Fort Towson

Alexander Greba The biography section of this article does not provide any sources; With the exception of the length of the subjects prison sentence. The linguistic characteristics suggest that the origin of the article is not a person who understands the English language. The talk page sates that part of the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia page but it is not reasonable for contemporary translation software to lack proficiency to such a severe degree. The information provided sounds as though it was either; made up, or learnt from gossip. The entire biography needs to be deleted or rewritten.

The current summary of Lord Darzi's resignation from the Labour party is biased and potentially denies proven antisemitism. Labour's own Deputy Chair of the Labour party Tom Watson took a similar view, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour to have been responsible for "unlawful" acts of harassment and discrimination during Jeremy Corbyn's four-and a-half years as party leader. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.219.131.128 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you making regarding BLP policies? AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this isn’t the right venue for IP’s comment (and the way it was worded was initially confusing) but consider it  Done; it’s a trivial adjustment. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some libelous things in Arthur Demarest's wiki page and strange unsourced and irrelevant hearsay--claiming he's "king of the jungle" and "coercing artists" as well as discussing settled lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:25DC:20:3D49:AA37:D02E:8F38 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just some vandalism that was overlooked. It's been removed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user has repeatedly been seeking to edit the subject's personal life section variously unsourced, or with a series of twitter posts that link the subject to an organisation open to all who support its aims. The sources do not seem to unambiguously support the anonymous editor's wording either in respect of his sexuality or his supposed openness about it. I have suggested the use of alternative wording to accurately reflect the sources, and/or to discuss the matter on a talk page but the anonymous editor has instead responded aggressively.

I have no idea about the subject's personal life - the anonymous editor may - but I'm not seeing reliable and unambiguous sources to support the anonymous editor's chosen text about a living person. Ed1964 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed1964, WP:TWITTER cannot be used to source a claim about a person other than the one tweeting. I've informed the IP editor about that policy. If the IP restores the content, it should be reverted as a BLP vio and the editor warned about edit-warring. If they continue, report to WP:AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am Tali Golergant's friend, writing to you on behalf of her mother. I request that you will delete the information "Limpertsberg" from her bio because of security reasons. There is no need to know the neighborhood she lives in. And for GDPR reasons: https://gdpr-info.eu/ I would also request that this information will be deleted from the page's history.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by שרון אהרימנוס (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@שרון אהרימנוס I removed it from the article text per your request. On the other thing, see Wikipedia:Oversight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you and thank you again. 2001:7E8:C2CC:8E00:8F0:BB0F:8F98:F695 (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the info because that was not what the article said, which is that she used to live in Limpertsberg but now resides in New York. New York is a huge city, not a neighborhood. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, @RadioactiveBoulevardier removed [1] academic criticism of John Mearsheimer, including references to two journal articles, on the grounds of BLP violations - Talk:John Mearsheimer#Insertion of disputed material . Is this removal correct? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t characterize the criticism as "academic". As can be seen, instead of engaging with the subject’s work on substantive grounds, it entailed a personal attack (completely ignoring his analytical framework, as I noted in my TP efn) and was inserted in such a way as to violate the core of BLP guidelines. The original version I removed also contained an inappropriate wikivoice statement.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing nothing about the situation except what I'm seeing in the diff, that text does look like a BLP problem. Even attributed, we shouldn't be applying contentious labels to a living person without overwhelming agreement among sources that the label is accurate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have more eyes on Talk:Shooting of Chris Kaba#Naming of police officer please. It relates to the application of WP:BLPCRIME and the the naming of a non-convicted and non-public figure who has been accused of murder. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a separate problem of unsourced allegations of criminality. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor added a post yesterday calling for the violent death of Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1212949445 . I appreciate that @331dot: reverted the edit, but I think that the diff should be hidden, which I've seen done with other egregious edits about a living person? (I also think the IP editor should be blocked, but I don't know how that works.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should be reported to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP and revision-deleted that nonsense. The IP posted some other complaints but they are standard junk and best ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the other stuff, but it's just political commentary, so I agree it should stay. Appreciate the quick action. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am requesting your help with some minor edits to this article, noting that I work with Brent McIntosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Citi. We posted this request on the Talk page about a month ago with no response yet.

1) We noticed the information about his job title at Citi is outdated. His current title is Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary. This is reflected in his biography on Citi’s corporate website and also in this Bloomberg profile.

2) The mention of his previous membership with the Council on Foreign Relations is inaccurate. He is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I’m including here the membership roster of the Council as well as another source that references his current membership. A logical edit here would be to move the Council reference to serve as the first sentence of that paragraph: “McIntosh is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, …”.

I appreciate your time and consideration of these suggestions. LowneyJen (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LowneyJen: Both fixed (the CoFR was in fact listed twice; I have removed the incorrect duplicate). Thank you for bringing this to our attention here. Please see also WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Thank you for your help! LowneyJen (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A concern has been raised on behalf of the article subject about the section of the article which lists his car collection: Michael_Dinan#Car_Collection. The few references for those parts of the listing that have sources listed in the article are behind a paywalled site, with the ownership information specifically obscured for non-paying visitors even when the vehicle is listed. The paywalled website is: <https://exclusivecarregistry.com/collection/mdcollection>. The concern raised is that the listing of vehicles is non-public information and thus a privacy issue which potentially raises other issues due to the high valuations of the vehicles. In addition, most of the vehicles listed have no sources indicating the article subject is the owner. Should the vehicle listing details be deleted, in whole or in part per WP:BLP, for these reasons? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FAQ section of that website, it is "entirely user-driven, so our database can be edited anytime". Why should we consider this a reliable source at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Removed section per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content. Thanks! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted this at WT:BLP and didn't get an answer so trying here: I have a question on point 2 of BLPSELFPUB as it relates to family. If all the other points of SELFPUB are met, is it appropriate to use a self-published source by an article subject to provide the names and birthdates of their non-notable minor children? Or are they considered third parties? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, non-notable people are considered private individuals who haven't given their consent. Underage children especially, because they do not even have the ability to give informed consent. Who knows, they may grow up and find they don't want their private info published on Wikipedia, and we have no right to take their rights away. See WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. In general, this is not facebook and we don't name non-notable friends or family. To most people the names are meaningless anyway if there's no article to link to, so generic descriptors work just fine. Zaereth (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zaereth. I saw a case where a mother's social media post was used as a source her underage son (article subject) was autistic, and that struck me as a very bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zaereth and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. "The couple have two children" is fine if properly referenced. On the other hand, "The couple have two children, Mildred and Ralph, and a French Bulldog, Zeke" makes me cringe and I remove that level of detail. This does not apply to highly famous people with massive media coverage abetted by the family. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please hide this? Trade (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done and watchlisted. - Bilby (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's another potential one from earlier (added here). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please hide and warn the IP--Trade (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also done. I didn't realise we had an article on Sweet Baby Inc - I was expecting an issues to show up on Gamergate. I should have checked, but I'll do what I can to keep an eye on things. - Bilby (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's on me, I'm afraid (though I suppose it would have been written eventually). Thanks for keeping an eye on things. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with the article being written. Just didn't realise that it had been. I was aware of the issues as I keep half an eye on the remnants of GG, but should have thought to check. Anyway, no hassles. If this get's too bad we may end up having to protect the talk page for a bit, but I see that as a last resort. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't deleted the revision tho Trade (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Ashraphijuo does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on available evidence. The article claims the subject is a mathematician, financial risk manager, academic, and writer, citing their personal website hosted at Columbia University. However, reliance on a personal website alone may not establish notability, as many universities, including Colombia University (see https://www.cuit.columbia.edu/web-publishing), allow students to create such pages without content moderation.

Furthermore, the article mentions that Mehdi Ashraphijuo holds the position of executive director (Vice President) at Goldman Sachs. While this is accurate based on their LinkedIn page, the role of VP is not typically considered notable within the banking and financial industry, as it constitutes a significant portion of the workforce at Goldman Sachs and other similar institutions.

Additionally, a review of the subject's Google Scholar page reveals approximately 120 citations, with only 5 citations in the past three years. This suggests limited academic impact or recognition.

Considering these factors, I suggest reevaluation of the subject's notability and potential removal of the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WormOfWiki (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as there are absolutely zero secondary sources used in the article. Unfortunately, that is a bit outside this board's purview. I would recommend taking this to our notability noticeboard, which, while we used to have one with that name, today those discussion are held at WP:Articles for deletion. You can nominate it there and see where the ball lands. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on this subject seems to fail the Wikipedia notability in that there is isn't significant coverage of the individual; there are many in the citations that *seem* to gesture to this but are completely random. The person seems to just be a real estate developer and restaurateur. I request a review of the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggyshorty (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give the same advice as the section directly above. Notability is not something that falls under the jurisdiction of BLP policy in most cases. The place where cases like this are usually handled is WP:AFD. Nominate it for deletion and editors there will review the notability and delete if necessary, keep if not, and often improve if possible. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Chloe Pace and I work for Jack Antonoff. I'd like to raise a couple BLP concerns for impartial editors to consider:

1. The "Personal life" section says: "As of December 2019, he resides in the Brooklyn Heights apartment he shared with Dunham, containing his home music studio." While this technically does not state his address explicitly per WP:BLPPRIVACY, it's enough to make it easy for readers to ascertain his address and doesn't bring much value to readers. My request would be to just say he lives in New York, or something similar.
2. The current page has a paragraph dedicated to a quote about being "desparate" for children: "In June 2014, Antonoff said he was "desperate" for kids, explaining: "It just seems like the most fun thing in the world. I've never met people who have kids who haven't looked me in the eye and been like, "It's the greatest thing that's ever happened."... I think it's biological. I'm 30. I'm not that young, right? I'm not, like, 24 or 22. I'm no longer in the phase of my life where I talk about everything as in the future. Like, I'm in the future.[6]"

MOS:QUOTE says "too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words." It seems odd for Wikipedia to dedicate such a big portion of the page to such a personal quote from 10 years ago.

Thank you for your time considering my requests. BaseballLover334 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaseballLover334 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think your points are reasonable, especially 1., and I edited the article:[2] 2. is a bit eye-of-the-beholder, and the source is WP-good, but I think you're right per WP:PROPORTION, so I removed it. We'll see what happens.

I have to say, I think your message was very well made, and afaict you didn't use AI to write it either (or perhaps just very good AI). From my POV, you're worth your salary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After researching this,I believe Rahel Shtainshnaider should be changed to Rachel Steinschneider. Most of the 3rd party online sources are incorrect and also need to be changed. I'm going by her linkedin and instagram. Anyone have a problem with this? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated accordingly. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly new to wikipedia and would like to point out that I do know someone that the above article is about. I want to ensure that I am following the policies and am finding it a bit overwhelming because there are a lot of different ones. Therefore, I thought it might be easier to ask for some help here to address my concerns. I did recently post some suggestions on the talk page for review.

Overall, I have noticed a lot of the sourcing is opinion pieces/ interviews without alternate views being presented. In addition, there also seems to be a fair amount of persuasive language being used. I also think that considering the current lawsuit, paid editors shouldn't be making substantial edits to the article and yet they have.

Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritedSea (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpiritedSea, I fail to see how this dispute is a BLP issue. The content in question is well-referenced and your concerns are convincingly refuted at Talk: The Guess Who. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

I have recently read a biography which although not incorrect in general, is biased and untruthful in that so much information has been excluded. Should we disclaim biography's written without fact checking or third party review as propaganda? in particular when those have a political or business interest? 2603:7080:6B03:2899:0:0:0:11CA (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its impossible to address such a vague scenario. Can you link us to the article you're referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His colleagues have said that he maintains good rapport with the Chairman of the Board of IIM, while he has implemented strict security check for junior colleagues to meet him. Professors need to keep their bags and phone away, as a pre-condition to enter to his office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsocial (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BLP? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it says he has a daughter but it has been confirmed the child isnt his. please correct page 73.37.229.140 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP and bring an excellent source for this. Not Reddit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I removed a related item based on WP:BLPGOSSIP grounds.[3] I really question the reliability of these niche MMA sources if they are going to be focusing on that type of crap. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's still a problem, but there have been problems before where editors familiar with the area have insisted that Sherdog (and maybe one or two other questionable sources?) is the best source especially for anything about a fight but also IIRC for basic biodata (like height) despite community consensus being against that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It didn't help that a anyone in the area pushing back seemed to have equal problems e.g. socking making the whole thing an awful mess. Perhaps things have calmed down, I don't recall a recent ANI thread, or maybe just no one is paying attention any more. BTW, someone can have a daughter even if "the child isnt his" assuming you just mean it's not his biological child. So even if for some reason there's a public paternity test, this does not tell us whether he has a daughter or not. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sherdog database itself should not be seen as controversial, but I am not clear on how reliable their news reporting is nor whether their reporting panders to sensationalism. I just know that a lot of niche sites, whether gaming, wrestling, comic book, or mma, tends to pander to the clicks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Sherdog, but there have definitely been cases where editors have been trying to go with what Sherdog says about the outcome of a fight even when ESPN said something different. (I found evidence of this yesterday when searching to refresh my memory in particular Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive437#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:FormalDude (Result: 1 week partial block).) I also think there have been cases where editor's wanted to put the Sherdog height for someone only even when ESPN or something had another height; but I'm going just by memory so could be wrong. At the very least, I'm fairly sure there was opposition to any attempts to use ESPN or I think other better sources to replace Sherdog even when the biodata was the same. (I mean heights are always problematic anyway, but the consensus seems to be per RSPS that we should either prefer the ESPN height or report both.) From what I saw, a big issue at least in the past is that although the community felt different, regular editors in the area seemed to feel that Sherdog was the ultimate source for anything MMA and was always right and should be preferred, going against the communities view that some other sources ESPN being the most prominent, were better and should be preferred and probably deferred to when there was dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had another look and actually the discussion that lead to the RSPS note, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Sherdog.com, especially the discussion before the RfC is an example of what I'm talking about height etc. Obviously at that stage there wasn't a clear community consensus, although I think there had already been several small discussions calling Sherdog into question and especially pointing out there was zero policy allowing one source to be the ultimate source for details. However I did see some evidence e.g. that result dispute, that initially at least there was reluctance among regulars to accept the result of the RfC and instead there was a desire to still treat Sherdog as the ultimate source. As I mentioned, it didn't help that anyone in the area who seemed to pushing back against this trend was a sock or otherwise problematic, and I won't bother to link to this but did find strong evidence of this in my review. Notablt, the editor who started that RfC is an example of this User:Lordpermaximum. And yeah, while these sort of details about heights and technicalities of fight results might not be really what you're worried about, my concern is that editors still feel that way about Sherdog, there's a good chance that any news reported on Sherdog is going to be similar treated as highly significant and correct even when contentious although the current consensus is it should be used with caution on a case by case basis suggestion it should never be used for anything contentious. (And we also shouldn't ignore the possible importance of such technicalities. I mean probably not in a case like this when it comes to talking about someone's child but I suspect with some of the more gossipy stuff e.g. details of a relationship or breakdown, it might matter more to a MMA fighter that we get their fight details right than we report something misleading about some relationship.) P.S. I should mention for fairness that while some editors seem to think Sherdog was mostly likely to be correct even when disputed by ESPN etc and so were IMO treating it as the ultimate source for anything MMA, others seemed to just want to standardise on using Sherdog for everything for consistency. While the latter isn't so bad and makes it far less likely they're going to use it for something contentious just because it's Sherdog, it's still IMO a concern since it's not how the English Wikipedia is supposed to work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate additional eyes on this BLP. Take a look, please at the Roberta Flack#Critical reputation section, which begins with criticizing her for breaking free of established genres of that era, which ought to be considered a good thing, immediately followed by five quoted and unreferenced insults of her work. I might delve into it myself, but it is St. Patrick's Day, and being 3/8 Irish, I have had a few drinks and do not want to edit the article in indignation. I am not even a "big fan" of hers, though I have listened to and respected her work for 55 years. It looks pretty likely to me that some editor has a grudge against this highly notable musical artist who is now 87 years old, and has set out to besmirch her reputation by cherry-picking or not bothering to provide sources, breaching WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. According to what I have read elsewhere, she is widely respected in the music industry to this day, and is described as having influenced other artists like Luther Vandross. I can return to this conversation tomorrow. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation was misplaced but the critic is acknowledging past criticism of Flack's work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the criticism of Flack in our article is fairly representative of the opinions out there. But I don't t find it surprising that breaking with the norms of a genre is not always viewed as a positive thing. A famous example might be Kenny G#Criticism who is controversial enough that I think we still have to indefinitely semi-protect his article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to be clear, I'm not saying what Flack did is similar to what Kenny G does. Just that I don't see it automatically follows she did things different from what people normally do in the genre or people expect from the genre so that's a good thing. Being different doesn't mean it's groundbreaking or revolutionary, and people might easily think the stuff the person did different is negative or crap rather than positive or good. What matters to our article is whether those opinions are common enough that they should be mentioned, and whether we are fairly representing other significant opinions. For example, our Kenny G article seems to do an okay job of this from my understanding of his reception. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the bottom of the reception section to make the section chronological. Thriley (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is appropriate since Jason King is reviewing past criticism of her career as a historical review and those two other paragraphs reinforces his comments. Checking the sources, he himself views her contributions as being positive and ahead of its time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated to any BLP issue, but any article that has multiple conseutive sentences of the structure: "On Month Day Year, something happened..." is generally a poorly written article. See WP:PROSELINE and work on writing better. On March 19, 2024, Animalparty again pointed out the pervasive mediocrity of Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Noel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It states that Vietnam Veterans of America joined "other groups" to petition for her for receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

"the Vietnam Veterans of America joined with other groups and individuals to petition for Chris Noel to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[37]"

This is not true. The link shows an entry in the organization's Arts of War on the web page that simply reports that an effort is under way but does not say the organization "petitioned" for it, as that is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarBedden (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've edited the BLP to reflect the source more accurately, and nobody has disputed your edit. You've opened and shut your own case here. Please follow up if there's a content issue that requires a notice board. JFHJr (㊟) 01:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The top female Australian soccer player has charged with racially aggravated harassment of a police officer in London. Editors on the talk page have been going back and forth over inclusion of the incident in the lead.

Those in favor of inclusion argue that the incident has received extensive coverage by the media. Editors opposed argue that the coverage is not particularly deep (see Sam Kerr#Personal life for basically everything that has come out with sources) and the case won't go to trial for months. Given this, I think there are significant differences in how we're applying BLP and making presumptions about how this will or will not become a major part of her life. See Talk:Sam Kerr#Lede and the shorter discussion immediately following. I'm asking for some second opinions about how to apply BLP in this situation. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion is that it is WP:DUE; there are hundreds of articles in reliable sources about this incident, and stories continue to be published. This has quickly become a very significant part of the coverage of Sam Kerr, and it would be an NPOV issue to exclude it from the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from her game, it does not appear that she leads any sort of very public life. The best BLP policies I can point to are WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF. If a conviction results in a professional impact, it'll have been biographically noteworthy. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong at all despite her own notability. Unfortunately, my best practical answers are "talk page" and "only time will tell." Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I forgot WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those apply here. Kerr is a public figure, the article makes it clear that this is still just an accusation, and none of the four WP:NOTNEWS points appear to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." It can be argued that putting this January-thing in the WP:LEAD is "emphasized". Per current article content, having it in the WP:LEAD would also fail WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this is not appropriate for the lead. The lead is meant to be a quick summary of the entire article, and the incidence's importance to her notability is not high. The reporting of this incidence even if by RS borders on sensationalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I agree with Morbidthoughts and especially JFHJr. IMO this suffers greatly from our problem with recent news namely it's actually often very difficult to evaluate the WP:10YT when it's something happening right now. Especially when the consequences are not clear as is often the case with minor charges. (I mean this applies to major charges as well to an extent, but often if a person is charged with e.g. rape, they might be suspended or otherwise have their career significantly affected even before any trial.) In theory the charge could significantly hamper their career, but in practice it often doesn't, so the charge might not have long term significance. It's also possible even without direct significance on someone's career, the charge could be something that is nearly always mentioned in the future in relation to the person making it something that probably belongs in the lead, but again we can't know that so early on. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by any arguments on the talk page we should go by any maximum possible penalties. Many offences carry quite a wide range of maximum penalties. The media likes to talk about maximum penalties for shock value even in cases where there's no chance the maximum penalty will be imposed. (I mean even drink-driving carries a maximum penalty of 6 months which is long enough to have a significant effect on someone's career yet we aren't adding all drink-driving charges to the leads of articles.) Note that often and especially in countries like the UK with decent legal systems, this isn't even up to an individual judge. Even if the judge did decide to do it, if it's so egregiously out of step with the norms or any sentencing guidelines it will be reduced on appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion here. As I commented early on in the tp discussion, I don't believe it belongs in the lead, which gives it undue prominence. Mention in the body is clearly warranted, but not in the lead, IMO. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, uninvolved BLPN contributors seem to have reached that consensus. I'd only emphasize, in my own opinion, that any mention in the body be just one line or so of text. Especially before there's even any outcome or substantial professional impact implicating her central notability, the legal proceeding needs to be minimally weighted. JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that BLPCRIME is an issue here, doubly so for the lead of the article. If she is convicted then this potentially will merit such mention, but if she is not then it almost certainly will not, probably not even in the body at that point. And when we depend on an "if" for a BLP we should be taking the least potentially damaging route, and that means keeping it out. Im barely ok with including the detail in the body, but definitely not in the lead. nableezy - 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This. Exactly this. Thank you nableezy. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a representative of the British financial journalist Martin Lewis.

His page contains a number of factual errors and is in many instances very out of date.

There are several changes we have identified and many sections we would like to update, especially in regards to his campaigning work and awards.

We would like to work with the Wikipedia community to rectify the above, so I'm trying to make contact with relevant editors who would be willing to help us to achieve this.

We have citations from credible sources on everything we would like to include, but want to do so in a transparent and honest manner.

If this message is not the correct approach, my apologies.

But if it is, I would appreciate the help from the wikipedia community in starting to update his page.

Very best,

Elliott Haworth

I'll try to help. I've now watchlisted the page. The recommended practice is to post proposed edits on the article talk-page. I (and no doubt other editors) will evaluate what you propose, on the basis of the sources you offer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gossip and conspiracy theories regarding Kate Middleton (the Princess of Wales) recent absence from public life following surgery has been spun off into its own article with the (rather questionable) title Where is Kate?. This article has already been taken to AFD and kept, but I think the article needs to be carefully looked over by editors experienced in BLP to make sure that it complies with BLP policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"rather questionable" ← I lol'd at the understatement. It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me to be totally out of proportion. Compared to something like the Royal baccarat scandal, the long-term lasting significance of this seems minor. If we were writing about this decades on, this whole brouhaha would be summarised in a few sentences in Kate's bio rather than an entire article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we know WP:NOTGOSSIP goes out the window when ... there's some juicy gossip. Also, basic standards on written English judging by the opening sentence. I mean, shit:

In early 2024, speculation which asked "Where is Kate?" surrounded the health and absence of Catherine ...

Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you think? Was that Windsor Farm Shopper a body double, or not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing that, but the new user who totally dominates editing of that article (and who coincidentally has never edited an article unrelated to Kate in their 250+ edits) keeps edit warring it back in, clearly not understanding If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy. As outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Who is Kate – What is she, that all the swains commend her..."(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I saw, all you did was unbold "Where is Kate?", which suggests the article title can still lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, in which case, why shouldn't we bold it? MOS:BOLDAVOID doesn't apply here, and I think the underlying issue is a valid disagreement about the article title. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, involved editor here – I created the article and sent it to AfD. I've taken a step back in recent days due to off-wiki commitments but wanted to second Hemiauchenia's sentiment: the AfD clearly highlighted that editors disagree on Wikipedia's scope for this topic, but identified consensus to keep, and the (ridiculously) sustained coverage is inviting, as you might imagine, quite a lot of updates as the story evolves. Until my offwiki commitments (and a lot has been added since then!), editors were taking good care only to go off sources approved at WP:RSP, but of course there is a lot more to BLP policy than that, so experienced editors' oversight is very much welcome. I think the whole "Where is Kate?" question should, as suggested at the AfD and on the talk page, be taken to a proposed page move; it's just not clear quite what alternative title is better. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is not "Kate Middleton" & hasn't been since she married Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually any reliable sources about whether or not she took a married name, let alone which of the possible choices from her husband (Windsor, Mountbatten, Mountbatten-Windsor, Cambridge, Wales) she made? A quick Google search has some speculation sourced to UK tabloids like The Sun, Daily Express, and Daily Mail, but nothing that seems actually reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Kate Middleton" was never her name. She was "Catherine Middleton" prior to her wedding and has been "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Catherine, Princess of Wales" since. Even the Prince of Wales, her spouse, refers to her as Catherine so does His Majesty the King Charles III. Further, reputable news outlets like BBC, ITV News, the Guardian, etc. also refer to her as "Catherine" in most of their articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a tweak[4] to WP:NOTNEWS in a (probably vain) attempt to tamp down on this sort of embarrassment in future. See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Where is Kate?" the article is 100% against NOTNEWS. The discussion of the photo and brief concern of her whereabouts is appropriate in Middleton's article, but that article is far far too detailed and given that the situation has blown over, its all gossipmongering at this point. BLP needs to weigh in a lot more than what the AFD !keeps states. --Masem (t) 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also against WP:NOR, since articles should be based on secondary sources while this article is based on primary news reporting, so in effect it's a reflection of (mere) Wikipedia editors deciding among themselves some gossipy trash in the news is of enyclopedic worth. Who the hell closed the AfD? Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, editors at Catherine, Princess of Wales were censoring any mention of the speculation, which is what prompted me to write the article. They were pursuing FA status and didn't want the "trivial" news story, so they were closing discussions on the talk page requesting more coverage of the speculation with less than 24 hours' uptime. Once the article was live, I added a sentence mentioning the speculation; that sentence was reverted within a day, and any mention of the speculation again disappeared from the article.

  I wasn't really expecting Where is Kate? to survive AfD, and expect it will eventually be merged, as many on the AfD suggested with reference to WP:10YT. But for what it's worth, I think WP:GNG has been established, and some of the sources likely count as secondary for the analyses they provide. To that extent, I think it passes WP:NOTNEWS even in the updated wording; it's just that editors disagree, validly, on the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As WP:N says, the GNG is not a guarantee that a standalone article is required and other P&G may apply to deny a standalone. The combination of BLP, NOT, and NOR here would reacily override the GNG. — Masem (t) 13:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I must say, the reasoning that some content is so poor it would prevent an WP:FA and needs to be hived off elsewhere means a new kind of fork has been discovered. A WP:CRAPFORK maybe? Bon courage (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DISAPPEARINGFORK Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll have you know that Catherine, Princess of Wales is meant to be a concise outline of her accomplishments (source). God bless MSincccc, who's in middle school! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you actually mention only that which is significant in the amin article. For this reason, one might start adding the fact that she made an appearance at a charity event or Prince William opened a new youth centre this past week. That will unnecessarily expand the article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that an encyclopedia article is a hagiography to some person is as much an issue as a news cycle is an appropriate subject of an article. nableezy - 14:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think what you did was perfectly reasonable, in the circumstances. But I can see why some readers might think they were reading a centre-page special in OK! magazine (but without all the pictures, of course) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been WP:BOLD and converted the page to a redirect to Kate Middleton. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL and it's already been reverted. This is silly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Renominate at AfD? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps we should create a wiki page every time a minor celebrity doesn't appear in photos for a few months. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD closed as keep two days ago with extensive participation (something like 40+ !votes). I'm all for WP:BOLD, but I just don't think it squares with collaboration to overturn an AfD so soon without discussion at DRV or AFD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I simply don't think it's encyclopaedic to have a page devoted to idle gossip about the idle rich. You know WP:NOTGOSSIP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a deletion rationale – take it to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How long before we can renominate the article? WP:RENOM specifically WP:6MONTHS says that we shouldn’t renominate until six months has passed if it was previously closed as ‘keep’, unless there is something new to say. The argument of this being tabloid gossip was discussed in the original AfD. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct route would be to initiate a review of the AfD close. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the five reasons in WP:DRV, which one(s) should we put forward for the review? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say #1. The consensus wasn't divined correctly because arguments not in accord with the WP:PAGs were overweighted. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, that’s for a deletion review, not a AfD close review! Is there any pages for the process of an AfD close review? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, it would be a deletion review. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for informing me, I’m still a newcomer! Do we notify the admin who closed it about this discussion? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never actually initiated that before. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RENOM is just an essay, and in my limited experience, it's not unusual for no-consensus closures to reappear at AfD not long afterwards. A recent precedent with high participation would be Qatari soft power. I've been told off before for improper AfD closures and clearly do not have an impartial view, but I was somewhat surprised the AfD closed as Keep rather than No Consensus. There might be not much point taking it to DRV when no consensus defaults to keep as status quo, unless the pursued outcome would be relisting or a new AfD, but all this is to say that in this case, I don't think we need to wait six months. But it won't be a good look for it to return to AfD two days after the previous one closed as Keep without DRV. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  She's not wholly idle. Quite keen on photoshop. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:POINT seems an understatement for redirecting a page with the edit summary "Come on this page should just be a redirect to the page for Kate Middleton. Let's not be silly." 2 days after an unchallenged "keep" admin close of a 66 participant AfD. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading/scanning the AFD, there is very little mention of BLP concerns, and certainly not addressed by the keep! Votes. Also, both NOT News and the GNG stress that bursts if news coverage are not reasons to keep an article. The AFD should be rerun but standing by the fact the is against BLP, effectively celebrity gossip taken up to 11 due to ties with the Royal family. If in a year there is still coverage of this in the news then maybe an article makes sense, but right now the standalone article is a mockery of WP' BLP concerns, which pretty much override everything. — Masem (t) 16:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At least Russian media haven't announced that she's dead (yet). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xymmax was the admin who closed the AfD. This is to notify them about this noticeboard. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey. I wanted to just comment as I’m new to editing. My amount of edits on the article is because I wanted to keep this well sourced, and not promote conspiracies etc. I kept most of the sources to be RS, and I’m not too well versed on policies such as NOTNEWS. I tried to keep it concise, by removing unnecessary detail. It did get worldwide coverage beyond news, and I cited the reaction and wider impact. Also any disagreements I had, I opened up a discussion on the talk page to build a consensus. Should we open up an AfD after she has returned to public duties when the dust settles? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the title seems questionable, but given that the coverage of it seems to be primarily as an internet fad/meme perhaps its appropriate that its title be meme like. It brings to mind Luiza que está no Canadá which also involved a living person but with the added twist that they were a minor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random memes should not get distinct pages unless they can pass WP:10YT and, in this case, no page should have been created until after the dust settled. As it is we do, now, have a page dedicated to gossip about a WP:BLP - and a very badly closed AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And both of them "pass" WP:10YT so what is your point? The idea that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is just preposterous, it should not be taken seriously for even a second. Imagine if we tried to apply that standard to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't stop editors from creating articles on breaking news events (though we should be aiming to have editors consider holding off until it's clear NEVENTS and other policies are passed, and using Wikinews if they want to report news as it happens), but we can assess articles within a few days of their creation to make sure the news topic is not just a burst if coverage, has encyclopedic significance, and isn't violating any policies. That is what is being begged here, because it is a glaring BLP issue. — Masem (t) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup, there are not BLP issues here which require or even suggest deletion. Whatever you want to call it there is a notable topic here, I know that because CNN keeps pushing notifications about it to my phone... And I don't live in the UK. Whatever this is will be in the history books they write in ten or twenty years. Also not only can we not stop it, we actually encourage it. In fact its rushing to deletion which is discouraged, see Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic. And the overtly in depth fascination with Middleton's life *is* a BLP issue that we should be extremely careful around, not simply parroting the media's cover just because its there. — Masem (t) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic." these complaints sound more like snobbery than anything that has to do with policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the entire principle of not only NOT News but NOT#IInfo. Mere publication of material in verified sources doesn't mean WP should include it. We summarize events, not document events every hour, even if there, 's news about it every hour. It's why we function far different from a newspaper. — Masem (t) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the opposite of the principle of WP:NOTNEWS unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are apparently. We can include current events and there is no question that a brief summary of this can be made on the bio page. But we should be including every single news report about this in a seperate article, nor write articles as news reports. And that's before applying the stronger requirements for BLP GOSSIP. The excessive detailed coverage is one of many many exples of NOT News not being followed, a lot which has stemmed from how topics in the AP2 area have been covered since 2016, coupled with COVID and the Ukraine war, and it's something we need to correct. — Masem (t) 17:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not seem to include every single news report and an article being written as a news report wouldn't be a reason to delete it (this one doesn't seem to be either). NOTNEWS actually says "Editors are encouraged ... to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." but you're saying it actually says that developing stand-alone articles on the most significant current events is discouraged? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The brief absence of a media celebrity from public appears and rampent speculation of that absence is not necessarily a most significant current event, when compared to things like the Ukraine war, or events in the Gaza strip. There is a hell if a lot of systematic media bias on this story to make it seem more important than it is, but when one steps back and frames the question as a BLP concern, it's clear this should not be treated as a significant news event. — Masem (t) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that were clear we wouldn't be having this conversation. I find the efforts to frame the subject as some sort of puff celebrity rather than a political figure rather interesting, but then again my primary interest is politics so my bias is to see everything from that angle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon: Trump's bond and McConnell's glitch and Biden's stutter ... Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... Mark Sanford extramarital affair and Disappearance of Peng Shuai ... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point to WP:OSE here except it's a black mark upon Wikipedia that either of those pages exist too. Particularly the Sanford one which is, again, little more than and amusing anecdote about a minor politician. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that and that this isn't a deletion discussion and OSE is only about deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what happens when a deletion discussion is mishandled. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article Where is Kate? expressed a desire to incorporate some of its information into the main article. As speculation expanded, a new article was subsequently created. Recently, there have been users advocating for the inclusion of the name "Kate Middleton" in the main article. I maintain an assumption of good faith and am keen to ascertain the community's perspective on this matter. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that a celebrity not appearing on camera for a couple of months has equivalent notability to a major war? I've put forward a deletion review. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is a stupid standard which should never be applied because it goes against commons sense as well as established policy and guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading overly broadly into some ambiguity in my initial sentence so let me clarify: no page should be created about internet gossip regarding a celebrity until such time as some sort of encyclopedic significance is established. Furthermore Wikipedia should be far more patient to list topics related to current news cycles per WP:NOTNEWS, especially when those news cycles are principally from the entertainment section and involve living people. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic significance has been established. NOTNEWS says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles says we should be patient with deletion not creation. Also looking around I'm not seeing support for your assertion that "principally from the entertainment section" I'm seeing most reliable sources handle this as hard news (which to be fair is interesting). That makes sense though as Middleton is not an entertainer, they are primarily notable for holding a political position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that NOTNEWS may apply here, but I don’t think WP:GOSSIP does. I’ve kept it mostly cited with RS, and removed trivia such as an airport making a joke tweet about it. The article mainly focuses on the commentary, so isnt just internet gossip. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would ask whether a celebrity failing to do photo ops for a few months constitutes "the most significant current events". Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When top tier papers around the world are running feature stories on it yeah it does... I would also note that the event (notable topic) is the controversy around the political figure failing to do photo ops for a few months, not the failure itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given their rarity, maybe the agency kill orders provide encyclopedic significance. Perhaps the article would seem more encyclopedic if it was refocused on the kill orders as the subject. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lipton

According to the Biographies of Living Persons Policy, libelous information (such as calling someone 'pseudoscience') must be kept out of such biographies unless very well-referenced. The first sentence, "Bruce Harold Lipton is an American writer and lecturer who advocates various pseudosciences, including vaccine misinformation." violates this policy.

In addition, the entry author states, "He often uses the naturalistic fallacy." but gives no citations.

Also, the article devolves into a discussion about vaccines rather than a biography of Bruce Lipton. From the article, "Lipton has been known to express opposition to vaccinations, specifically with regard to a supposed association between vaccines and autism that has been firmly discredited:[9][10]." The citations in this sentence are in support of the author's argument about vaccines rather than about the statement about Lipton's beliefs. Also in the article, "These anti-vaccine viewpoints contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus, which firmly establishes the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing various diseases."

The wording and sentence structure throughout the article reveal a clear bias. The author cites quotes by people that denigrate Lipton, which have no place in a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student2067 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source which states, in part, "Dismissed for years as a pseudo-scientist, Dr Bruce Lipton has fought to have his theories accepted". GiantSnowman 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The negativity in the article seems to reflect what reliable sources have said about Lipton. Like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones, an article being mostly negative does not mean the article is biased. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has emerged to devote more than 20% of the article on the Nobel laureate Tim Hunt to an allegation that, after five decades of distinguished service to science, he inadvertently said something sexist during a three-minute impromptu toast in 2015. This is a substantial expansion of the previous account of the event; for the past five years, it has taken up less than 5% of the article.

• Previous version: [5]
• Current consensus: [6]

Since the allegation led to an intense online shaming campaign that upended Hunt's life,[7] I believe that the expansion violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Wikipedia has decided to permanently enshrine other people's recollections (and interpretations) of the most illconsidered thing an otherwise completely uncontroversial scientist may (or may not) ever have said.

The expansion is also counter to the guidance provided by User:S Marshall about WP:PROPORTION when he closed the RfC on the subject.[8]

For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this, I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.--Thomas B (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this is being discussed at WP:ANI#Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's my view that there was consensus for the expansion, and therefore the solution is to expand the sections on Sir Tim's scientific achievements. In particular the discovery of cyclin that earned him a share in a Nobel Prize. This can be achieved by reading sources and writing content, which is what we're all here to do. Nothing about the situation necessitates posting long screeds on noticeboards.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear: Is the current version (no significant expansion on his scientific achievements and a 600% expansion on the controversy) what you had in mind? As I read your close, the right way forward would have been to leave the short version in place for now and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room for 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. I would have no objections to that. Thomas B (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I said that WP:PROPORTION should be respected and this could be achieved by expanding the other parts of the article. I did not say that the controversy section is capped at 5% of the article.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is probably more peer-reviewed scholarship discussing the 'sexism' episode than discussing Hunt's science achievements. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But that shouldn't matter, should it? You decide how much coverage to give something by reading the sources, not by putting them in piles and seeing which pile is highest.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a word count thing; coverage in high-quality sources (e.g. WP:SCHOLARSHIP counts most, natch. NPOV is best achieved by leaning on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's the right way to follow NPOV in this particular sitution. Unfortunately, 20-odd years after Wikipeia's founding, WP:EDITORIALJUDGEMENT is still a redlink, but where one reliable source says he won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Biology for helping us understand how the cell cycle works, and another reliable source says he's a rotten misogynist because of something he said at a conference in 2015, I don't think our reaction should be to try to work out which source is "best".—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also very baffled by Bon's suggestion. The original 1983 article in Cell about the discovery of cyclin alone has over 1200 citations in the scientific literature. Thomas B (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An approximately zero of those will be relevant to TH's biography. So for example, I looked at the first 'cited by' article in Pubmed, PMID:38140403, and the 1983 paper is citedonly to support the claim "CYCB1;1 is synthesised during the G2 phase, peaks during the prometaphase, and disappears at early anaphase". Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The relevant biographical information is that Sir Tim's 1983 paper is widely cited in scientific literature.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, and Evans et al. (1983) has been referred to as a seminal research paper. But researchers into proteins cite the paper to discuss cyclin, not discuss the person who discovered it. And that doesn't generate much usable biographical sourcing for us. (There are a few exceptions, like PMID:18662532, which is already cited on Wikipedia.) Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you'll find that the scholarship on the controversy says very little about Hunt and much more about sexism in science generally, social shaming, etc. This is one the things some of us have been saying: it's not about Hunt at all. Thomas B (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, quite a lot is about the whole context. Bon courage (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main problwm I have with the earlier status quo ("previous version") is that it puts the "online shaming" in wikivoice, which is not the way I think the RS on the "shaming" and the backlash to it ought to be read, re: WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the earlier version were what got this whole drama going in the first place. It really shouldn't require further discussion. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my recent efforts to catch up with this drama, you appear to be right. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One sub-sub-section that takes up less screen estate than the "Awards and honors" section hardly seems disproportionate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, do you realize why it's problematic for you to bring changes in an article you've been page-banned from to a noticeboard? Especially when those consensus were the direct result of a well-attended RFC? Loki (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine. Thomas B (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some anonymous IP added defamatory materials about Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen six months ago. I suspect it's a disgruntled former associate with a personal grievance. I think the editor was banned since they stopped for a while, but now it's started back up. Please assist. Nepsis2 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]