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: |
Ahmed Johnson
Ahmed Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slam say "Johnson went to college at the University of Tennesee, which led to two seasons -- 1990, 1991 -- kicking around the Dallas Cowboys squad as a middle linebacker." This is confirmed by page 230 of John Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Wrestling. Rowman and Littlefield (ISBN 0810879255), which says he was released by the Cowboys without playing a regular season game. Despite this the article contains blatant original research added here saying "Tennessee has no record of anybody named Norris ever having played football at the university, and the NFL has no record of Norris ever playing for any team", sourced only by searches of this database and this database. 92.40.188.82 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- It may all be kayfabe. No idea how much fact checking these wrestling sites actually do. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Paul Zimmer (Internet personality)
Troy Becker (formerly known as Paul Zimmer), has been seemingly trying to re-write/re-create his own articles to claim that he is younger than he is, and has claimed the current article is libellous. It's really the latter point that I want people to address here, but I thought I'd give an exposition of events:
- 3 January: IP editor 2603:8001:7501:1e6b:a48c:50fe:ad41:29fe, claiming to be subject of the article, made a number of edits to his own Wikipedia page. These included changing his date of birth from 1995 (which is supported by the sources used in the article) to 2000, claiming himself to be a "fictional character" (to make the distinction between his online persona and himself), and other promotional content. These edits were quickly reverted ([1], [2], [3]), and a warning against article hijacking was placed on their userpage by Rdp060707 (who possibly thought that the user was talking about a different individual) and advises them to use the Article Wizard to create another article (talk page).
- 20 January: Draft:Troy Becker, a short promotional article, is submitted to AfC, created by Thetroybecker. This also includes a false date of birth. It was declined on 26 February by KylieTastic for improper sourcing. I don't believe the user should be reprimanded for this, as they were encouraged to use the Article Wizard to create a new article.
- However, this draft also includes an image, File:Facetune 23-02-2021-23-47-32.jpg. Given the image name, it seems likely that this was edited by Facetune software – possibly to give Becker a younger look (although this is speculation on my part). Either way, I'm not sure what the copyright situation is with Facetuned images. If this is deemed appropriate, it should be included in the main article; if not, then it should be deleted from Wikipedia.
- 3 March: Thetroybecker puts a delete notice on the original article and issues legal threats against Wikipedia, saying: My lawyer states that, this is against the law to pass on false information about me. I want this page deleted now or I will be facing legal action. and I would like this Wikipedia page deleted immediately, I am Troy Becker/Paul Zimmer. This is inaccurate information on me, and my lawyer says this is grounds for decimation against me. I would like this page deleted now or I will be facing legal action.
- I highly doubt this threat is genuine. However, on the off-chance that there is defamatory content within the article, I would appreciate if editors could give the article a one-over check. (I am also aware that some Wikipedians take a dim view of Insider sources being used in BLPs. However I think the general consensus is that they are reliable for content such as dates of birth, especially when these are supported by other sources such as the New Statesman).
In short: If editors could give the article a once-over check to see that it is BLP-worthy and that there is no defamatory content in the article, I would very much appreciate it. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- As I was pinged... I would say per Wikipedia:No legal threats just report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would also say there is nothing to say it's the same person, and if it is they are doing just more of the same and should be ignored or blocked. The fact that they first tried to edit Troy Becker then submit Draft:Troy Becker before deciding Paul Zimmer (Internet personality) was the issue and start the threats shows the real motivation here. As for Paul Zimmer (Internet personality) it appears to be a another wanabe who is only notable for doing something stupid, I'd be happy to see it and the redirect(s) to it deleted as it appears to be more tabloid news than encyclopedic content. KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the article as regards sourcing, only the issue of whether he's notable - however, knowing the usual arguments at AfD, I suspect the sources such as the New Statesman and the sttempt to resurface as someone else (which may well take it out of WP:BLP1E territory) might mean it is kept. Anyway, you're right about the legal threats, so blocked and article semi-protected (since they tried previously to delete content as an IP). Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- KylieTastic, I honestly think that the article in its current should be deleted - there are several accusations listed which are only sourced by two magazines and one of them cites the other. Beside these accusations I barely can see any notability of this subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah - there are plenty of sources, i.e. The Independent although they all, apart from one, quote the New Statesman. This isn't unusual with this type of pop culture story, to be honest; often a mainstream source doesn't pick it up, but this time one did, and it spread from there. I can find odd bits about him from when his story surfaced the first time, but not a lot, and most of it's unsurprisingly on YouTube. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
bert campaneris
Bert Campaneris has a daughter, Polita Campaneris and a granddaughter, Gabriela Kreszchuk and a grandson, JunoGiovanni Zivenallen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampaneris (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Without a reliable source, this cannot be included. I could find reporting (behind paywalls) of the 1967 paternity claim, but that is not sufficient sourcing. Fences&Windows 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Steven Kunes
- Steven Kunes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am the subject of this Wikipedia article and have not logged in to check it for over a year. I would like an uninvolved senior editor to take a look at this article about me and then try to think whether or not you've ever seen an article (BLP) like this one. I doubt that Robert Downey and Martha Stewart are listed for their criminal offenses at the top of their articles. While it's true that I've gotten myself into trouble over the years, one need only to read the editors' comments to conclude that they ganged up on me and shut down the voices of dissenting editors. I am not an American conman and former screenwriter. I currently have a comedy series on Amazon Prime called "Over My Dead Body" that I created, write and produce. I've published 6 books in the last four years, including one last month. I can provide links all day long that demonstrate that I'm very much an active writer and producer. For the last two years, I've been on the episodic comedy panel of judges for the WGA Awards. I've been a member of the Writers Guild of America, the Authors Guild and the Dramatists Guild since 1982 and remain current and in good standing. I'm also a member of PEN (upon their invitation two years ago.) I am very embarrassed over my past actions but they certainly don't warrant top-billing on Wikipedia. I am kindly requesting that a senior Wikipedia editor review the BLP about me and format the article like every other BLP, no better, no worse. Thank you very much for your help. -- Steven Kunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.35.86 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- "I can provide links all day long that demonstrate that I'm very much an active writer and producer." I would suggest you provide those links on the article Talk page, making sure that the links are to Reliable Sources.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to be very careful about this. While Kunes' Over My Dead Body exists[4] and is posted on Amazon Prime,[5] it is low budget and low production value (Prime Video is largely a self-publishing platform [6]), is not available in the UK (I don't know about elsewhere), and shares a name with another 2015 TV real-crime series featuring Linda Hamilton.[7] It is also the same title Kunes incorrectly claimed was on Netflix a few years ago.[8] Because of the history of this article, self-published and other less reliable or non-independent sources should not be used. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page. Fences&Windows 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
John Mark Ramseyer
- John Mark Ramseyer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This BLP on a relatively obscure Harvard legal scholar, John Mark Ramseyer — who has written a few dozen journal articles — sat as an almost untouched stub until a month and a half ago when he published a journal article that has attracted quite a bit of scrutiny. Since then, it's tripled in size, 60% of the body prose is now occupied by a new "Controversy" section that's been slapped up, and half the lead is now dedicated to said journal article. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to look into it but, at first glance, this seems to have a variety of issues related to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MOSLEAD going on. But maybe it doesn't; like I said, I haven't looked at it closely. Just an FYI if anyone has the time or inclination to glance at it. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ross Nicholson
This article is currently mostly a hoax being circulated fairly widely on social media. It has been used to get a persons's name added to the betting odds for the next Aberdeen FC manager. --ℕ ℱ 12:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reverted and semi-protected. Thanks, nonsenseferret. Fences&Windows 13:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Sasha Grey
Sasha Grey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hipal has been continually removing Sasha Grey's post-porn career labels [9][10] from the lead, arguing that it violates BLP with the POV since it deemphasises her previous porn career. These labels are supported by her projects described in the rest of the article, and I have concerns that they are substituting their subjective analysis[11] over what RS report on. I need others to weigh in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert what you like, but make sure that BLP-quality refs support it. I don't expect any such source will not mention her adult film background, so that background should be given emphasis above all else.
- Note that I think there are fans and anti-fans overwhelming this article. I'm certainly not going to carefully review 174 references when at a glance they all look poor and promotional. We've made no progress in the past year. --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Even though you've asserted BLP, you have made 3 or more revert, including partial, on this today. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- FOC. I will revert to whatever version you like if that will help, if editors can point to BLP-quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it wasn't obvious, I'm not interested in refining content through reverts. The lead summarises the later sourced content, and you weren't interested in wading through them. The examples that were given in the article talk page,[12] you dismissed. That's why I am asking others to review them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For ease of review I'm linking the discussion and potential refs below: --Hipal (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Talk:Sasha_Grey#Is_Grey_notable_for_anything_other_than_her_adult_film_work
- "Could former porn star Sasha Grey be the next EL James?". The Independent. May 3, 2013.
- Stern, Marlow (August 6, 2020). "Sasha Grey: Why Hollywood Was Way Creepier Than Porn" – via www.thedailybeast.com.
- Fair enough. For ease of review I'm linking the discussion and potential refs below: --Hipal (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it wasn't obvious, I'm not interested in refining content through reverts. The lead summarises the later sourced content, and you weren't interested in wading through them. The examples that were given in the article talk page,[12] you dismissed. That's why I am asking others to review them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- FOC. I will revert to whatever version you like if that will help, if editors can point to BLP-quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Even though you've asserted BLP, you have made 3 or more revert, including partial, on this today. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with the concerns that Hipal is using broad innovations of policy to support what appears to be their own subjective analysis. When I apply my own understanding of the invoked policies to the situation at hand I come up with significantly different conclusions, especially after the most recent sources provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- That policy really refers to focusing on content rather than conduct during a dispute resolution. It's really an extension of the NPA policy, but that's not what I see going on here. It's not a personal attack to look at another editors arguments: their logic and reasoning, and in fact that is a very important part of any dispute resolution and one you should respond to. Although I'm on the road and don't have time to get into the meat and potatoes of this, I see nobody here focusing on conduct. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Concerns for her music career seem to be misplaced considering she's referred to as a musician by a leading music publication (who mentions her music career) here [13]; her acting career is seemingly obvious, acting in The Girlfriend Experience (a film by Steven Soderbergh, who has a academy award for best director); as reviewed by the NYT [14]. There's also plenty of sources in music publications for a "musician" label, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] - even in many languages - including Indonesian here [20]. (there's also some in Russian/Spanish or in faraway places like Australia [21], any basic search in google news could bring this up, which makes one wonder if a WP:BEFORE search inquiry was done). Removing "author" when someone has clearly published a novel is seemingly odd, the fact that sources refer to her writing novels even moreso, quality of books does not disqualify her from being a author, so it beggars belief to why there is dispute she is one as she's published, other than the personal opinion of the editor who removes that label. Anything else seems like conjecture by the editor involved and deletion of the labels as unjustified and based on what appears to be a subjective analysis of the sources rather than a real survey of any results; people can do multiple things and this should be obvious. (even if attempted and failed). GuzzyG (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the refs. BLP requires them as we all know. You didn't address the weight aspects at all. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- "I'm certainly not going to carefully review 174 references". If you're not going to consider the sources, then you can hardly make arguments about due weight. You cannot use BLP as a reason to keep reverting - it is uncontroversial that she is an actress, model, and writer. It was over a decade ago that she left the adult film industry, but she has continued to receive coverage for her other activities. Those sources mentioning her past does not mean they are irrelevant for the intervening years and today. The Guardian covered her as a musician,[22], Esquire specifically discussed her as a DJ and author in their preamble to an interview, [23] CNBC profiled her as a DJ, author, and actress,[24] The Independent called her a "mainstream actress"[25] and profiled her as an author,[26] Document Journal discusses her "success across a variety of creative mediums",[27] Daily Dot said "she made other names for herself—photographer, author, musician."[28] Fences&Windows 23:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- You have it backwards or are intentionally misrepresenting my position. Please refactor.
- To clarify, I'm not going to carefully review 174 references when they appear to have been added without regard to our policies.
- I see no evidence at all that she has notability not tied to her adult film work, and so am concerned about any efforts to make it appear otherwise.
- At-the-time news about her other endeavors and celeb puff pieces don't change anything. I believe that describes those refs you've pointed out. This is the problem that I'm concerned about. BLP-quality references are being overwhelmed by poor references. --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- You're going to have to point directly to what specific wording in our policies and guidelines requires someone's later activities to be only be discussed entirely separately from their earlier activities in reliable sources for those later activities to be included in the lead, and what wording supports not using coverage from media sources generally regarded as reliable in a biography. These are not tabloids, they are not "breaking news" or gossip, they are not covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY, and "at the time" news is allowed to be used; we don't need to wait for obituaries or career retrospectives.
- "I'm certainly not going to carefully review 174 references". If you're not going to consider the sources, then you can hardly make arguments about due weight. You cannot use BLP as a reason to keep reverting - it is uncontroversial that she is an actress, model, and writer. It was over a decade ago that she left the adult film industry, but she has continued to receive coverage for her other activities. Those sources mentioning her past does not mean they are irrelevant for the intervening years and today. The Guardian covered her as a musician,[22], Esquire specifically discussed her as a DJ and author in their preamble to an interview, [23] CNBC profiled her as a DJ, author, and actress,[24] The Independent called her a "mainstream actress"[25] and profiled her as an author,[26] Document Journal discusses her "success across a variety of creative mediums",[27] Daily Dot said "she made other names for herself—photographer, author, musician."[28] Fences&Windows 23:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the refs. BLP requires them as we all know. You didn't address the weight aspects at all. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- You appear to be mixing up concepts - someone doesn't need to be individually notable for particular aspects of their life and works in order for us to include those aspects: notability is a judgement about whether to include a subject/topic and then the independent reliable sources on that topic guide us as to what to say, with the detail in proportion to the coverage. If the more recent sources for Sasha Grey cover her other activities then so must we, and we must fairly summarise someone's whole career and not just focus on the most sensational parts - it is hardly in keeping with BLP's instruction that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" to insist that once a pornstar, always and only a pornstar. Fences&Windows 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not arguing for either, so please drop it.
- I didn't say they are tabloids, so please drop that too.
- Yes, they're breaking news, announcements, interviews, and other basic publicity surrounding an event. I don't believe I've overlooked anything, but then I already said I see no reason to look closer when no one is able to identify any refs that demonstrate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- You appear to be mixing up concepts - someone doesn't need to be individually notable for particular aspects of their life and works in order for us to include those aspects: notability is a judgement about whether to include a subject/topic and then the independent reliable sources on that topic guide us as to what to say, with the detail in proportion to the coverage. If the more recent sources for Sasha Grey cover her other activities then so must we, and we must fairly summarise someone's whole career and not just focus on the most sensational parts - it is hardly in keeping with BLP's instruction that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" to insist that once a pornstar, always and only a pornstar. Fences&Windows 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Shelly Flagel
Nothing noticeable about this person, there are millions of professors in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelly_Flagel. Same editor created several biographical pages about members of the same group, of minimal noticeability. Editor for hire? Please check.Norm21 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has notoriously lax rules when it comes to the notability of certain special groups, like professors. (Too lax in my opinion.) However, we still need some reliable, secondary sources. All this article has are primary sources in the form of profiles and course schedules from the university where she works. I recommend taking this to WP:Articles for deletion, and following the instructions on the page before nominating it there. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zaereth :) Norm21 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Norm21,Zaereth Please notice: 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 - this is not the case in the article you mentioned. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zaereth :) Norm21 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Simar khera
Simar khera article is about simar khera an Indian actor and singer.know for his work in Nagara punjabi film as main villein & his character of Sanghargupt in Vighnaharta Ganesha . Please don't delete the article eacuse it's real person, i'am new on Wikipedia so may be there are many mistakes I did during editing first but now you can check the Simar khera now it's proper updated and editied. Please dont delete it.. it's a humble request to you all.
Please check news in times of india [1]
References
Loretta Preska
There has been a brouhaha at Loretta Preska, a little visited backwater which I stumbled upon while editing Steven Donziger and noticed had a few glaring omissions. Unfortunately my irresistible arguments were met by an immoveable editor and the discussion has reached a standstill. Half of the involved editors have withdrawn from the discussion which means the rest of us have no one to argue with. It would be helpful if someone would visit and provide an opinion on two issues which are:
- Should there be mention that Preska was asked to recuse herself from the Jeremy Hammond case because his actions had some connection with Preska’s husband? (see the talk page discussion under Talk:Loretta_Preska#Conflict_of_interest_in_the_Jeremy_Hammond_case).
- Should there be mention of some of the controversial rulings made by Preska in the Donziger/Chevron case? (see the talk page discussion under Talk:Loretta_Preska#Donziger/Hammond_content).
Burrobert (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert, I would suggest using the procedure listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Commander. That process does fit this situation quite well. I was hoping that there would be an avalanche of tourists willing to visit Preska's remote village. I will leave it a few days to see if anyone's interest has been piqued before advertising for a lone referee. Burrobert (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Moravcsik
Some attention needed perhaps, notable, but based on prose/MOS issues, possible COI, made some starting changes, someone with more experience might like to assess.Acousmana (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- This article definitely needs work. It is much too long and reads like the academic CV of this professor. The page was created by an obvious WP:COI account, which has since been deleted. The account that created and provided most of the edits to the page has only edited 2 people’s pages among their 78 edits. Both are political scientists and both were added to the Wiki page “List of Political Scientists” by the same COI editor. Interested parties should take a close look at this page, which is in need of a complete makeover. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
andy palmer
Andy Palmer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Just reviewing this bio page and it seems very carefully curated and inbalanced. Understood consensus was Andy Palmer effectively left Aston Martin under a cloud following an effective collapse in its value?
see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52804705
Apologies I don't really know how Wikipedia works but this is the first time reading a page that it seemed more a self-serving advert than a neutral bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.88.112.66 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, 45.88.112.66, I've tagged it as a non-neutral advert, it reads as a hagiography. The article was started and mostly written by BsBsBs from 2013 on; I wondered if this were paid editing, but I think it's just over-enthusiasm for the subject getting in the way of neutral editing. Fences&Windows 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Lawrence W. Jones
Lawrence W. Jones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A dispute has arisen on the Lawrence W. Jones page.
- I added his full date of birth, using two reliable sources from the public domain (one a Google book with its page cited, the other a biography page from a university web page). My edit can be viewed in the history here. The dispute can be viewed on the talk page of the bio itself.
- The user cited "identity theft concerns" for them wishing to omit the DOB. The user has a distinctive style of writing for the BLPs which they contribute to (examples: Judson A. Brewer, Barbara Corrado Pope, Mortimer J. Buckley) whereby they choose not to include a DOB. They are consistent with this in all the BLPs they write, and whilst there is nothing wrong with this IMO, if another user finds a birthdate in the public domain using reliable sources, that user should respect that it is sound content.
- I tried to stress that identity fraud using just a name and a date of birth would be very difficult, and that this was a silly reason to omit it (particularly when you can find it easily with a quick Google search).
- The user then claimed they had contacted Jones to ask him, and supposedly got in touch with his daughter who supposedly acts as a conservator. The user has presented no evidence of this correspondence. I am not saying that I do not believe them – what I am saying is it is entirely inappropriate to email a 95 year old man and scare his family with the idea that his identity is about to be stolen because his DOB is on his Wikipedia page, in order for that user to have their preferred content style favoured on the page. I would like to see evidence of this supposed conversation, but I'd also welcome the input from other members. The idea that a DOB cannot be used on a page when it is already featured in several places widely available reliable sources is quite frankly silly and petty. If Jones's family had raised this, I would understand but I feel this user simply has an agenda to get their own way. Before they cited this supposed email, they manually deconstructed my edit, rather than reverting, presumably so that I wouldn't receive a notification to say it had been reverted.
It is standard to include a DOB in a BLP when it is available via an RS. I believe that omitting DOBs without a valid reason, in this case evidence of actual representation from the subject against it, sets a dangerous precedent on here. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:BLPPRIVACY is clear that we only include
full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources
. There have two sources: a Who's Who book—a mixed bag of reliable, unreliable, puffery, and outright scams—and a page for his papers at a university library. I certainly wouldn't call that "widely published by reliable sources". On top of this, his legal guardian is specifically requesting that we not publish his full date of birth. Sounds like a slam dunk "no way in hell we include this" to me. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- We do work on "evidence", with evidence being reliable, secondary sources. Not to be confused with "evidence" as in OR. However, we also take the privacy concerns of living persons very seriously, and thus we err on the side of caution in cases like this. Whether this "alleged" person is for real or not doesn't seem to matter much at this point. We can take for granted and assume that they are, because policy is in their favor at this point. We only publish full birthdates in cases where it has been widely published; not just in a few sources, but in multiple RSs such that we can infer that the subject doesn't mind. (If they did, then they would've complained and any good RS will happily redact such info, because privacy concerns are also a big part of journalistic ethics, see the Society of Professional Journalists.)
- At the end of the day, a full birthdate is trivia, meaning that it just isn't necessary for the reader to understand the subject. Thus, it's no big loss if we don't have one. Nothing to get upset over. It's statistical data, not much different from weight, height, favorite color, etc... If we can, great. If we can't no big deal. Better to err on the side of caution. Zaereth (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @Robert McClenon: for courtesy. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree. The editor in question has an academic background. In academia it is often standard to only include only the year when referring to someone. They've adopted that style in their editing but Wikipedia is not a journal, it's an encyclopedia. I raised this because it seems like a case of an editor stomping their feet because they didn't get their own way on editing style, rather than a genuine case of an identity fraud scare. With regards to your "a full birthdate is trivia" comment – it really isn't. On the contrary I'd say it's a key component of a BLP for two reasons 1) It distinguishes the individual from any others with a similar or the same name. On Wikipedia there are at least nine people called Lawrence Jones. That's not to say there won't be more in the future. 2) I've found that a DOB has been the key piece to locating death information in the past. Often academics die off radar, and in some cases you don't get an obituary or even a Legacy page but just a death notice with DOB/DOD listed. This really helps match the information. Anyway, I can see no users are willing to side with me on this so might as well leave it be. Really doesn't look good when established users are siding with hearsay and making a decision based on an "identity theft" problem which doesn't even exist. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have a cogent argument to make against WP:BLPPRIVACY... which, if you want to make it, is what you should do, argue for a change in policy. Arguing for it to be ignored in this particular case, not because this case proves some sort of exception, but because you do not like it in general is placing the argument in the wrong place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm NOT arguing against the existence of the policy. I'm arguing against its use in this example. I believe the user is being disingenuous in referring to it, and I think it's barmy to impose a policy when no evidence exists to call upon it. --Jkaharper (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Given that you're poo-poohing the concern about identity theft and ignoring those questioning whether the sources you have really meet the listed guidelines for inclusion are, yes, it comes across like you arguing against WP:BLPPRIVACY. And also like, if I may quote, "a case of an editor stomping their feet because they didn't get their own way on editing style". So far, you seem to have gained no traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well I suppose if that's your take then there's 100,000s of BLPs with DOBs that you best go scrub off then. Reliable sources or not, they're all at "risk of identity fraud". Care to cite me a single example of a case of identity fraud ever being committed against a living individual from just using a name and a DOB from their Wiki article? I'll go boil the kettle. --Jkaharper (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- So yes, again, you are argue that the logic of WP:BLPPRIVACY is incorrect. That may be doable, but trying to do it by arguing for this one specific article to be an exception is not the way to do it. For the discussion of an individual article, the discussion should focus on how WP:BLPPRIVACY applies in this particular instance, or whether there are unique aspects of this that overtake WP:BLPPRIVACY concers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well I suppose if that's your take then there's 100,000s of BLPs with DOBs that you best go scrub off then. Reliable sources or not, they're all at "risk of identity fraud". Care to cite me a single example of a case of identity fraud ever being committed against a living individual from just using a name and a DOB from their Wiki article? I'll go boil the kettle. --Jkaharper (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Given that you're poo-poohing the concern about identity theft and ignoring those questioning whether the sources you have really meet the listed guidelines for inclusion are, yes, it comes across like you arguing against WP:BLPPRIVACY. And also like, if I may quote, "a case of an editor stomping their feet because they didn't get their own way on editing style". So far, you seem to have gained no traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm NOT arguing against the existence of the policy. I'm arguing against its use in this example. I believe the user is being disingenuous in referring to it, and I think it's barmy to impose a policy when no evidence exists to call upon it. --Jkaharper (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have a cogent argument to make against WP:BLPPRIVACY... which, if you want to make it, is what you should do, argue for a change in policy. Arguing for it to be ignored in this particular case, not because this case proves some sort of exception, but because you do not like it in general is placing the argument in the wrong place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- The question here is if there is any legal representation of the subject - any editor can tell that they are the legal representation of XYZ, indeed they need to provide evidence of it (which in the current case not happened so far, as far as I see). So best would be to ask for providing this evidence. Afterwards there are 2 options per WP:BLPPRIVACY: 1. If he can prove representing the subject we only accept the year of birth 2. if not it should be ok to insert the DOB. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you @CommanderWaterford:. I too was of the understanding that they would surely need to provide some kind of proof of representation/correspondence. A small point – I think the user may be a "she"! Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- CommanderWaterford, Not really. The legal representation issue really doesn't matter because the sourcing is awful. Two questionable sources is in no way "widely published by reliable sources". Woodroar (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Woodroar, Why is the sourcing awful in your opinion? First is a book by the subject itself, hold at the Bentley Historical Library citing and the second is a book from the University of California. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- CommanderWaterford: What are these new sources? I'm aware of the questionable Who's Who book and the questionable online university bio with unknown or unclear authorship. Woodroar (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Woodroar, Why is the sourcing awful in your opinion? First is a book by the subject itself, hold at the Bentley Historical Library citing and the second is a book from the University of California. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree. The editor in question has an academic background. In academia it is often standard to only include only the year when referring to someone. They've adopted that style in their editing but Wikipedia is not a journal, it's an encyclopedia. I raised this because it seems like a case of an editor stomping their feet because they didn't get their own way on editing style, rather than a genuine case of an identity fraud scare. With regards to your "a full birthdate is trivia" comment – it really isn't. On the contrary I'd say it's a key component of a BLP for two reasons 1) It distinguishes the individual from any others with a similar or the same name. On Wikipedia there are at least nine people called Lawrence Jones. That's not to say there won't be more in the future. 2) I've found that a DOB has been the key piece to locating death information in the past. Often academics die off radar, and in some cases you don't get an obituary or even a Legacy page but just a death notice with DOB/DOD listed. This really helps match the information. Anyway, I can see no users are willing to side with me on this so might as well leave it be. Really doesn't look good when established users are siding with hearsay and making a decision based on an "identity theft" problem which doesn't even exist. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- This has all come up here before many times. To some, birthdates are incredibly important pieces of info. But that's the nature of trivia. And when I use the word "trivia", I mean it is not really necessary in defining the subject to the reader. The article will still read the same without it, and we have other ways of distinguishing between people. Is it useful info to have? Absolutely. (Perhaps a little too useful.) Will the world come to an end without it. I highly doubt it. In most cases simply listing the year (if sourced) is enough. This policy formed after long debates over issues just like this. If it were in multiple, independent RSs, then I would have another take on the issue. Then I would worry more about the "alleged" person's concern and if they really are who they say. But, unless I'm missing something, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
- In most cases, it really doesn't matter what the true identity of an editor is, because we do deal in sources, so, regardless of who they really are, the way we handle it is still the same. And it is true, we do have a huge number of articles with poorly sourced BDs, but that's an other stuff exists argument, and not a good excuse. We can only deal with this problem 1 article at a time. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to the party! IRL, I had to deal with dental appointment this morning. Below I have added text from emails I received from Jones' children, sans some identifying info. To maintain my privacy and that of the Jones family, I will happily forward the originals to an admin for verification. Here's the text, chronologically from the bottom up:
Reply ----------
(Redacted) ― Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. For us to really consider that we need be able to identify their true identity, which usually means having them go through the ORTS process. That's what we usually do when there is a need to verify someone's ID for purposes such as this. In this case, however, I don't think we're at the point where we need to do that. There just isn't enough quality sourcing on this, and Who's Who is indeed a vanity publisher, so we can judge this solely on the merits of policy. If it were widely published in RSs, then we would have to verify ID and all that, and then still we would likely delete the date, that is, if the person requesting it is the right person. I just don't think that it's necessary to go that far in this case with what we have. This is one that is fairly easy to answer just under policy. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I might add (to get up on my soapbox for a moment) that there often seems to be two different schools of thought when it comes to article subjects, in that either 1.) they're the enemy, or 2.) anyone who comes here claiming to be one or a representative of one is a liar. We have to try to look at how that comes off to people who really are who they say. While we're not just going to believe them, in many cases they do in fact have a valid concern, and we shouldn't negate that simply because of who they say they are. Subjects very often come here, and I've found it very rare that it turns out to be for some nefarious reason. When it does, it's more often than not some kid trying to amuse themselves or some jolted friend or family member trying to get revenge. Either way, those reveal themselves quickly enough it you give them enough slack. In most cases, I've always found it more productive to simply play along whether I believe them or not, because in most cases it turn out to be the real thing.
- Like I say, you have to look at it from their point of view. When most subjects come here, they are trying to resolve something that may be a very real and serious problem ... or at least very serious in their eyes. Whether or not we can help them, we should at least try to treat them with respect and dignity, and we have several great essays and guidelines on just this circumstance. We're often dealing with people on what they perceive as the worst day of their lives. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I thank User:CommanderWaterford above for the courtesy notice. My involvement is that I closed a thread at DRN due to lack of talk page discussion, and offered a procedural suggestion and a third opinion. The procedural suggestion was to come to this noticeboard rather than DRN. The third opinion was that this guideline appeared to be applicable, that Wikipedia should err on the side of caution in these cases. I didn't want to name the guideline, out of sensitivity for an individual and their family. On the one hand, if a con person wants to commit identity theft fraud, they are likely to search both for reliable sources and for unreliable sources, but even usually unreliable sources will typically report a birth date correctly. On the other hand, if an old man's family requests that his date of birth not be published, is there any strong reason why we need to publish it? I know that there are reasons, but are they strong reasons? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Like I say, you have to look at it from their point of view. When most subjects come here, they are trying to resolve something that may be a very real and serious problem ... or at least very serious in their eyes. Whether or not we can help them, we should at least try to treat them with respect and dignity, and we have several great essays and guidelines on just this circumstance. We're often dealing with people on what they perceive as the worst day of their lives. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm with Zaereth et al here. While this DOB does at least have some sourcing, it doesn't seem to be the strong BLP requirements. (If this "book by the subject itself, hold at the Bentley Historical Library citing and the second is a book from the University of California" are shown, I might change my mind. At the moment, as with others all I've seen are a Who's Who and a university bio.) Yeah there are a lot of similarly crap sourced dates of birth which is unfortunate, but per WP:Other that's not an argument to go against WP:BLPPRIVACY. This is the sort of stuff we deal with all the time. Whether it's a request from a subject, a family member, someone who is probably one of those, just some random person, or even if there is no request at all but 2 editors get into a dispute over which DOB when there are multiple, we should follow BLPPRVACY when it comes up. Likewise if an editor happens to see a poorly sourced date of birth, they should fix it. Long term, we need to try and find some way to better enforce BLPPRIVACY and stop poorly sourced dates of birth being added, but that's a discussion for another time IMO. If editors disagree with BLPPRIVACY, they're welcome to try and get it changed, but until then, we follow it. Also it's very normal for us to ignore any OTRS identity verification requirements when it doesn't matter. If someone says I'm the subject of article X, here are some problems, the best response is normally to look and see if those problems are indeed problems under our policies and guidelines. It's not to say "I'm going to ignore your request until you verify your identity". Since we should do the former when some random editor also points out problems. (I think plenty of us do deal with such stuff with more urgency when it comes from a subject or family member which could be abused, but asking for identity confirmation before deciding whether there's urgency seems pointless.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. If there's no reason to put them through the unnecessary hassle and bureaucratic nightmare, then we shouldn't. In the great majority of cases, it doesn't matter if the person claiming to be the subject is for real or not, because it doesn't really change how we deal with it under policy. So why not just give them the benefit of the doubt, and take them just as seriously as if they were an anonymous editor. A valid concern cannot be held responsible for the people who believe in it. It's really rare we need to actually verify anyone's ID, and subjects can often be wonderful help in finding good, quality sources, so it doesn't hurt to be nice.
- My personal opinion is that anyone should feel welcome to bring any issues with a BLP here. I know this page has a specific purpose, which is to deal with BLP vios and help with BLP policy-based questions, and people are often quick to point that out. But, in a similar vein, that tends to scare people off (sometimes to the point they may never come back) or give a frustrating sense of red-tape, when in most cases it's easy enough to answer their question or send them to the correct noticeboard. This is the big link you see at the top of any bio's talk page, saying, 'Come here if there is a problem', so it's just my feeling that people should feel welcome to come here. Not so many are really familiar with how this all works, and sometimes just need a helping hand. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are there historical reasons for the extremely narrow purpose of this page? In comparison, fringe noticeboard has a more expansive purpose.
- When I come across concerning BLP issues, I do not wait for them to become repeated, instead I come here and seek assistance from editors with more experience in the area. By the page's rules, I should have gone elsewhere,though no clue where that would be ... quiet talk page and talk to myself? editor assistance? Village pump? Slywriter (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that anyone should feel welcome to bring any issues with a BLP here. I know this page has a specific purpose, which is to deal with BLP vios and help with BLP policy-based questions, and people are often quick to point that out. But, in a similar vein, that tends to scare people off (sometimes to the point they may never come back) or give a frustrating sense of red-tape, when in most cases it's easy enough to answer their question or send them to the correct noticeboard. This is the big link you see at the top of any bio's talk page, saying, 'Come here if there is a problem', so it's just my feeling that people should feel welcome to come here. Not so many are really familiar with how this all works, and sometimes just need a helping hand. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, on the flip side of the coin, this page does get a lot of traffic, and quite often it's just spill-over from the talk page of whichever article. (Or the edit summaries is some cases.) People get tired of fighting over there so they quite often bring it over here. Many times people think that BLP policy is the only policy that applies to bios, and where they really need to go is RSN or NPOVN, etc. There are reasons to try and narrow the scope the scope of this page, because the true BLP vios are the most pressing issues and the ones that really need our attention. Still, it doesn't hurt to be nice, courteous, and maybe even a little helpful. (And that's coming from me, who has a tendency to be quite blunt.) The best way to find problems is when people bring them here, and more often than not the problems we find were not what the OP was expecting. Zaereth (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Patrice Donnelly
Patrice Donnelly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've come across serious libel from IP user. I've reverted it and requested oversight of the revision. However, seems that another IP user, who is only one IP number off, was oversighted recently. Given the serious nature of the libel, and persistence over time, could an admin please review the revision history and consider perhaps a short term rangeblock or some other measure to dissuade the IP user from reintroducing the libellous claims? Melmann 21:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't semi-protection have the same effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, I think so. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon Indeed it would, I don't know why that did not occur to me. I don't really have any preference on the method, I just think something should be done because the libellous allegations were quite serious in nature. Melmann 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't semi-protection have the same effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That oughta do it. --Jayron32 17:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: unfortunately I'm not so sure. If you look back, there were 4 now deleted edits in 2018. I don't know the content of the recent edits, but the edit summaries were similar. While these weren't enough for suppression (I did ask), they (well 3) were still serious BLPvios. Should we just hope the year is enough or is this one of those few cases where indef is justified? Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Simcha Shirman
Simcha Shirman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
At Simcha Shirman very serious criminal allegations are stated as factual based on a post at this site, that was posted today. I did not find other sources covering this. BLP expert opinion needed.--Mvqr (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
this is not a "post" but an investigative article written by one of Israel's most respected journalist. The article brings multiple evidence and despite the overwhelming evidence the words I used were "accusations". An allegation or accusation is not a conviction. The accusations are well documented and supported by evidence and the website is a reputable source like any other professional media outlet with responsible editorial board of professional journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoprod (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed there is some attention necessary and some Revdel @Fences and windows:. Is this Hamakom Magazine even a WP:RS ? - never seen this before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- 1. I don't believe it should be in the lede
- 2. A single source does not meet the standard that a criminal accusation be widely reported with sustained coverage. WP:NOTNEWS may apply beyond the WP:BLPCRIME concerns. Slywriter (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I removed that as a clear violation of BLPCRIME. This obviously doesn't pass WELLKNOWN by a long shot, and the one source was an op/ed style documentary, similar to a Chris Hansen style, To Catch a Predator reporting. We need much better sources than that, and a whole lot more of them. To Infoprod, we don't report criminal accusations or allegations about someone unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law. Zaereth (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I missed the ping, CommanderWaterford. I've revdelled those edits - wikivoice endorsing the allegations is a step too far. A discussion of the sourcing and whether and how to include it can be had here and/or at the article talk page. Fences&Windows 01:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- The allegation is included at Hebrew Wikipedia with no discussion on the talk page: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/שמחה_שירמן. Fences&Windows 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I removed that as a clear violation of BLPCRIME. This obviously doesn't pass WELLKNOWN by a long shot, and the one source was an op/ed style documentary, similar to a Chris Hansen style, To Catch a Predator reporting. We need much better sources than that, and a whole lot more of them. To Infoprod, we don't report criminal accusations or allegations about someone unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law. Zaereth (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know what the BLP rules are like over at Hebrew Wikipedia, but it's a completely different entity that English Wikipedia. What I will say --and I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding this-- is that a documentary is not a reliable source for these types of allegations. Really, they're not true journalism (as many believe) and are not reliable for any information. Here's why:
- Documentaries use a style called "literary journalism". This is where they build a story around factual information using fictional style and fictional elements. I'll give an example that comes to mind. I was recently watching the show American Greed, and they did an episode on these two, elderly ladies who would take in homeless guys, give them a job and a place to live, take out a life insurance policy on him, and then kill the poor guy. Mind you, the show is called American Greed, so they did a good job of portraying these ladies as evil, greedy, horrible people who yell and scream and slam doors in people's faces. Then, I'm watching Bizarre Murders, and they do the same story. Except this is Bizarre Murders, so they portray these women as being the nicest, sweetest, little old ladies you ever saw. It was a completely different story; I didn't even recognize it until more than halfway through!
- Now, don't get me wrong, because documentaries are wonderful things. I have nothing but the utmost respect for people like Ken Burns, because they make history interesting. But you can't ignore the liberties they take when giving those facts, because they are giving a narrative (a fiction story) that is simply built around true events. This is why we don't use those as RSs, and that includes things like Dateline, Forensic Files, and Profile of a Serial Killer. That's what this Hebrew documentary is. If it's picked up by RSs, then that's a different matter, but in this case we'd need a hell of a lot of them for this to pass WELLKNOWN. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Olivier Hinnekens
Olivier Hinnekens for deletion: individual is not a person of notable societal interest. Article is personal advertising.
- Please use WP:AFD rather than blanking the article. GiantSnowman 11:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is now at AfD.[29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Alexander Bock
Link is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.5 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. Wrong Redirect created by a 2011 blocked User. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Village Pump discussion on a "probably unreviewed Recent Changes" feature
Hi everyone. FYI I've started a discussion on a feature to surface edits that are likely to have taken place when nobody was patrolling for vandalism. I'm hoping it will help us more thoroughly review edits to BLPs that have few active watchers. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC to include BLP-contested material
Some BLP-sensitive eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Challenge_to_non-admin_closure_of_RfC_at_BLP_article_Emanuel_Cleaver. Neutralitytalk 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Nightingale College
Nightingale College ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The section Nightingale College#Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education, part of the Criticism section of this article, is a synthesis of different pieces of information that are individually verified but which do not contain a criticism of the president (who is named in the Wikipedia article). As this appears to be a beach of the BLP policy of strictly adhering to No Original Research, I deleted the material,[30] noting in the edit summary and on the talk page that this was a BLP issue.[31] The material has since been restored by another editor (I believe the one who originally added it) without any discussion on the talk page.[32]. The material has previously been removed by a third editor[33][34] as being poorly sourced, although without explicit mention of BLP, and has been restored by the same editor each time. Robminchin (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with your take and have issued an OR warning, advising them to obtain consensus on the talk page, and removed it again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- I received a weird warning about WP:BLANKING and WP:EDITWAR and a misguided spelling lesson.[35] Not sure if this needs an administrator intervention yet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- After seeing the disruption of this thread and Talk:Nightingale College, I reported this to ANI.[36] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Infinitepeace has been blocked.[37] I took liberty of the pause in disruption to clean up the non-BLP REDFLAG NPOV and OR issues of that article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- After seeing the disruption of this thread and Talk:Nightingale College, I reported this to ANI.[36] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I received a weird warning about WP:BLANKING and WP:EDITWAR and a misguided spelling lesson.[35] Not sure if this needs an administrator intervention yet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitepeace (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is the full section Morbidthoughts, please explain how these 10 edits are Original Resaerch. (since you deleted it twice on the article page User:Morbidthoughts, and then warned me if I added it back you would have me blocked).
The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.[1][2][3][4][5] From 2009 to approximately 2012, Mikhail Shneyder worked at California's Heald College as the Vice President. Due to findings by the Department of Education of misrepresented job placement rates at certain programs of Heald College from July 2010–2015, the department made students eligible to have their debts canceled. Because of a lawsuit alleging that "Heald College...misrepresented job placement rates for certain programs".[6] Heald College was shut down on April 27, 2015.[7][8][9][10]
|
Infinitepeace (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have already told you why your post is synthesis.[38] You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale AND that he presided over the previous failed schools. This information needs to be in the same source. You have not provided this. You can dispute this on the article's talk page, but you should not re-add this information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. This is 100% synthesis. Also note that Infinitepeace started another discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Is this Wikipedia:Original Research ?. Woodroar (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have already told you why your post is synthesis.[38] You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale AND that he presided over the previous failed schools. This information needs to be in the same source. You have not provided this. You can dispute this on the article's talk page, but you should not re-add this information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
NUMBER one: You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale.
The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.
(October 29, 2013), ABC 4 news interviews nightingale’s CEO Mikhail Schneider, nursing college Utah, ABC.
Becoming a Nurse, ABC.
(April 5, 2012), Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing.
(November 6, 2014), Studio 5 with Brooke Walker, NBC. Nightingale College Offers New Nursing Education Program</ref>
AND
NUMBER TWO: that he presided over the previous failed schools.
Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"
Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing, (April 5, 2012 - in which Shneyder explains he started working at Nightingale in March, 2012).
Again, I am concerned about your history of WP:Edit Warring, and how you delete criticisms on your talk page.
I am also concerned that the talk page has a history of paid editors for this college. `Infinitepeace (talk)
- Wow, you really don't see it, do you? You're trying to reach a conclusion that is not found in any of these sources. This person was the vice president (one of many I'm sure; it's not like VP of the US), and during his term the college closed. It's not hard to see the connection implied, even if not directly stated. A, then B. Therefore A caused B. Even if not directly stated, that is the clear implication, although anyone with half a wit can see it for the fallacy that it is.
- It's not just that the info needs to all come from one source. The sources (at least one of them) needs to come to the same conclusion. For example, I can read the Bible, and write down all the dates and people's ages, and come to a calculation that the world is 4000-some odd years old. But that is a conclusion on my part, because nowhere in the Bible does it say that, nor does it ever say that everything is in a perfect timeline of events. It never said Earth was the center of the universe either. Drawing a conclusion --whether stated or implied-- not explicitly stated in the sources is synthesis, and this is such a good example we should use it on the policy page.
- Not only that, we need secondary sources, and most of these are primary sources, and many of which run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I one hundred percent understand your flawed argument Zaereth.
- I got a great idea guys, why not use Archive.org and help me edit the page.
- OR
- Google Mikhail Shneyder Nightingale college. Let me help: [39]
- 1 is clearly knocked out. He is president of Nighitngale College
- Agreed User:Zaereth? If so, you are contradicting User:Morbidthoughts and User:Woodroar.
- At least User:Morbidthoughts added something to the article before he deleted the entire section.
- 2 - I will look into in more depth. Your wrong on this count also Zaereth Archive.org is great.
- Take just a couple of minutes to add information to a Wikipedia page, instead of making Good faith editors jump through hoops.
- Although I am not a newbie, WP:BITE comes to mind. This is a fundamental problem i have seen with wikipedia, people not helping each other, especially newbies.
- I feel like a monkey being told by 5 grown men to jump. Very depressing. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh please. Spare me the "woe is me" routine. This is a glaring example of synthesis, and it has been explained to you multiple times in many different ways, all saying the same thing. Zaereth (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's no reason why anyone needs to help you add something that doesn't belong. As it stands, I've seen no indication you are trying to add belongs. Given the sourcing, it's not even clear it belongs in an article on Mikhail Shneyder. It definitely doesn't seem to belong in the article on Nighitngale College. There is a lot of information that is true or probably true that will simply never be added to articles because it's not covered in reliable secondary sources, or because it's information not sufficiently relevant (WP:DUE etc) to any article we do have. The best help I can offer you is to move on and work on something else. Maybe start with something where BLP doesn't come into play. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the timestamps so didn't realise the block is current. But since it's only for 7 days I guess it's still useful to point out archive.org is useful, but it's not a source. Archive.org simply archives content on the web. The reliability of the source still matters, and we also have to take care that the material wasn't intentionally removed due to questions over its accuracy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Joaquin Phoenix wiki page, Thanks Jeody
Joaquin Phoenix wiki page has in correct relationship info. Please report the correct notes and the correct facts should be consider important, not vandalism for posting. [Redacted defamatory content]. It has been a few days and the post should be remove with the huge threat. We are not the same person.Please contact the officials FBI and lawyer for our true information.
Sincerely, Jody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:3942:B300:8FD:4196:27C3:8881 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- 2603:8000:3942:B300:FDB5:867A:FD33:98A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for legal threats and Disruptive editing on Joaquin Phoenix for 31 hours on the 10th. This is the same editor. I've semi-protected the page for two weeks and I've given the latest IP a warning about making legal threats and defamatory comments. Fences&Windows 01:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've also redacted and revdelled the defamatory comment made here. A NOTHERE rangeblock might be appropriate. Fences&Windows 01:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Ahmad Zahir
Ahmad Zahir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor User:Tajik.Arya has continually made edits to the Ahmad Zahir page, replacing neutral terms and cultural references with ones that seem to accord with the user's preference, though no explanation or citation has ever been provided. The editor has received several warnings on their talk page, but they have paid them no heed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since this is a problem of user conduct, you really need an admin to intervene. Some admins patrol this page, but most of us are not admins, so you'll likely get a quicker reply at WP:ANI. Otherwise, all we can do from here is keep reverting. If the info we have is good, sourced info, and the user is changing it to unsourced stuff, then these kind of reverts are not subject to WP:3RR (but be careful when employing that clause of the BLP policy). Zaereth (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've blocked User:Tajik.Arya for 48 hours for edit warring and unsourced additions to a BLP, and I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Fences&Windows 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Göran Lambertz
Göran Lambertz ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [Redacted]
In unrelated news, the material added in this edit may need to be oversighted. I don't know what else needs to be done at this stage - please protect/tag as ongoing event as you feel appropriate (or remove/scrub this comment for that matter). EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Fences and windows: - absolute clear case for WP:REVDEL indeed ... I left the editor already a warning that he cannot add stuff like this without references but REVDEL needs also to be done CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've revdelled, thank you CommanderWaterford. I will also protect the article. Next time, EditorInTheRye, please go via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight. I've also removed the first part of your comment as it serves to associate the name and allegation - which we must not do absent explicit mention in a reliable source. Fences&Windows 00:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Rick Bright
Rick Bright ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is a sentence in the biography of Rick Bright regarding which is incorrect.
Under CAREER for Rick Bright:
The end of this sentence is incorrect:
"...In his complaint, Bright asked to be reinstated as director at BARDA, accusing the Trump administration of removing him from his position and demoting him to an NIH post in retaliation for his warnings about the virus and his opposition to off-label use of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug that was promoted by President Donald Trump and his supporters as a potential miracle drug for COVID-19, but which increased mortality in subjects.[25]..."
16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)~
It is the very last part "increased mortality in subjects" that is incorrect. This sentence falsely connects two separate points of the article making one incorrect statement of fact.
In the referenced VOX article titled "The HHS official overseeing coronavirus vaccine development says he was ousted after his objections to hydroxychloroquine" it says:
POINT ONE “These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with Covid-19,” Bright writes.
specifically, Bright says mortality was observed in recent studies specific to Covid-19 he is not saying hydroxychloroquine used for its original purpose caused increased mortality he could not say that bkz it would not be true the wikipedia article cannot imply that hydroxychloroquine causes increased mortality when used for its original purpose
POINT TWO The article states: "...Bright was alluding to efforts President Donald Trump and a number of his supporters in government and the media have made in recent weeks to promote hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus miracle drug."
Notice the sentence above ends at the word "miracle." it does not continue on to discus mortality.
The mortality quote again was specific to hydroxychloroquine in some unknow study for Covid-19
This mistake in the Wikipedia article is quite serious as it implies something the article did not imply meanwhile this terrible false idea prevented millions of people from getting early treatment for Covid. You do not have to believe hydroxychloroquine helps treat Covid but you do have keep the facts of the article in their proper perspectives: 1. Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug against Covid 2. Hydroxychloroquine is a well tolerated medication for Malaria (as per CDC) -also it won a Nobel prize for its efficacy. 3. Bright stated that in studies where hydroxychloroquine was used to treat Covid there was "some" observed mortality -this article was publized one month after Covid was announced as a concern
- This is largely incomprehensible but the article's point stands - hydroxychloroquine does literally nothing against COVID-19 and no one was "prevented" from getting any treatment which actually worked. If you are arguing that we should pretend there isn't an overwhelming body of WP:MEDRS which support this statement, you will get nowhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Colin Stagg
Colin Stagg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This file exists only as a redirect to an article about a murder. Mr Stagg was the victim of a malicious attempt by the Police to frame him for the murder and when the case reached court, the judge had the case thrown out. The current situation is a BLP violation. Either there should be an article about Mr Stagg and the outrageous treatment he received from the Police and the CPS or the whole entry should be removed. The current redirect of the entry might lead people who do not investigate closely to wrongly believe that Mr Stagg was the murderer. After all there are plenty of redirects to murders and other crimes which are redirects from the person convicted of the crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.26.100 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- He isn't notable but for this one huge event in his life, but the police treatment of him, and their tactics, were unconsionable entrapment. Setting a hot undercover policewoman onto him was particularly nasty. If we have an article on him, it should begin as follows ... "Colin Stagg is an innocent man suspected of the murder etc. etc." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia is doing it again at Harry_Ognall where the phrase "the Colin Stagg murder trial" appears without any mention of the fact that Mr Stagg was innocent.
- This person is hardly central to the story; a brief detour along the way. (Not to belittle what he went though, but to the entire story, this is just a piece.) I see no reason to name him whatsoever. We can simply call him a man walking his dog, and it will read just the same. So, I'd do that and delete the redirect, citing AVOIDVICTIM or BLPNAME.
- If he was central to the story, I'd have a different take. For example, at first I thought this might be similar to Casey Anthony, which redirects to the well known murder trial. This person is not notable enough of her own accord to have her own article, but she was central to the story and worthy of a redirect to the murder article. I don't believe that is the same case here, and this article could simply use generic descriptors and it would read just the same. And a redirect with his name that says "murder trial" is just wrong. He never went to trial. A judge threw it out before it ever went. Zaereth (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. That would be simply "airbrushing out of history" his name and the injustice he suffered. Maybe he should be deemed notable, in his own right, because of his mistreatment. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- If he was central to the story, I'd have a different take. For example, at first I thought this might be similar to Casey Anthony, which redirects to the well known murder trial. This person is not notable enough of her own accord to have her own article, but she was central to the story and worthy of a redirect to the murder article. I don't believe that is the same case here, and this article could simply use generic descriptors and it would read just the same. And a redirect with his name that says "murder trial" is just wrong. He never went to trial. A judge threw it out before it ever went. Zaereth (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed the redirect should be deleted and the article Murder of Rachel Nickell needs to be heavily rewritten - his name is mentioned 30 (!) times in this article. IMHO it should only be mentioned in a 1-2 sentence section that there had been this honeytrap operation summarising consequences without mentioning his name at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've revised the mention in Harry Ognall to remove his name. I'm not sure how far we should remove it in Murder of Rachel Nickell, because this was a well-known example of police and prosecutor misconduct and Stagg himself wrote three books about it. I couldn't find a policy based reason for deletion of the redirect, but you may take the redirect to WP:RFD. Maybe it should redirect to the section #Investigation? Fences&Windows 01:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Putting aside Ognall, why is the article called 'murder of' and talk extensively about a murder, when the only perpetrator pled guilty to manslaughter? While the perpetrator Robert Napper is a murderer (per that article and the article on him), the specific crime that article covers has effectively been adjudged to be not a murder by the plea, however unfortunate that may be for the victim and their family and friends. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, agree on that, needs to be renamed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wholly agree. And also with your comment Nil Einne. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Putting aside Ognall, why is the article called 'murder of' and talk extensively about a murder, when the only perpetrator pled guilty to manslaughter? While the perpetrator Robert Napper is a murderer (per that article and the article on him), the specific crime that article covers has effectively been adjudged to be not a murder by the plea, however unfortunate that may be for the victim and their family and friends. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've revised the mention in Harry Ognall to remove his name. I'm not sure how far we should remove it in Murder of Rachel Nickell, because this was a well-known example of police and prosecutor misconduct and Stagg himself wrote three books about it. I couldn't find a policy based reason for deletion of the redirect, but you may take the redirect to WP:RFD. Maybe it should redirect to the section #Investigation? Fences&Windows 01:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Nimisha Madhvani
This biography of Nimisha Madhvani has been constantly edited by user:Wayale to remove updates to the page made in light of recent facts that have occurred in the Living Person’s life.
These recent facts relate to Nimisha Madhvani’s involvement in a Zoom theft scandal. Another removal by user:Wayale concerns information relating to Nimisha Madhvani being recalled. Now, the page is factually incorrect, giving the reader the impression that Nimisha Madhvani is an actively serving ambassador whereas she is not, she has been recalled. As can be seen in the page history, these new facts may cast the biography in a lesser light, and therefore user:Wayale may deliberately be attempting to hide the facts that were earlier updated in order to better-suit Nimisha Madhvani.
Please may you review this page to determine what, if any, edits can be restored. Given that these updates have been removed several times, please may you consider protecting the recent updates made prior to 14 days ago and warning user:Wayale .
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.50 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
G.N. Saibaba
G.N. Saibaba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The editor Vincentvikram is continously unanimously editing the article to avoid the alledged naxalite maoist link reference to the article. Dr. G. N. Saibaba Was Convicted By The Session Court Under UAPA for life imprisonment for his alleged naxalite maoist links as can be seen here [40] [41] [42]. The editor has been continously trying to exclude the term [43] . As the [WP:BLPCRIME] it can be mentioned to use the term "alledged naxalite maoist link" once the author is convicted. I Request The Editors and Administrators to check and provide their opinion in this regards [44]. Pranhita (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Editor Pranhita was edit warring with an IP to insert the word "naxalite" into the lead for which they were warned. A discussion was initiated and in the meantime Pranhita has been POV pushing on the page of Saibaba. From the links presented above, 'The Hindu' makes no mention of the word "naxalite"; the heading says "Ex-DU professor Saibaba sentenced to life for Maoist links". The 'Financial express' says "Maoist links: DU professor GN Saibaba, JNU student and three others get life imprisonment". The Wire writes, "..who is serving a life sentence in a prison over charges of allegedly having Maoist links." None of the sources use the word naxalite. Pranhita needs to be warned from POV pushing and possible violation of rules on WP:DSTOPICS related to biographies and pages related to India. Thanks Vikram Vincent 14:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- DS/alert for biographies and India related topics placed on user talk page of Pranhita Vikram Vincent 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- The User Vincentvikram has added edit warring charges without even checking whether the ip has put any reason behind removal of the word. Since the user is an ip which have just been used to remove the reference, thereby the changes has been reverted by me. Also, in various articles [45] , [46] naxalite reference is clearly mentioned. Also, the selective article mentioned also clearly indicates Maoist links, thereby adding the term alledged Naxalite maoist to the intro along with being arrested under uapa seems correct. The same editor has added the same while editing another article Umar_Khalid, but might be due to some WP:COI the author prevents the same to be done while the person is only known because of his arrested under UAPA for Alledged Naxalite-Maoist Link. Pranhita (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Repeatedly adding the word "naxalite" without a reliable source (please don't again point to any Times group article as they are WP:TOI and unreliable for biographies) to support your claim is problematic. It does not matter that the IP did not add an edit summary. You need to WP:LISTEN cause your edits are bordering on being sanctionable. Also understand that accusing someone of WP:COI without proof compounds your problem
since you are a nine day account with 59 edits at this exact point. Vikram Vincent 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- Further, from WP:ARBBLP,
In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
Hence the WP:ONUS is on you since your edit has been challenged per WP:BRD. Vikram Vincent 16:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- You've conveniently ignored the hindu link also in the article. Yes it doesn't matter the IP has an edit history but reverting of an edit without specifying any reason does. I am just trying to have a constructive talks about the term being added, which meant to only improve the quality of article. Specifying account creation days or no of edits doesn't seem to prove a point here but the quality of argument does. I have already fulfilled the WP:ONUS and was requesting other editors and administrators to comment. Since I being a new user than Vincentvikram and you've already guided that any disputes between two editor should be handled with WP:DRR/3O . I am requesting the same. Pranhita (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Further, from WP:ARBBLP,
- Repeatedly adding the word "naxalite" without a reliable source (please don't again point to any Times group article as they are WP:TOI and unreliable for biographies) to support your claim is problematic. It does not matter that the IP did not add an edit summary. You need to WP:LISTEN cause your edits are bordering on being sanctionable. Also understand that accusing someone of WP:COI without proof compounds your problem
- The User Vincentvikram has added edit warring charges without even checking whether the ip has put any reason behind removal of the word. Since the user is an ip which have just been used to remove the reference, thereby the changes has been reverted by me. Also, in various articles [45] , [46] naxalite reference is clearly mentioned. Also, the selective article mentioned also clearly indicates Maoist links, thereby adding the term alledged Naxalite maoist to the intro along with being arrested under uapa seems correct. The same editor has added the same while editing another article Umar_Khalid, but might be due to some WP:COI the author prevents the same to be done while the person is only known because of his arrested under UAPA for Alledged Naxalite-Maoist Link. Pranhita (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- DS/alert for biographies and India related topics placed on user talk page of Pranhita Vikram Vincent 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Pranhita, I don't know if you missed this from the conversation on the article talk page or you are intentionally omitting it. There is only so much space that can be given with the baseless accusation you have made regarding me having COI etc Vikram Vincent 17:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give a third opinion. First, the article is practically incoherent. It's filled with so many grammatical and syntax errors that it's difficult to read through and very hard at times to tell what it's even talking about. What is readily apparent is that the writing is as emotionally charged as this discussion, and is neither neutral in tone or in information. It's very choppy, like reading a literal timeline in many places. It's filled with words and phrases that may be familiar in India, but which most English speaking countries may not understand, and none of these terms are defined to the reader. For example, I have no clue what a "maoist" or a "naxalite" is, and that makes much of this incomprehensible. All in all, it needs a complete rewrite by someone who is fluent in English.
- Likewise, this discussion between you both is largely incoherent. I will say that Vincent seems to be right, in that many of the sources posted by Pranhita never once use the word "naxalite" (whatever that is), and we can't use a label that is not explicitly stated in the sources. I do get the sense by the emotion involved that this may have to do with a bit of WP:Righting great wrongs, as seen in other such emotionally charged topics (for example, anything Kurdish, or Croatian, Ukrainian, etc.). The sources that I've read are in very good English, so I see no need for an Indian speaker to translate, so if anyone has some spare time this is probably worth looking into deeper. But this article is in really bad shape, and you both need to calm down and talk to each other, not just right past each other. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Categorisations as having personality disorders
I reverted[47] an edit adding Category:People with narcissistic personality disorder to Michael Shrimpton as not founded in RS, found two more poorly-founded additions of that category by the same IP and reverted those too,[48][49] but left some that seemed to have some basis in RS. The IP's now added Category:People with borderline personality disorder to several BLPs,[50] some with clearly inadequate sources. I fear I might send the wrong message if I only revert those and advise the IP to pay attention to sources. Are the other additions breaches of WP:BLPCAT too? (Also, if anyone else would like to deal with this, I'd be grateful - I've only just returned and I was never expert in this area anyway.) NebY (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)