    He sends you an email about these amazing sunglasses to help you filter out the blue light that keeps you awake at night. He knows the founder of the company personally, just so you know, so you can grab a pair and save 20$. He’s also really worried about airborne particles causing Alzheimer’s disease, so he reached out to the manufacturer of a fantastic air filter, and you can purchase it for 299$ instead of 599$.”

    [1]https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/quackery/brain-health-max-lugavere-and-bait-and-switch-maneuver

    Demsuz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight being given to conviction of non-public figure

In the article Larnoch Road murders the conviction of the former detective for drug dealing is mentioned twice in the article, including at the very top. The user doing so has used edit summaries such as 'Place detective Franklin's drug problem up front' and 'This pot smoking detective led the botched prosecution'. Discussion on the talk page has not been useful. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Louise Glover

An AfD on this subject recently closed as keep, but the delete !voters were concerned about issues of balance, harm to the subject, etc - if noticeboard regulars could have a look and clean this up, that would be welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alex Breingan

Hello there. I am wondering if any editors can help assist. I am very familiar with this story due to the coverage here in New Zealand. An editor who is closely linked to the subject has shared a fair statement on the emotional stress that this Alex Breingan has brought to the subject here [2]. Upon looking at the article itself, every single note about the financial issues and legal issues are cited from just one reporter. This is not giving it a neutral POV at all as per the rules with Wikipedia. The only other reporter out of the section talked about a website that was setup and questioned here [3] and about the recievership issues [4] but every single else source is from a single reporter under the Media Insider section of the NZ Herald. This needs to be adjusted and fixed so it's neutral. It's not fair on the subject with a single reporter writing these articles which the subject hasn't even talked back about them being true or not.

The comment earlier claims that they aren't true, alot of the facts. Thank you. Can any experienced editors go and take a look at this? The friend of the subject has asked if the article can be deleted. If this is an option, can this happen? Thank you. It's just very unbalanced, the entire article and shouldn't be mostly cited from one single reporter. The New Zealand Investigation section should be cited from the source of the people doing the investigation, not from a reporter who is reporting everything about the subject. And the furniture purchases is completely a civil issue, not related to his company. --MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a crappy article (which are legion on Wkipedia), with the financial/legal issues over-emphasized, overly-detailed (WP:VNOTSUFF) and written in pedantic Wikipedia:Proseline, as if every single news article warrants a new paragraph. The section should be consolidated into a couple paragraphs, to summarize without being so tedious, although some will probably scream "whitewashing!!!". --Animalparty! (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I trimmed a bit. What also worries me is the archive.ph links which violate copyright being used as a reference rather than as an archive link and some close paraphrasing:

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Integrity and Enforcement Team stated that while Breingan is already under consideration for prohibition, any additional breaches of the Companies Act reported to the Registrar of Companies would prompt a review, with enforcement actions considered in line with their established enforcement approach (Wikipedia)

While Mr Breingan is already under consideration for prohibition, in the event further breaches of the Companies Act are brought to the attention of the registrar, enforcement action will be considered in accordance with our enforcement approach (Original)

In September 2024, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's (MBIE) Integrity and Enforcement Team confirmed that they were investigating Breingan's suitability for prohibition under Section 385 of the Companies Act 1993. (Wikipedia)

[IET] is currently investigating Alexander James Breingan’s suitability for prohibition pursuant to section 385 of the Companies Act 1993 Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The single reporter reporting on pretty much all of the issues on the subject is concerning. It does need to be narrowed right down as far as I am aware. It's very unbalanced in this section. A policy on wikipedia is about having a Neutral point of view. This isn't the case here at all. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You weren't far off the mark. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigi Wimala

• Sigi Wimala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Timo Tjahjanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Sigsterz (talk), who claims to be the subject of the first article, has edited these articles to say the subjects are no longer married to each other. We may have a case similar to Emily St. John Mandel's, and I'm wondering what they can be advised to do to avoid having to be interviewed by Slate and just satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. Nardog (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As a stop-gap measure, I edited the latter's body text to say they "married", rather than "are married" or "were married", so it's not inaccurate while we seek sourceable information. Here is an interview from 2022 in which Wimala says she is "alone" (from machine translation). OTOH, I do find this 2022 article that appears to refer to them still being married later than the editor's statement of a 2021 divorce, but it's such a short list item that I don't trust it as a serious source. Here's one from early 2021 that talks about how solid their marriage is. 2023 article that still refers to them as married (but also lists what appears to be a Twitter handle for her, so that could be checked for earlier statements.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Irene Tracey

Irene Tracey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been a handful of substantial additions to Oxford's Vice-Chancellor's page (5k+ bytes to a 30k byte article), mostly by one user, covering Palestinian solidarity encampments and protests happening at the University of Oxford over the past 6 months or so. This would appear to me to be undue weight; however I shouldn't be editing this page and would appreciate someone with a neutral POV who can review.

If someone were willing to take a look and consider what might be appropriate, that would be appreciated. As always, happy to discuss further or provide any additional information/links that would be useful. Liz McCarthy (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's very probably undue. In addition, it's mostly incoherent. It's disjointed, like a collage of different bits and pieces of information rather than a brief summary. I see this a lot in scientific articles, for example, someone comes along with a brilliant new theory of gravity and, instead of summarizing the sources, they cite a single sentence from a hundred different sources and put it all together into an entirely different picture.

For example, we're framing this as a nice, little, peaceful, sit-in protest which wasn't bothering anyone. They took over her office and refused to leave --which is quite a different thing-- and we don't mention any of that! I'd call the cops too. Then we say things like she allowed the police to arrest them. As if she's in control of the cops?

I think this entire thing is probably noteworthy, but could be summed up rather nicely in a simple paragraph or two, a lot more succinctly and directly. For instance, each of the subsections on student response and such, these could easily be reduced to a single sentence each. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. The office occupation is still mentioned in the career section. The user, Kiri of Karitane, appears to be a SPA who gamed ECP in order to add the material. If you continue having issues with them I would take them to WP:AE Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Mykolas Majauskas

Frankcrook user keeps adding original research and framing (e.g., this phrase: 'While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence, in 2018 Majauskas was accused...') and pushing their non-neutral point of view on the page of a living person. Additionally, they avoid discussion on the talk page, and to make things even worse - they continue removing properly sourced material from the page without any explanation. --美しい歌 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I started making small changes by reviewing each source again and removing anything not covered by the sources. 美しい歌 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

all my edits again were reverted. I will wait fot the admin help here. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Here I made a list of violations and additions to the page that violate the BLP and just have no sources behind in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykolas_Majauskas#Sexual_violence_allegations,_#MeToo :

• of making sexual advances in his apartment after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) - not found in the source; a fabricated sentence made with the hope that non-native speakers won't understand and won't pay close attention to what is actually stated in the source.
• While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - using the tactic of editorial framing to show the subject in a negative light. This type of statement can be seen as biased or non-neutral, as it subtly suggests that the subject's actions or public image are insincere or contradictory without directly stating it. Such framing violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy and is an emotional language bombardment.
• schoolgirls who have been attacked by Majauskas - not correct, no mention of attack. I've already provided the correct wording (right not it's misleading)
• Allegations were corroborated by a victim who waived her right to privacy and was publicly named; she described a pattern, extending over at least five years - confusing, no sources found about "publicly named" or "pattern extending over at least five years"
• Majauskas hosting alcohol-fueled house parties with schoolgirls - no source found, just added there with the hope that no-one will double check and review the sources
• has never been publicly disclosed by the media due to fears of retaliation - not properly worded
• He was also accused of intimidating the victims. - yes, but it was his opposition faction member, which I already stated and added, but it was reverted
• Following the scandal Majauskas did not resign from his parliamentary seat, continued his political career and remains [citation needed] a catalyst for the Lithuanian chapter of WEF Global Shapers - added without a source; it reads like a fabricated or original research statement

美しい歌 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, could you kindly take a look at this case, please? 美しい歌 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I don't do BLPN. My views are too extreme. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. thank you! 美しい歌 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just started taking a look at some of the disputed content. I looked first at While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - using the tactic of editorial framing to show the subject in a negative light. The source in Lithuanian does appear to suggest that "Until now, M. Majauskas created the image of an exemplary family man and a fighter against any violence." The specific allegation of date rape does not appear to be in the source, nor that he "plied her with alcohol". The article states he made sexual advances which were rejected and that he had been drinking. So I think there is an issue with how that incident is described in the article currently. This article in Lithuanian also details allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour but short of what is written. It does corroborate allegations of anonymous complaints about alcohol-fuelled parties with young political staffers (over 18). I think the section on the allegations could do with some work, it was obviously a significant political issue but some of the current section is poorly-worded. AusLondonder (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AusLondonder exactly. exactly. It’s written in a skewed way, cherry-picking information and making up unusual outcomes, with too much emotion and original research added.

  Also, another hug problem, I can't understand why that user keeps deleting all the other neutral additions — entire sections on political activity, civic activity, etc. I even added more sources and trimmed content that wasn’t properly sourced, but everything was reverted, and my work was lost. If possible, please restore some of my versions and adjust them if necessary 美しい歌 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - should be removed per WP:HEADLINES - News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source - and that quote is from the subheadline and can't be used. That whole section needs to be reviewed and rewritten per what the sources actually state. And this - accused sex offender - needs to be removed immediately from the lead. It looks like to me the wrong version was protected by Daniel Case. Since this is contentious material about a living person that is being disputed for misrepresenting what the sources actually state, the WP:ONUS is on those to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh my God ... you actually used the phrase "the wrong version" with absolutely no apparent sense of self-awareness or irony. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case thanks for protecting the page, hope you will have time to rewrite it in line with BLP and the actual sources. And thank you fellows for helping to evaluate the sources @Isaidnoway @AusLondonder. BTW, I guess the user Frankcrook who pushed blp violations should be restricted from editing the page. Should I raise this question separately somewhere else? 美しい歌 (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Which specific BLP violations did I push, and how?

  When editing Wikipedia I am focusing on providing mainstream references and succinctly wording them. I am more than happy when other editors are able to word the sources more precisely, considering how precise automatic translation has become (something I planned to start using as editing default for some time). Unfortunately there are usually few other editors around. The sources you mention are not mine, but apart from nuances of translation I fail to see anything wrong with them.

  I endorse in advance any wording provided by automatic translation except in cases of editorial cherry-picking from said translation. On article's Talk page yesterday I described (some of) 美しい歌 edits as well-intentioned; what I objected to was complete rewrite of the article by 89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv and 美しい歌 repeatedly and falsely claiming their version had consensus (of themselves?).

  As for whether my revert of 89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv complete rewrite of the article was justified I have just reread what Notability is (especially what constitutes significant coverage, reliable sources independent of the subject, context, fringe topics, original research, and self-promotion and publicity) and What Wikipedia is not (indiscriminate collection of information, means of promotion, battleground, censored, propaganda). How would you compare your and IP's version to the current version, on all or some of these criteria?Frankcrook (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let more experienced users review the page and take appropriate action regarding the content and your behavior. You cannot just removed anything you want, but you are welcome to discuss and refused too. Besided BLP violations, you have removed well-sourced material, including references from the Parliament and other credible sources. You're only causing more harm to your position. You even threatened to block me, though you're not an administrator, and you were doing so only to push your views, which goes against the friendly and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I hope other users will take the time and interest to evaluate what is happening here 美しい歌 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  美しい歌, do you plan to address any of the points/questions I made here or on the article's Talk page? I replied to every single post you made on Talk (I started the thread and invited you there) so it is patently untrue that I "refused to" engage. Unfortunately I found your responses somewhat evasive.

  What is my "position"? This is probably around 5th (?) time you are making a personal accusation, which is in contradiction of Wikipedia's Assume good faith advice.

  I did not once "threaten to block" you. While yesterday was the first time ever I used vandalism warnings I was following Wikipedia's policy on Vandalism which states: "Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention (...) users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism." After warning you first on your Wikipedia profile without using the template, I ran out of warnings after 3; you continued reverting article even after stating you will wait for an administrator's intervention. I then asked for administrator intervention and called for more experienced editors to take a look on the article's Talk page.

  I would prefer to focus on discussing exact edits and specific Wikipedia policies instead of having to address your mischaracterizations.Frankcrook (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  In this edit summary, you wrote: the cases have not been settled by either law-enforcement or apology, or proven to be false accusations, so he continues being "accused", as it were. According to this source, it says: "After reviewing the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct," the prosecutor's office's report said. So it has been settled per the prosecutor's statement. And although you did not add sex offender, that contentious label is defined as a person who has committed a sex crime, so according to WP:BLPCRIME, we can't suggest the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. There is no conviction, and according to the prosecutor no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct. So that is an egregious BLPVIO that can not be stated in the lead sentence in Wikivoice, and the article should not have protected to that version with that BLPVIO. And quite frankly, that whole section - Sexual violence allegations - is one gigantic BLPVIO, as the wording in that section does not accurately reflect what the sources actually state. I don't necessarily oppose the allegations being included, but according to our BLP policy - Wikipedia must get the article right, and as it stands right now, it is not right. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  MeToo movement made accusations and convictions were not secured in many cases; in fact the accused often chose not to defend themselves; Harvey Weinstein Wikipedia page mentions both accusations and convictions. Successfully impeaching Majauskas was prerequisite for prosecution to go ahead; prosecutors said they will not begin the investigation because it was not possible to prove that the anonymous accuser was contractually subordinated to Majauskas, and she would not waive anonymity until he was impeached; however this is not the same as stating, as you do, that prosecutors said "no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct". Would you mind providing the original quotation and the source? In any case, there were (5?) other accusers, including a woman who was publicly named.Frankcrook (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be more precise: "Prokuratūra atsisakė pradėti ikiteisminį tyrimą dėl parlamentaro Mykolo Majausko galimo seksualinio priekabiavimo, nenustačiusi pavaldumo ryšio tarp politiko ir jį anonimiškai kaltinusios merginos. „Pagal turimus duomenis, nenustatyta tarnybinio ar kitokio priklausomumo tarp M. Majausko ir redakcijai duomenis pateikusio asmens“, – ketvirtadienį paskelbė prokuratūra." > "The prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation into the possible sexual harassment of MP Mykolas Majauskas, without establishing a subordinate relationship between the politician and the girl who accused him anonymously. "According to the available data, no official or other affiliation was established between M. Majauskas and the person who submitted the data to the editorial office," the prosecutor's office announced on Thursday."

  I helped myself to a Google translation of the following: "Prokuratūra ir ikiteisminio tyrimo įstaigos nesikiša į privačius asmenų santykius, nevertina etikos ir moralės klausimų, nekontroliuoja ir nesikiša į įstaigų ir organizacijų veiklą, tol, kol nenustatoma nusikalstamos veikos požymių." > "The prosecutor's office and pre-trial investigation institutions do not interfere in the private relationships of individuals, do not evaluate ethical and moral issues, do not control and do not interfere in the activities of institutions and organizations, as long as no signs of a criminal act are detected." It is a general statement from the institutions about their mandate, not judgement concerning this particular case. Elsewhere in the article prosecutors say they did not establish contact with the accuser; Landsbergis says that prosecutors in theory are allowed to initiate the investigation of their own accord in exceptional cases of public interest, but they decline to do so. I would also like to draw your attention that prosecutors specifically mention criminal prosecution; there are other types of prosecution in Lithuania, for example civil, which may (or not) be more applicable in this case. But civil prosecution would still bump into Majauskas parliamentary immunity, therefore, to repeat, this is prerequisite for prosecution (or honest attempt at preparatory investigation) to go ahead.Frankcrook (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  And one more quotation: ""After studying the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to start a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or misdemeanor," the prosecutor's office said in a statement." "Crime" again seems to refer to criminal law; civil law would necessitate the woman/women to make formal, non-anonymous accusations against a person who's "unimpeacheable".Frankcrook (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  As a mental exercise, let's presume innocence and discuss what were the avenues available to Majauskas for the last 6 years. Let's assume he had unknown reasons not to waive his parliamentary immunity. He only needed to sue the women or the media and establish his innocence by winning.Frankcrook (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations do not amount to a conviction. And he wasn't accused of sexual violence, as the section heading suggests, he was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior and/or sexual harassment. The girl did not say that Majauskas forced her to do anything. According to her, he realized that nothing would work out. And plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) ... Majauskas hosting alcohol-fueled house parties are complete fabrications. And there was no civil judgement against him, so he wasn't held liable in that regard. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point of the page I linked is way at the bottom, after all the sarcasm: Admins must be neutral when they protect a page. Other than obvious vandalism, I never make any reverts coincident with a protection. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, my bad, I thought WP:BLP still applied to pages with contentious material on English Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's primarily a wording issue, which any editor can now address. The content should not simply be wiped as some IP was trying to do. The topic is clearly worthy of inclusion, the allegations led to two impeachment votes in parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to this source, it says: "After reviewing the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct," the prosecutor's office's report said. So it has been settled per the prosecutor's statement, but yet that info is missing from the article. And although you did not add sex offender, that contentious label is defined as a person who has committed a sex crime, so according to WP:BLPCRIME, we can't suggest the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. There is no conviction, and according to the prosecutor no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct. So that is an egregious BLPVIO that can not be stated in the lead sentence in Wikivoice, and the article should not have protected to that version with that BLPVIO. And quite frankly, that whole section - Sexual violence allegations - is one gigantic BLPVIO, as the wording in that section does not accurately reflect what the sources actually state. I don't necessarily oppose the allegations being included, but according to our BLP policy - Wikipedia must get the article right, and as it stands right now, it is not right. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is as far as I know no exception to this where BLP is concerned (one of the rare places in policy where this is so). I suppose the "unsourced or poorly sourced negative statements about a BLP" exception from 3RRNO could also be applied. But as noted here the question seems to be about interpreting the sources, not their quality. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:BLPRESTORE. Zaereth (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  That does not say anything about protecting a page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to our protection policy: when protecting a page, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as poor-quality coverage of living people, and when I raised this issue about the version that was protected, I didn't receive any serious consideration to my good-faith query; I was instead mocked and ridiculed on a community discussion noticeboard. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway :( 美しい歌 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Given the strength of this dispute I'd say that the quality of this coverage of a living person is not settled. As noted it's the wording, which you are trying to settle. And full protection expires soon.

  I chose protection because it doesn't go on individual user's records and because this is what we do during edit wars like this. Clearly, based on all the flak I'm catching here, the consensus is that that was a mistake. I had seriously considered blocking the editors involved who had gone way beyond 3RR. If, after protection ends, this continues, I think blocking all the editors engaged in edit warring from the page for some time might not be a bad idea.

  Alternatively, we could impose 1RR on the page.

  And if you want your version restored, feel free to put a formal edit request on the talk page. Or ask another admin. I really don't want to be seen as taking sides here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't a matter of having my version restored, I've never edited the article. The issue was you protecting a version that contained policy-violating content, which was the completely false and fabricated material about the subject, which is not a wording issue, it's a straight-up BLPVIO issue. And choosing protection to stop edit-warring is fine, but as noted per our protection policy, you also had a duty to avoid protecting a version that contained policy-violating content. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case thank you for your time here! Please advise what to do with the person who, over ten times, removed well-sourced material (not rewrote or adjusted but just removed). As far as I know, that is punished on Wikipedia by a temporary or permanent block.

  Another issue is about interpreting the sources—but I must admit, having thoroughly read the sources multiple times, that is a very soft explanation because the sources don't tell what is already in the article, and that is what BLP says—to be careful with.

  So we have a double issue: the removal of content without a valid reason, and the repeated addition of made-up content, trying to manipulate sources and clearly violating BLP. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Repeatedly removing sourced material without explanation is, yes, disruptive. Making one's preferred changes repeatedly while discussion is underway is also something we have blocked many people for. But we should never suggest that BLP requires the inclusion of anything. There have been many times when validly sourced material has been removed after a consensus discussion of its BLP relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump exempt from WP:BLP

No discussion on article talk. I will copy the comments here to there

This edit blatantly contradicts WP:BLP. It removes denials from the article despite policy which says, “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.” See WP:DENIALS. Instead of citing this policy, the edit cites an essay (WP:MANDY) which disagrees with the policy, and which also disagrees with a counter-essay (WP:NOTMANDY). This edit is not unusual at that particular BLP, but it seems worth bringing it up here every once in a while since insisting on BLP policy without support here is quite dangerous for an editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC) No, that reversion does not contradict BLP. The subject doesn't deny saying those things; if he credibly did then the section you're quoting would apply. That he said them, though, is a matter of record and not in dispute. The characterization of those statements doesn't require documentation of his disagreement with that characterization: we care much more about what sources have to say about a subject than what subjects have to say about themselves. WP:MANDY wasn't a good counter-argument to use in the reversion since it doesn't apply here, either. Also, that talk page is well-attended and bringing it here with zero discussion there is not great. As prominently noted at the top of this page: Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. VQuakr (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC) We would need a source for these denials. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Most look like they were in the sources that were removed save the first one. But I agree with Anything that Mandy is a terrible essay most of the time. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Dion Aiye

Sexual assault allegations here. Polygnotus (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sources?

Hi everybody. I am an IR student writing a dissertation on protest movements across Central Asia and an analysis of their causes (obviously I'm not just using Wikipedia!). On the article Karim Massimov some of the sources are raising red flags for me like this exclusive article which pulls from LiveJournal of all things and Russian language media like RIA Novosti which has links to Sputnik. I wasn't sure who to check the inclusion of such sources with, but there was a link on the Talk page to this noticeboard. Should I trust these sources or should they be removed, and who by? Thank you Jezzaqueen (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick review of the sources, but keep in mind this was from machine-translation so my impressions may not be the same as a native speaker of Russian. I'd wager pretty close, though.

The first two sources are very opinionated and have sort of a "gotcha" tone, so they come off more as persuasive writing than expository. Bad sign. Further more, they seem to be doing some pretty iffy research methods, for example, pricing out all these properties through Zillo. The source is all about him owning a bunch of real estate in America, which I guess is supposed to be a bad thing? (Don't know why, but I suspect some cultural difference.) Most concerning is it shows Google Earth pics of each house and give their addresses, so I think per BLPPRIVACY these should be removed. We're only cherrypicking a small sentence at the end, which is tangential to what the sources are all about.

The third source, on the other hand, is very well-written, and comes off as neutral and professional. That in itself doesn't make it a good source, just that it appears good at first glance. I don't know its reputation for accuracy, reliability, or things like that, but if it's government owned then I highly suspect it's probably not good. Someone who is familiar with Russian media and can read it fluently should really give their input on it, so perhaps WP:RSN would be a good place to ask.

You can remove them, along with the info they cite, yourself. Just leave a detailed edit summary explaining why. (You can link this discussion in your edit summary if you like.) If no one objects then no problem, but if someone restores it you can start a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Zaereth for your advice. I'll remove the sentences referenced by the Exclusive article from the page. Also, thanks for pointing me towards WP:RSN which I didn't know was a thing! I'll see what they say about trusting Ria Novosti later on this afternoon. Jezzaqueen (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jezzaqueen It looks like there has already been quite a bit of discussion and you can see links to the discussion at WP:RIANOVOSTI. Still 7,187 links from WP. You might ask David Gerard who looked at the looked at the source last before starting a discussion. fiveby(zero) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, per that discussion RIA's probably bad now since the thorough RT-ification of Russian state media and is a branch of Sputnik, but used to be okayish maybe with care? But that link's from 2023 so we would ignore it in the normal course of events as it's well into the Sputnik era. The hard part is finding any usable coverage of notable people where all the sources are going to be problematic at best - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is I didn't see the subject in question mentioned in that source anywhere. Maybe I missed it, but I do remember looking. It talks about an attempted coup that I am guessing the subject was somehow allegedly involved in, but it didn't name any names. Good or bad, it doesn't show much relevance to this person without some other source to connect the dots. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Did Julia Roberts attend college?

A discussion at Talk:Julia Roberts has found there are conflicting sources about whether Roberts attended Georgia State University or if she never pursued higher education. Could we get more input on this and where to go from here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Better to err on the side of caution. It looks like the talk page is coming to a consensus in that direction. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF at Devin the Dude

A couple days ago, Devin the Dude made a post on Facebook saying the information about him on Wikipedia was incorrect. Several fans saw the issue and tried to correct it, but they didn't know how to add sources so User:Fred Gandt kept reverting them (describing it as vandalism). He then requested semi-protection, which was granted by User:Johnuniq.

An edit request brought my attention to the issue and directed me to the Facebook post, so I used that as the source per WP:ABOUTSELF. I also noticed that the Facebook bio used some of the same language as the Wikipedia article, including the old date, so I mentioned that as well and thanked the IP for making the edit request.

Fred Gandt reverted and responded with Are you kidding? Preferring a primary source over independent, secondary, when you know that source disagrees with itself, while also agreeing with some of the info you just changed. Absolutely incredible. Good job. This is why people mock Wikipedia. *facepalm*

The issue needs to be resolved one way or another, but I don't plan on engaging with this so it would be helpful if others could take a look and decide where to go from here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hindsight being 20:20 makes for a nice story apparently. How about keeping the discussion in one place? We could have started on the article talk page, but no. Or on the request to remove the protection? No. Here? Apparently not. My talk? No. Yours? No. You're successfully not engaging with me, at all, anywhere, while engaging with everyone else about the article, the contention and me. Feeble. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gandt is correct. We have to rely on third-party published sources with editorial oversight for any claim that a reasonable person could challenge, and this includes DoB. The subject's own Facebook posts don't cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien:re-signing for ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A WP:ABOUTSELF source can absolutely be considered as good on DOB and full name. Compare WP:ALLMUSIC, which seems to have been the source of the DOB. "He's obviously lying that he's older than WP says!" is not a necessary conclusion. Consider also WP:BLPKIND. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We have to rely on third-party published sources with editorial oversight for any claim that a reasonable person could challenge That's not quite true. WP:ABOUTSELF requires that we don't use self-published sources for "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional" claims; I don't think "I was born 1969 rather than 1970" is either unduly self-serving or exceptional. WP:BLPRS requires only a "reliable, published source"; it doesn't say that it must be third-party. (I'm also not convinced that a reasonable person would suggest that someone is lying about their age to make themselves 55 rather than 54: what's the purported motive here?!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We can continue this at article talk, but it was pointed out there that this says 1969 and this says 1970. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Date of birth is controversial often enough that it can and should require a source to be included.

@Caeciliusinhorto: There're myriad reasons, especially in gymnastics and the entertainment industry (TV and film in particular) why someone may want to present their age as different than what it actually is. And by definition, a reliable source is third-party as far as we are concerned; anything a subject themselves says on social media is considered self-published and explicitly not good enough for challengeable biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, Caeciliusinhorto already quoted the policy, which does not make a requirement about third-party sources: WP:BLPRS "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Similarly, WP:BLPSELFPUB does not contain that additional requirement either. – notwally (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally: And I just explained why blindly adhering to the letter of the policy is not a good idea here. If you hadn't noticed, the subject's own words are at odds with themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, you didn't explain anything about "blindly adhering to the letter of the policy". You said "by definition" and "explicitly" while linking to policy pages as if what you were stating is in those policies. It's not. Policy also does not require anything be included. The fact that there are conflicting sources is a perfectly valid reason, even when "blindy adhering to the letter of the policy", to not include certain information. – notwally (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think people get far too obsessed over birthdates. There's somehow this weird idea that a person might be lying about their age and we need to right this great wrong. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, as in, I don't think people consciously think that's what they're doing, but there does seem to be this underlying sense of urgency to it as if we need to expose some great truth or expose them for dirty liars that they are.

People lie about their age all the time. It's as common as lying to your kids about Santa Claus. Who cares. I was 21 until I turned 28, and stayed 28 until I hit 40.

The thing is, it's not very important. In the grand scheme of things, it's not really important at all. It's statistical data not much more significant than height, weight, or eye color. It doesn't reveal anything substantial about the subject, and if removed entirely the article reads exactly the same.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is BLPPRIVACY, because we have to be certain the subject is ok with us publishing the date. If they mention it on their own website, then that pretty well confirms they're ok with it being put out there. I have no reason to doubt them, and even if they're lying does it really matter? If there is some doubt then simply leaving it out won't hurt anything either. I suppose we could say "Source A says this while the subject says that..." but that seems a little pedantic for such trivial information. But what if Source A is the true date and they're not ok with that being published? Zaereth (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd quiet agree with Zaereth on this one. IMO we should only publish dates if there is at least one sufficiently reliable secondary source also publishes the date. If they've just decided to trust the Facebook post, so be it. While I do agree it doesn't matter that much if we're wrong, I think it's far better we're not wrong by just not publishing the date. The date doesn't matter so why publish it when no one else cared to? Also I'm not convinced Allmusic is sufficiently reliable for this purpose and even if they are I'm unconvinced it counts as widely published enough. And importantly, I don't think we can take the subject's Facebook post to indicate that they don't care. If anything it's the opposite, they apparently do care if we publish the other date. Whether this is because it's the wrong date or some other reason it doesn't matter. It's not widely published and the subject does care so......... Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." In the case under discussion, the source linked to the subject says 2 things on the DOB, and the WP:ALLMUSIC source is arguably not the best/sufficient, so dropping the DOB from the article seems reasonable.

See also Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure there are many reasons why someone might want to present themselves as a different age to what they actually are in general. But in the specific case of a man in his mid-fifties in the music industry I cannot think of a likely reason that he would want to present himself as exactly one year older than he actually is.

That said, the current situation of just not including a date of birth at all seems like a perfectly fine solution. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If sources do not agree, speculation on why one is better than the other is not helpful. There's an error, but it is not possible to guess where it is. Just omitting the conflicting information produces an accurate article. Travelmite (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are many situations where discussion is very helpful about why one source is better than another when there is a conflict between them. We evaluate sources in that manner all the time. In this situation, there are two conflicting sources from the article subject's own verified Facebook account. As a result, I think it would make to not include the date, at least until there is some way to resolve the discrepancy. – notwally (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion partly echoing this is ongoing on the talk page of Devin the Dude. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkin

I am pretty sure he is not, in fact, "JOHN CENA," nor the "Dictator" of Virginia. 2600:1700:59E0:B300:64A6:265C:5A7C:5FDE (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ItTollsForThee has reverted the vandalism. Thanks so much for pointing it out. Knitsey (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hanni Pham infobox

Singer Hanni Pham of NewJeans fame is incorrectly described as a dual-national in the infobox which states nationality. The archived discussion page suggests that a consensus was reached, however the curt 3-day timeline suggests this was not the case. The reference is a PhD candidate in Canada who only says "The Vietnamese-Australian singer", much in the same way as Wikipedia refers to Vietnamese Australians. There is no specific mention of nationality or citizenship. That article suggests that Hanni Pham is the target of nationalist abuse, which Wikipedia must avoid inflaming. There is nothing in the article suggesting any considered knowledge of Hanni's citizenship or nationality.

The archived discussion page shows sources are confused, referring to the singer as either "Australian" or "Vietnamese Australian" without reference to nationality. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q113455973 refers to her incorrectly as "South Korean-Australian singer". A comment within the page infobox, at nationality incorrect cites the guideline MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES which only refers to having a dash. The policy is that Wikipedia must adopt a cautious approach, which is not being done. I submit that the Biographies of living persons guideline is being breached. Travelmite (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity is removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Alan Holyoake

We have an ongoing situation at Alan Holyoake where an IP editor is reverting the removal of unsourced claims about the article subject that violate WP:BLP. See this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You could request page protection if the issues continue and the IP continues to refuse to respond to any messages or talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the IP has been blocked for now but this appears to be a long-term thing, so I suspect that may be needed at some point. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)]

I looked at this article, and it does not look notable to me at all. I think it could probably be nominated for deletion.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Florentina Holzinger

Hello, I would like to report that the page of Florentina Holzinger is being hijacked in its content by an editor inserting partial or false information. The current version, edited by me, is the sourced and verified ones. Is it possible to deny editing the file from the aforementioned editor? Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulia Messia (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you'd specify the actual issues that would help. Your version lacks citations and is filled with flummery. Calling information false without specifying what information is false and why it is not true (because all content is supported with citations) would allow editors to actually do something about you concerns. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what issues are in the article as the content appears to be adequately sourced. I also agree with Traumnovelle that the version you created has far too many issues with it. Please realize that Wikipedia bases its content on independent, reliable sources. If the content in the article is not supported by those sources, it should be removed or changed, but if the issue is that you do not like or agree with what those reliable sources say, then that is not an issue that can be addressed here. Please also read WP:COPYVIO as it appears you are directly copying from sources, such as the sentence "The performance invites the audience to embark on spectacular physical experiences and explores individual spirituality and faith, sexuality and pain, shame and liberation.", which (aside from not being neutral, encyclopedic langauge) was taken directly from the cited source [5]. It appears [6] may have also been plaigarized. I have also left a message on your talk page about copyright violations so that you have additional information. – notwally (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Patricia Tolliver Giles

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

---

Patricia Tolliver Giles

Introductory paragraph of the article appears to be vandalized by people violating NPOV policy for biographies of living persons as a result of recent judicial ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:800:6D90:4429:A66:EAAF:E563 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Lucas Kunce

Repeated attempts to edit the article to overemphasize and sensationalize a recent shooting incident, violating WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. While the incident is appropriately covered in its own section with reliable sources, editors keep trying to characterize Kunce as being "best known" for this single event, which appears to be harassment through repeated undue emphasis of negative content. Request review and possible protection if problematic editing continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophilian (talk • contribs) 15:28, October 27, 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Pompliano

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does search dump to snap chat with no mention of Anthony Pompliano? Music Air BB (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I'm not clear on what you're asking; is it that the Snapchat page has no mention of Pompliano? It does, in this section and the following one. Or are you asking why he doesn't have his own page? If so, it's because what we have to say about him so far is best understood in the Snapchat context. That does not mean that he doesn't have enough notability to have a page about him, if someone were to choose to write it (nor am I saying he does have that notability, I haven't checked), but it looks like no one has tried yet. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Discussion started by a now-blocked sock of a blocked account. Can someone uninvolved hat this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ian Katz/Justine Roberts

Hi

I am Ian Katz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Katz)

Both my entry and Justine's state that we seperated in 2019. We have since been divorced with a final order being granted on 18 Sept 2024.

Divorce case No: 1685-0858-5153-1765

I would be grateful if you could ammend our pages to reflect this.

Thank You

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.230.157 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is tricky, because Wikipedia generally doesn't accept primary court documents because they can easily be misused, which has historically made it difficult for the divorce status to get added to Wikipedia biographies when it hasn't been covered by sources like newspapers. This resulted in the infamous case a couple of years ago where Emily St. John Mandel had to give an interview to an online magazine in order to get her divorce status into her Wikipedia page. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is here, and I'll let the noticeboard regulars chime in who might have a better idea of what to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I hestitate to use court documents for these purposes (per WP:BLPPRIMARY), I think a Twitter post or similar self-published source would be adequate under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Forcing an article subject to have an independent source for this kind of personal detail seems pointless, especially given how personal this type of information can be and how much having it incorrectly stated on Wikipedia could affect the person. – notwally (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed twitter, insta, FB etc or official website, these could all work (and editors noted as much in the Mandel discussion, though after she had got Slate to interview her, it happened pretty quickly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia @Notwally I haven't found any confirmed sm or official website, but I think linkedin would be acceptable in context, provided it says he divorced in 2024, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Susanna_Gibson

One editor wishes to apply a potentially libelous label to Susanna_Gibson. Long discussion on the accuracy of the label did not resolve the disagreement (cf. Talk page). Here's a diff [[7]] at the first entry (I guess) of the use of the label by the editor who is unmoved by the discussion to abandon the label. Pmcc3 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your slick attempt to remove another editor's comment from the discussion notwithstanding, two editors have concluded that label is supported by the sources. Vagenie1 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that and your impugning that it was "Your (my) slick attempt" is misplaced. Looking at the time stamps, as best I can guess, between when I opened the Talk to edit it, the other editor added a comment to their original one, and then when I saved the version I was editing (slowly, intermittently), it over-wrote the one that the other editor had saved while I had my copy open. I don't know how all this works. In this case I recommend the old expression, "better to assume incompetence than malfeasance." Pmcc3 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I might add a possible solution that would make the issue about the label moot: delete the S.G. BLP and replace it with a redirect to a single-event article (cf. also the discussion linked in the top (yellow) box on the Talk:Susanna_Gibson). Pmcc3 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be original research if none of the sources actually label her as a sex worker. Simply deriving this disputed label because RS label the activities as sex work is an analysis that "reaches a conclusion not stated by the sources" per WP:OR. The more appropriate or less disputed label may be webcam model BTW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Webcam model is fine with me but worth noting I have provided a list of sources that describe it as "sex work" which is in the introductory sentence. Vagenie1 (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sex work" not "sex worker". There is a difference. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The behaviors can be described without using inaccurate or misleading labels. Pmcc3 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. Took me a while to figure out RS = reliable sources (I guess). Pmcc3 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Both WM and SW are inaccurate in the sense that if I fix some shingles on my roof, that doesn't make me a roofer, or if someone takes videos of me playing volleyball on the beach, that doesn't make me a beach volleyball player. Inaccurate labels to describe the professional history of S.G. indicates a lack of NPOV [[8]]. Pmcc3 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A bit more on the NPOV concern. I count 18 revisions, most of which are about two words (SW or now WM) that one editor is invested in. I propose that administrators revert the S.G. article to its form on 06Oct24 and freeze it until this discussion about labels asymptotically approaches completion. Pmcc3 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The previous AfD discussion was closed as a redirect‎ with "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal." Vagenie1, you're the one who removed the redirect. Would you say a bit about what had changed that led you to remove the redirect? For example, do you think she's now notable because of her activism? If so, the relative amount of text in the article doesn't reflect that. It looks like all of the current sources discuss the privately streamed sex videos with her husband that were made public without their consent. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with FactOrOpinion, who I think raises several important concerns.) The way the article is written seems problematic, and the way the lead was framed before I made edits to it was even more problematic. I think the fundamental problem is that this article was turned into a redirect in September 2023 after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson, and was recreated in February 2024 by Vagenie1, with largely the same article (deleted version vs. recreated version) but a few additional sources about the article subject's advocacy work after losing her election. The administrator who closed the AfD noted: "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal". After the article was recreated, there appears to have been efforts to add more and more details about the videos that received media attention into the lead as well as an effort to label the article subject in some way in the lead sentence based on the videos (previously "pornagraphic actress" and now "sex worker" or "webcam model"). Here is the most recent version prior to my edits to the lead. Has the article subject's advocacy work since the election made her notable? I think it's doubtful the news coverage since then alone would satisfy WP:GNG. Even Vagenie1 appears to believe that her primary notability is the news coverage during the election, as they recently removed any mention of her subsequent political advocacy work out of the lead. If she is found to be sufficiently notable based on her activities since losing the election, then we would need to present a balanced, neutral biography, rather than one that is obsessively focused on salacious details reported by news media during a political campaign for a losing candidate. I made the suggestion on the article's talk page to rely more heavily on articles written after the 2023 election, both in consideration of WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:BLP. – notwally (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article being recreated by a brand new user only a few months after being deleted is frankly extremely poor form. I've put the article up for AfD again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Hopefully this time some protection can be applied so the redirect can stick. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at

This edit. Polygnotus (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have invited the IP here to explain for us outsiders. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)