Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.
Additional notes:
| ||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below: |
Romesh Wadhwani
Hi: The page about Romesh Wadhwani is extremely outdated. Can someone please update it? I work at one of Romesh's companies so cannot do it directly but I am sharing a few notes:
Romesh is the chairman and founder of three companies not listed: SAIGroup https://saigroup.ai/ SymphonyAI https://www.symphonyai.com/ ConcertAI https://www.concertai.com/
He founded STG but does not have an active role at the company today (2022). He left in 2017 to found SymphonyAI.
Romesh was awarded a Padma Shri honor by the government of India in 2020. This is not listed https://www.cgisf.gov.in/event_detail/?eventid=180#:~:text=Romesh%20Wadhwani%20was%20awarded%20Padma,through%20large%20scale%20job%20creation.
Here is his listing in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/profile/romesh-t-wadhwani/?sh=6a07162c6ada
Some recent external coverage of Romesh, so you don't have to rely on press releases etc.
Kim Myers
Kim Myers contains a date of birth based on "California Birth Index, 1905–1995. Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California."
I removed both the date and the citation, citing WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, ""Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, ..." Another editor reverted the removal with the edit summary, "No good reason to remove perfectly fine sources".
I posted a message on that editor's talk page explaining my reasoning that California Birth Index is a public document and therefore should not be used to support a date of birth, according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. The editor reverted again, with the edit summary "It is a perfectly fine source as several otherpage for people use the californi birth index as well."
I don't want to get into an edit war, so I would appreciate clarification. Should California Birth Index (or any state's birth index) be used as a citation for birth date, full name, or other data in an article about a living person? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. You are right about BLPPRIMARY. Such a source should never be used. This is a very blatant violation of BLP and should be reverted immediately, on sight. Such a revert usually doesn't count as 3RR per WP:BLP3RR, because that is a pretty blatant violation. Also check out WP:BLPPRIVACY. For many people, birthdates are private, and we can't go around snooping through birth records, court documents, tax records, etc., trying to ferret out that info. We need a reliable source, but even that is not enough. For birthdates we need to find it published in multiple RSs; enough so that we can reasonably infer that the subject won't mind if we publish it too. If this source is being used for other people, it would be nice if the editor would tell us which articles, so we can go remove those too. Zaereth (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going through and reverting some of their previous additions using the index. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just reverted the editor again but it might be good to have a few more eyes watching this article. If this persists we may need an admin to intervene. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Opened a sockpuppet report since they seem to be evading scrutiny.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just reverted the editor again but it might be good to have a few more eyes watching this article. If this persists we may need an admin to intervene. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- NB: These types of records are used far too often on Wikipedia, for living or dead people, to assert birthdates, death dates, family members, marriages, etc., often violating both WP:PRIMARY (asserting facts that have never been secondarily published) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Too many people want to play armchair biographer and use Ancestry.com to write the definitive biography of someone who reliable sources haven't touched. Showbusiness biographies seem to be especially rife with such misuses of primary sources, which is even more problematic because it's common for showbusiness folks (historic and modern) to conceal or misrepresent their age. I spend quite a bit of time looking at FamilySearch records, and inferred birth dates for a single person might differ based on ages reported on censuses, marriage licenses, passport applications, and death certificates. Picking and choosing which primary source is "most correct" violates WP:OR. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, and Animalparty. I appreciate your feedback on this topic. I'm glad to know that other editors feel as strongly about this topic as I do. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a lot of people who feel this way, which is why we have so much of policy dedicated to it. This comes up here a lot, and, unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to look at the bigger picture to see some of the ramifications of their edits. There's a small percentage of the population who are obsessed with birthdates, which goes far beyond just an interest in astrology or numerology. My sister is one of those. She talks incessantly about birthdates as if they have some sort of magical meaning, although hers is the result of a brain injury. Not that everyone obsessed with BDs is brain damaged, but she wasn't like that before which does suggest that there are certain areas of the temporal lobe and hippocampal complex that can produce heightened emotional responses to them. When you look at it logically, though, then it's easy to realize that BDs just statistical data; not much different from height, weight, or eye color. It's nice info to have --when we can get it-- but in most cases it's not necessary to define the subject and the article will read just the same without it. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- +1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a lot of people who feel this way, which is why we have so much of policy dedicated to it. This comes up here a lot, and, unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to look at the bigger picture to see some of the ramifications of their edits. There's a small percentage of the population who are obsessed with birthdates, which goes far beyond just an interest in astrology or numerology. My sister is one of those. She talks incessantly about birthdates as if they have some sort of magical meaning, although hers is the result of a brain injury. Not that everyone obsessed with BDs is brain damaged, but she wasn't like that before which does suggest that there are certain areas of the temporal lobe and hippocampal complex that can produce heightened emotional responses to them. When you look at it logically, though, then it's easy to realize that BDs just statistical data; not much different from height, weight, or eye color. It's nice info to have --when we can get it-- but in most cases it's not necessary to define the subject and the article will read just the same without it. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- a lot of Cobretti1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are adding birth dates based on public records via ancestry.com. also [2] is a list of BLPs thats mention california birth index and [3] is one for the texus birth index.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 08:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- whistle* that's going to be a lot of work to remove. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Incredible. It will get only worse as Wikipedia gets larger, and people who care leave in disgust. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Self-written bio
The article for Christie Neptune appears to be written by the artist herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.249.152 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmm, if so, she should obviously declare a COI, but the article itself strikes me as pretty reasonable with good sourcing. I'll take a bit of a closer look. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC) ETA: on second look, I confess I am perplexed; can you explain why you think this? The history is somewhat dominated by one user, but I see no reason to assume that is the article subject?
- It looks like it was written by Citrivescence, a long term editor with 200+ article creations. Doesn't appear to be an autobiography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I did write it and I am not Christie Neptune. Citrivescence (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like it was written by Citrivescence, a long term editor with 200+ article creations. Doesn't appear to be an autobiography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Birth dates?
Do we have a policy on listing birth dates for living people? Given how useful birth dates are for identity theft, I think we should only list the year. Example: [4] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- WP:DOB covers it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Very helpful. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Kathe Perez
The Page "Kathe Perez"'s References fail to uphold Verifiability (One of Wikipedia's Core Content Policies)
References: 2. and 4. "http://www.speechlanguagepractice.org/" - has no relevance to the cited area as they lack any information regarding Kathe Perez besides a link to 1. and are the same link 3. "http://www.katheperez.com/" - no longer have relevance to the cited area as it now redirects to "https://www.evaf.app/pages/resources" 6. "http://www.asha.org/Members/ASHA-Makes-a-Difference" - leads to a Page Not Found 7. "http://forum.beginninglifeforums.com/index.php/mv/tree/7247/ba3e1065afa5921135efcfa69870ae1d/" - leads to a CAPTCHA that when completed causes a Fatal Error for the website 8. and 9. "https://books.google.com-books-about-professional/" - leads to a Site Not Found and are the same link
I don't know how to edit references, so I will leave this here. Sorry in advance.
Sorry if this messes anything up on the page. I don't exactly know what I'm doing.
I hope this page gets more reliable sources. Lots of Love my fellow Trans people! <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.41.81 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The refs are an absolute mess that's for sure. I've fixed the Google books refs although there's no preview for me so the Google books links aren't very useful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Emma Byrne
Article claims Emma Byrne is romantically involved with Vicky Losada, but the source for this is dubious. The source article presumes the nature of their relationship based on a single Twitter post by Vicky Losada about Emma Byrne, a post that fails to imply beyond all reasonable doubt that the two are in a relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathieu_Fleury
This entry looks like a personal CV/resume. It needs to be moderated as it has a cut and paste feel from a self-endorsing site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA2:A400:8D5B:5A0D:1DAC:A466 (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Went full wiki-squirrel and did some wiki-butchering and reduced it to the best cuts, with no processed meat. It wasn't actually a copyright violation (which was surprising given the tone of it). The picture may also vanish, as it (unlike the article) does seem to be a copyright violation. Can be closed off and archived now as the issue raised has been resolved. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Herschel Walker
The biographical entry for Herschel Walker is being edited to include quotations on political positions which detract from the editorial neutrality of the entry. Based on Wikipedia's guidance for [and neutrality|Quotations and Neutrality], these quotations inject the entry with clear political bias. The quotations are identified by the editor or editors as "gaffes" in the introduction to the Political Positions section, and the secondary source references support this categorization. It is not neutral to include gaffe quotes under this section, particularly since most of the quotes do not actually present a clear policy position for Herschel Walker, but are merely confusing statements that are being paraphrased by the editor. The purpose appears to be embarrassment and to present Walker in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenstorm85 (talk • contribs)
- This isn't a BLP issue as Mr. Walker said these things. This should be discussed on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Quotations, even if verifiable, if misused can violate WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPOV (WP:PROPORTION, WP:IMPARTIAL), e.g. by over-emphasizing negative or controversial material. "But it's true" by itself is often insufficient for inclusion, per WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. Wikipedia articles on politicians tend to be dumpster fires. Less kindling, less gasoline, and less quotes are probably better choices for any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- The numerous, numerous reliable sources that have covered Mr. Walker's more bizarre and outlandish claims put to rest any boilerplate reactions of NPOV, Impartialness, etc... Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree. Context always needs to be considered in terms of NPOV and the recent political NOTNEWS churnalism about his candidacy should not overwhelm his biography when he is still mostly known for his football career with extensive print coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think "overwhelm his biography" is a stretch, but I do support a trim of his positions, and more summary than explicit quotation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- The content about his illustrious football career is appropriately far greater than the content about politics. I fail to see how direct quotations from the subject can create bias, and it would be exceptionally difficult to convey the spirit and tone of his recent remarks to the reader by paraphrasing these quotes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Politicians say a lot of shit, and I don't believe there should be that much space devoted to the "political position" of current candidates with no voting records especially if they were inordinately famous before they were candidates. I see this issue at the Mehmet Oz article also. Just because today's journalism covers everything now due to the almost limitless resources of the Internet compared to yesteryears does not mean we should too in terms of balance. *edit conflict* Cullen, I am also concerned about selective quoting in addition to weight. I see too much of this in BLPs when this should be the role of a secondary source rather than a succinct summary befitting of a tertiary medium like wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts, you are edit warring and removing sourced content on a WP:RGW crusade and citing this discussion as a reason. I don't see a consensus here that his gaffes are undue. Andre🚐 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- You should revert yourself under WP:BLPN because "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." There is no clear consensus for these quotes based on this discussion and the article talk page. Just because content is sourced does not mean it's fit for inclusion per WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- These don't appear to be substantive BLP objections. Herschel Walker is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and we report what the sources say. The sources have reported extensively on his statements. The material well-sourced and there's a consensus to include the material. The removals are improper. The page is now protected. Andre🚐 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the consensus when multiple editors have objected over NPOV vs multiple editors arguing it's V! Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Who are the multiple editors (specifically, good faith editors)? I see you and someone who is an SPA who was blocked for edit warring in said article, and neither of you are making a compelling or coherent argument on the talk page, just repeating yourselves ad nauseam PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Animalparty!, Firefangledfeather (who favoured reduction and summary), @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: on the article talk page. Along with the original complainant whose opinion is no less legitimate, we all have concerns about NPOV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of those editors endorsed this massive removal of sourced content[5] or even to remove the gaffes. 2 or 3 editors suggested moving the section and reducing the weight, and referring to the section as gaffes rather than positions. By contrast at least 6 editors have supported retaining the section and it is the status quo ante before your major removals, which go beyond even the subject being discussed. Andre🚐 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Animalparty!, Firefangledfeather (who favoured reduction and summary), @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: on the article talk page. Along with the original complainant whose opinion is no less legitimate, we all have concerns about NPOV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Who are the multiple editors (specifically, good faith editors)? I see you and someone who is an SPA who was blocked for edit warring in said article, and neither of you are making a compelling or coherent argument on the talk page, just repeating yourselves ad nauseam PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the consensus when multiple editors have objected over NPOV vs multiple editors arguing it's V! Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- These don't appear to be substantive BLP objections. Herschel Walker is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and we report what the sources say. The sources have reported extensively on his statements. The material well-sourced and there's a consensus to include the material. The removals are improper. The page is now protected. Andre🚐 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- You should revert yourself under WP:BLPN because "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." There is no clear consensus for these quotes based on this discussion and the article talk page. Just because content is sourced does not mean it's fit for inclusion per WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts, you are edit warring and removing sourced content on a WP:RGW crusade and citing this discussion as a reason. I don't see a consensus here that his gaffes are undue. Andre🚐 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think "overwhelm his biography" is a stretch, but I do support a trim of his positions, and more summary than explicit quotation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree. Context always needs to be considered in terms of NPOV and the recent political NOTNEWS churnalism about his candidacy should not overwhelm his biography when he is still mostly known for his football career with extensive print coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- The numerous, numerous reliable sources that have covered Mr. Walker's more bizarre and outlandish claims put to rest any boilerplate reactions of NPOV, Impartialness, etc... Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the NPOV problem of total removal is worse than the NPOV problem of the status quo ante version, and I'd favor restoration while we work on condensing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Andre, I'm still confused on whether those position quotes are meant to be examples of gaffes since they follow the initial gaffe statement. To be clear, I don't mind the gaffe summary. Just not sure if the summary should even be in that section or is more appropriate in the campaign section. My position is to remove any picking and choosing of quotes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- You'd like all quotes removed from the policy section, or specific ones? The quotes included are what reflect his political beliefs on the subjects and paraphrasing them may lead to users contesting the paraphrased paragraphs. As others have mentioned you're welcome to elaborate and expand further on those beliefs with reliable sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, Morbidthoughts, while I am sympathetic to some degree, some of these quotes really did garner reliable source coverage as quotes. Given that, I would probably lose the abortion-related quotes in favor of a brief summary, but it strikes me that we kind of need the "bad air" and "young men looking at women" quotes. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, what josh and Dumzid said and everyone else. Morbidthoughts, you've been around for a while and you have a bunch of edits, so I assume you know that these are topics to be discussed on the article talk page, not the BLP noticeboard. If you want to address some good faith workshopping of the section I suggest you close this thread and we can talk about the exact phrasing of the quotes or what section they should be in. Instead you've removed about 4kb of material all of which has sources and some of which is directly from the candidate's mouth, despite probably a clear consensus to keep it, and at least an active discussion that wasn't tending toward removing it, and you requested page protection WP:WRONGVERSIONed User:Deepfriedokra [6]. You seem to be SOAPBOXing this and I suggest for a start, you close this thread. Andre🚐 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I did not engage in any picking and choosing. When I wrote the content, I did a thorough search in reliable secondary sources for coverage of his stances on political issues, and neutrally summarized what I found. As I have said several times, if someone can find reliable independent sources talking about his views on issues that is free of perceived gaffes, then certainly that should be summarized and included. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: If the version I protected is status quo ante, could you please note this at the RfPP thread? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I thought it was, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Cullen, the issue that I read the section is if you preface the section describing he frequently makes gaffes, then you provide quotes that only serves to reiterate whatever issues that have been already summarized in the previous sentence; are they supposed to be gaffes? Why are those specific quotes important enough to focus on? Based on Dumuzid's examples, I understand Walker's comments about the futility of the act due to the shared global air space while the suggestion of a department of investigating "young men looking at women that's looking at social media" is completely bizarre. But as Andre suggested, individual edits may be hammered out in article talk page discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I encourage you to read all the cited sources and search for coverage of the matter in other reliable, independent sources to see whether you can find coverage that provides a different or more nuanced view of things. I did my best to neutrally summarize the sources that I could find. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any opinion on whether the gaffe intro sentences should be moved to the campaign section? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Reading through what is being argued about, thre is almost no reason to include the quotes when in nearly all instances the Wikitext summarizes it. Eg in the second on abortion, the summary text is doing the job that the quotes and awkward and unnecessary. He's not being obtuse or overly descriptive in the given quotes that make our summary a problem. The only one that might be required is the one about the IRA bill, because there I don't know how you'd summarize that logic about trees. Masem (t) 23:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any opinion on whether the gaffe intro sentences should be moved to the campaign section? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I encourage you to read all the cited sources and search for coverage of the matter in other reliable, independent sources to see whether you can find coverage that provides a different or more nuanced view of things. I did my best to neutrally summarize the sources that I could find. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, what josh and Dumzid said and everyone else. Morbidthoughts, you've been around for a while and you have a bunch of edits, so I assume you know that these are topics to be discussed on the article talk page, not the BLP noticeboard. If you want to address some good faith workshopping of the section I suggest you close this thread and we can talk about the exact phrasing of the quotes or what section they should be in. Instead you've removed about 4kb of material all of which has sources and some of which is directly from the candidate's mouth, despite probably a clear consensus to keep it, and at least an active discussion that wasn't tending toward removing it, and you requested page protection WP:WRONGVERSIONed User:Deepfriedokra [6]. You seem to be SOAPBOXing this and I suggest for a start, you close this thread. Andre🚐 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, Morbidthoughts, while I am sympathetic to some degree, some of these quotes really did garner reliable source coverage as quotes. Given that, I would probably lose the abortion-related quotes in favor of a brief summary, but it strikes me that we kind of need the "bad air" and "young men looking at women" quotes. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- You'd like all quotes removed from the policy section, or specific ones? The quotes included are what reflect his political beliefs on the subjects and paraphrasing them may lead to users contesting the paraphrased paragraphs. As others have mentioned you're welcome to elaborate and expand further on those beliefs with reliable sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've already participated in the talk discussions at the article. I think (1) The of direct quotes in the article are gaffes, and described as such in all RS. Hence, presenting them as policies is a NPOV and BLP violation. Furthermore, the quotes do not reveal policy stances of Walker and his campaign, and we should just paraphrase his views as RS has done. (2) Walker's gaffes definitely need to be mentioned in the article in some capacity since they are widely covered in RS. A well written paragraph should discuss his gaffes and be introduced into the campaign section. (3) I don't really like the policy section. It's looks bad. I think his policies just need to be summed up in a paragraph or two rather than a million subsections.(4) I'm not trying to make any accusations of bad faith, but it's a little concerning that the only BLP I know of that presents gaffes as policies to make the candidate look dumb is the BLP of a black man. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are six subsections and six is not a million. Hyperbole can be effective in rare contexts but not when debating the content of an encyclopedia article, where accuracy is important. The biography of his opponent Raphael Warnock has eight subsections on political positions. Are you saying that is too many for Warnock? I added the introductory gaffe language in response to concerns from another editor that the quotations taken in isolation lacked context, and that the context is that Walker is prone to gaffes. I deeply disagree that my purpose is "to make the candidate look dumb" and that is because he is "a black man". That is false. Simply bring forth coverage in independent, reliable sources that portray Walker as articulate, insightful and thoughtful on policy matters, and we can incorporate that into the article immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Warnocks political positions section isn't great for the same reason, but at least it's more developed. Walker is not an articulate speaker, and I'm not saying he is. I'm merely saying the comments are gaffes and thats it. I don't think the introductory paragraph you added is justification for presenting the quotes inappropriately. I didn't say the purpose is to make them look dumb, but that's obviously the effect. We don't treat other politicians who are gaffe prone in this way, and I don't understand why Walker appears to be an exception. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think there should be no limit or recommended number of subsections. It just so happens that most of Herschel Walker's coverage is about some of his statements, which explain his views in a pretty kludgy way. It's pretty shocking to see that you think it's concerning that Herschel Walker's article quotes him in a way that makes him look bad, and that to you is a racial concern. Nevermind that Warnock and Walker are both from the same background. How about Joe Biden's article?
In late April 2009, Biden's off-message response to a question during the beginning of the swine flu outbreak, that he would advise family members against traveling on airplanes or subways, led to a swift retraction by the White House. The remark revived Biden's reputation for gaffes. Confronted with rising unemployment through July 2009, Biden acknowledged that the administration had "misread how bad the economy was" but maintained confidence the stimulus package would create many more jobs once the pace of expenditures picked up. On March 23, 2010, a microphone picked up Biden telling the president that his signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was "a big fucking deal" during live national news telecasts.
Seems like we feel fine quoting him and making him look a little dumb sometimes when he mis-speaks. And I know you've edited this article too, but you didn't seem to have an issue. Maybe it's not the race. Andre🚐 01:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)- Iamreallygoodatcheckers, please name two or three other notable politicians who are as gaffe-prone when discussing policy as Walker, and let's compare the coverage of their gaffes. Failing to accurately and thoroughly cover his policy comments would be the real NPOV violation. The article has much more detail about each individual one of his seasons of college football before his NFL career than it does about his political positions as a candidate for one of 100 seats in the US Senate. I have heard of recentism, but this looks like anti-recentism, which is totally new to me. I do not think that it is proper to deny our readers accurate, well-referenced, neutrally written information about what Walker has actually said about the issues. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Most politicians have made gaffes of some sort. Just to name a few Trump, Biden, Pelosi, and Bush Jr. These are all treated differently than Walker Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly, coverage of Trump's policy pronouncements combined the gaffe element with commentary about the substance of his policy positions. But what he said about his various policy innovations received intense coverage from countless reliable sources and discussion of all of that is included in many Trump related articles. Yes, Biden, has a history of stuttering, occasionally stumbles and sounds strange for a few seconds. But if you listen to Biden discussing Policy A ten times, he may stumble once but be coherent and consistent the other nine times. Pretty much the same is true of George W. Bush. He spoke awkward many times, but if you listened to him speak over and over again on any specific issue, it was pretty clear where he stood. As for Pelosi, her gaffes are trivial in the context of a nearly 40 year career in Congress. You could read thousands of articles over the decades discussing how Pelosi talks about policy, and only a miniscule percentage of those sources would refer to gaffes or misstatements. She is highly competent and zwlll Walker is . . . come to your own conclusions based on his record and what he says. Our readers deserve that information. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Most politicians have made gaffes of some sort. Just to name a few Trump, Biden, Pelosi, and Bush Jr. These are all treated differently than Walker Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Andrevan, so with Biden's article we mention his gaffes in an appropriate manner. We contextualize it, and call a gaffe a gaffe. You quoted it,
The remark revived Biden's reputation for gaffes.
We don't mention every fumble he's made in political positions section of his article. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)- The Herschel Walker article does the same thing. And those Biden "gaffes" from 2009 and 2010 are minor as hell. It's hard to do Walker justice because he's really one of the most word salad politicians, probably from his struggles with disability and mental illness. Andre🚐 02:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you should strike the comment speculating that a BLP has a brain disorder without evidence. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Andre🚐 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- [12] He wrote a whole book about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speculating that his mental health is "probably" linked to his "word salad" is a BLP violation and OR. His mental health is also just irrelevant to this discussion and shouldn't have been brought up. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- The source that ScottishFinnishRadish just posted makes the same connection that I just made. It refers to,
ormer football players suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a brain illness caused by repeated hits, which the NFL acknowledges afflicts up to a third of its former players.
Regardless, it could only be OR and BLPvio if I put it in the article, which I didn't. I simply pointed it out. The article as written just quotes him and lets the reader just try to figure out what he meant or what he was talking about. Andre🚐 02:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)- Do any RS tie Walker to CTE because dissociative personality disorder wouldn't normally explain the word salad issue or gaffes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Read just one sentence into the source that I'm quoting from.
To be clear, I am not saying that Walker has CTE. There’s no way, at present, to determine that. But it’s difficult to watch Walker in his few public appearances and escape the conclusion that he is suffering from some form of cognitive decline. Consider this brief and indecipherable statement, posted on Twitter: "Build back better. You probably want something written, like law of the land, stating all men are to be treated equal. Oh! We have the Constitution. So you probably want to put people in charge whose gonna fight for the Constitution. Just thinking. God bless you." Or the way a recent friendly interview on Fox New gradually descends into incoherence. Or his August 2020 appearance on another right-wing platform, which devolves into a completely insane endorsement of an anti-COVID product that does not exist. Simply put: Walker does not appear able to speak, or think, beyond a set of memorized talking points.
Andre🚐 02:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)- Even though I probably agree with that opinion given my observations of Walker since his playing days, it's still opinion (at most RSOPINION). This discussion reminds me of the Jameela Jamil conflict where the dispute was over laundry listing all the inane things that the actress said about her health with concern that it was implying she had Munchausen[13] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Read just one sentence into the source that I'm quoting from.
- Do any RS tie Walker to CTE because dissociative personality disorder wouldn't normally explain the word salad issue or gaffes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- The source that ScottishFinnishRadish just posted makes the same connection that I just made. It refers to,
- Speculating that his mental health is "probably" linked to his "word salad" is a BLP violation and OR. His mental health is also just irrelevant to this discussion and shouldn't have been brought up. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you should strike the comment speculating that a BLP has a brain disorder without evidence. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- The Herschel Walker article does the same thing. And those Biden "gaffes" from 2009 and 2010 are minor as hell. It's hard to do Walker justice because he's really one of the most word salad politicians, probably from his struggles with disability and mental illness. Andre🚐 02:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Iamreallygoodatcheckers, please name two or three other notable politicians who are as gaffe-prone when discussing policy as Walker, and let's compare the coverage of their gaffes. Failing to accurately and thoroughly cover his policy comments would be the real NPOV violation. The article has much more detail about each individual one of his seasons of college football before his NFL career than it does about his political positions as a candidate for one of 100 seats in the US Senate. I have heard of recentism, but this looks like anti-recentism, which is totally new to me. I do not think that it is proper to deny our readers accurate, well-referenced, neutrally written information about what Walker has actually said about the issues. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think there should be no limit or recommended number of subsections. It just so happens that most of Herschel Walker's coverage is about some of his statements, which explain his views in a pretty kludgy way. It's pretty shocking to see that you think it's concerning that Herschel Walker's article quotes him in a way that makes him look bad, and that to you is a racial concern. Nevermind that Warnock and Walker are both from the same background. How about Joe Biden's article?
- Warnocks political positions section isn't great for the same reason, but at least it's more developed. Walker is not an articulate speaker, and I'm not saying he is. I'm merely saying the comments are gaffes and thats it. I don't think the introductory paragraph you added is justification for presenting the quotes inappropriately. I didn't say the purpose is to make them look dumb, but that's obviously the effect. We don't treat other politicians who are gaffe prone in this way, and I don't understand why Walker appears to be an exception. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are six subsections and six is not a million. Hyperbole can be effective in rare contexts but not when debating the content of an encyclopedia article, where accuracy is important. The biography of his opponent Raphael Warnock has eight subsections on political positions. Are you saying that is too many for Warnock? I added the introductory gaffe language in response to concerns from another editor that the quotations taken in isolation lacked context, and that the context is that Walker is prone to gaffes. I deeply disagree that my purpose is "to make the candidate look dumb" and that is because he is "a black man". That is false. Simply bring forth coverage in independent, reliable sources that portray Walker as articulate, insightful and thoughtful on policy matters, and we can incorporate that into the article immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in the same boat as Firefangledfeathers. It should really be summarized, rather than quoting, but until that summary is done I don't see it as a huge problem to keep the quotes in place. It's not great, but it's not blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- So in reading the discussion is there consensus to remove the more mundane non-gaffe quotes that are already summarised in the article (usually preceding like the examples Masem gave)? If there is consensus to keep the gaffes in quotes because there is no way to paraphrase them, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, no. Andre🚐 02:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I really think a lot of neutrality problems can be rendered moot by considering the gaffes he has made wholly separate from his political statements - or at least should be deemphasized over his positions. As I said above, most of his positions can be summarized without his quotes, gaffes or not. Then a separate section to highlight a few of his gaffes that have been noted by secondary sources would be fair. The problem is that by including his gaffes intermingled among his positions, it is very much a mocking tone in Wikivoice and should not be written that way. Masem (t) 04:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, no. Andre🚐 02:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- So in reading the discussion is there consensus to remove the more mundane non-gaffe quotes that are already summarised in the article (usually preceding like the examples Masem gave)? If there is consensus to keep the gaffes in quotes because there is no way to paraphrase them, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Image-use in article about the specific image against image-subject's wishes
Advice wanted at Talk:Lenna#Use of the image in the article. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Destiny (streamer)
Over at Talk:Destiny_(streamer)#Edit_war, there has been an ongoing discussion about whether it is appropriate to include allegations from transgender streamer Keffals that Destiny collaborated with the stalking forum Kiwi Farms to harass her. The sourcing for this claim is in my opinion not strong. Outside input would be appreciated, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Conrad Black
I've created an RFC to discuss whether "fraudster" (or something similar like "convicted criminal") should be used to label Black in the first sentence. It's my contention that we shouldn't use labels like this in the first sentence unless the person is primarily known for their crime(s). I'm bringing it up here as it would be nice to have some general consensus on how to handle applying a criminal label to a biography in the first sentence; I found Talk:Martha_Stewart#"Convicted"_in_lead_-_NPOV?, and assume there are other similar consensuses. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Kiwi Farms
A link to Kiwi Farms's domain name has been removed from its article because that site endangers people's lives. However, it has been added to the talk page of the article anyway (Talk:Kiwi Farms), by a user who originally wanted it in the article, as a comment. It should be removed from there. PBZE (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is currently the subject on an ongoing RfC Talk:Kiwi_Farms#RfC_on_linking_to_Kiwi_Farms, so it's probably best if editors post their opinion there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- We link to Stormfront in its article, where murders have been planned and called for, and that has been retained after a challenge. Sorry, not exactly getting how Kiwi Farms is any different, could you explain further, I might get it if you elaborate? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I want to know, because, to quote Pontificalibus on Talk:Stormfront (website),
Wikipedia is not censored. To have an article about a website without linking to that site would be absurd.
If you have anything to challenge this, I would like a discussion on it. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)- I agree that regardless of the result of whether the URL should be included or not (I don't have a strong opinion on the matter) that the result should be consistent with whether or not the Stormfront URL is included. The concerns about including the urls for both articles as you say are basically identical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are they though? I haven't yet !voted but a I'm leaning towards excluding Kiwifarms but am unconvinced the same for Stormfront or any of the other sites people have named. My impression from what I've is that Stormfront, VDARE, The Right Stuff are all general hate sites of various kinds. They spread general hate speech like how all non whites should be inferior, should be killed etc. I'm assuming they sometimes attack specific individuals but I suspect these are highly notable individuals. I'm sure Obama is disturbed by some of the crap Stormfront has about him and especially his daughters but even the latter is likely more of a general concern and external concern. I'm sure these websites sometimes attack non notable and barely notable living people but it doesn't seem to be their focus. By comparison, a big part of Kiwifarms purpose seems to be to mock and attack living people most of who seem to be non notable and barely notable living people. Indeed they were originally started to attack one such person and even named themselves after it. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides because of this. A skim through the Stormfront discussion mentions their use to organise hate crimes including murders (edit: just noticed this as also mentioned above) which is concerning but I don't consider in the same vein. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that regardless of the result of whether the URL should be included or not (I don't have a strong opinion on the matter) that the result should be consistent with whether or not the Stormfront URL is included. The concerns about including the urls for both articles as you say are basically identical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I want to know, because, to quote Pontificalibus on Talk:Stormfront (website),
- Given that their latest provider has kicked them off the service now, and it appears that Moon may be calling it quits, this question may be moot. --Masem (t) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Having a link to this kiwi farms site does not add to or subtract from the danger of the content found there, let's not pretend that an incoming link from the Wikipedia actually matters one way or another. IMO the only time an outgoing link should be censored is if direct harm could come to the reader, e.g. malware at the URL, or something grossly obscene like Goatse. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- External links in Wikipedia infoboxes do matter, as they usually end up in the first page of search results and the Google knowledge panel. In that regard, there's a parallel discussion on Wikidata regarding whether the link should be removed from there as well. Funcrunch (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are we to assume the people (or algorithms) who maintain Google knowledge panels have no agency of their own, cannot edit high profile searches as seen fit, and are at the sole mercy of Wikipedia/Wikidata? Clearly this is not true because entities with neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikidata items can have knowledge panels. And if they are mindlessly suckling the data teats of Wiki with no filters in place, shame on them. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Your colorful hyperbole aside, according to the Google Knowledge Graph entry I previously linked to (and I did check the source on this), "There is no official documentation of how the Google Knowledge Graph is implemented." Funcrunch (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are we to assume the people (or algorithms) who maintain Google knowledge panels have no agency of their own, cannot edit high profile searches as seen fit, and are at the sole mercy of Wikipedia/Wikidata? Clearly this is not true because entities with neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikidata items can have knowledge panels. And if they are mindlessly suckling the data teats of Wiki with no filters in place, shame on them. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED, we should not simply be removing links because the websites they go to are distasteful, when he have an article on said website. The activity of Kiwi Farms users may be harmful, but the website itself will not kill you. Harm being caused to you requires more than simply opening the website. Facebook and Twitter can be harmful too. I think the only instance where it would be appropriate to wholly remove a link is if it is to a website has malware upon being opened or something extreme like child porn (which both cause direct harm upon being opened, regardless of the user interaction with the users of the site). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Sasha Roseneil
Hi,
Can we change her current occupation from 'Executive Dean of Social & Historical Sciences Professor of Interdisciplinary Social Science' to 'Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex' please?
She came into post at the start of August 2022
Many thanks, Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Littlejones (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio
Should the name of the suspect be listed at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio? I have asked to have it removed, but with no success. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I am assuming we are talking the suspect accused of raping her (there's a lot of possible victims in that story depending on angle). I would tend to agree that that suspect need not be named even though his name is widely available in many news reports, he's not a public figure and in terms of the narrative for this event, it just needs to be said the suspected rapist was caught and thus validated the story after some tried to whitewash it away. --Masem (t) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Holy shit, that is the worst infobox I've seen on Wikipedia. Event type pregnancy, participants... Jesus Christ. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize to the infobox which I commented on, and to the 10 year old girl who was listed as a participant in her own rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I went back and looked at the infobox. Yikes, it should not be in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any article talk page discussion about this. Am I missing it? I'd like to respond there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The info is still in the page history. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Jax, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight may get you faster results than anything else you have tried. Include diffs with the request so they can find what diffs contain the offending information. --Jayron32 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The info is still in the page history. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd redact this here and now but I can't see where the suspect is named, so I'm not sure what to do, other than WP:G6 the entire article and just leave the last version. Actually, I think I've managed to redact the requested information, citing WP:BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Does this not fall under WP:NOTNEWS? This could probably be merged with Abortion in Ohio. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 closed as keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't know that existed. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think in a year or so it would be possible to get consensus to roll it into another article. I agree with the notnews, but it's hard to tell when something is recent of it will have any lasting significance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't know that existed. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 closed as keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Chriselle Lim
The birth date listed in the sidebar is incorrect. It is April 10, 1985, which is correct in the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6a40:3ecb:10b8:3138:8fbc:e653 (talk)
- Are there reliable sources that confirm her birthdate to put it in the article? If not, they should be removed per WP:DOB. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Brian Stafford (businessman)
Brian Stafford (businessman) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, noticeboard editors! I am Julia and I work at Diligent Corporation. Due to my COI, I posted a request for editor assistance at Talk:Brian_Stafford_(businessman)#BLP_concerns. I question whether recent edits to the Personal life section are problematic based on WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. More info is available on the article Talk page. I appreciate your expertise in this matter. JHDiligent (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of policy seems entirely reasonable - I've removed the material concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Oldest Published Author
Henry T, Bradford DOB 13 October 1930 has had several books published and another is about to be released he may not be as popular or sold as many books as Mr Mcewan but he is considerably older 124.169.219.55 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @124.169.219.55: Can you be specific about which article and content you're referring to? Neiltonks (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)