Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iffy (talk | contribs) at 09:56, 8 April 2024 (→‎Alexander_Greba: add unsigned to unsigned section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Alexander_Greba

    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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.26.213 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[]

    Kate Middleton

    Closing this discussion because the Where is Kate? article was deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 05:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]

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

    The gossip and conspiracy theories regarding Catherine, Princess of Wales (commonly known by her maiden name Catherine "Kate" Middleton) 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)[]

    "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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    Well, what do you think? Was that Windsor Farm Shopper a body double, or not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    "Who is Kate – What is she, that all the swains commend her..."(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    Her name is not "Kate Middleton" & hasn't been since she married Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    "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)[]
    Married women retain the right to use their maiden names unless they change their name by deed poll and have their birth certificates altered. There is no evidence Kate Middleton did that. Kate MIddleton is also her common name, the name usually used when referring to her, just as we use the maiden names of Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Kateryn Parr. While Kate is a contraction of Katherine, articles use contracted names for Bill Clinton, Prince Harry and Joe Biden. TFD (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    "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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    Coming soon: Trump's bond and McConnell's glitch and Biden's stutter ... Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    ... Mark Sanford extramarital affair and Disappearance of Peng Shuai ... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    No, this is what happens when a deletion discussion is mishandled. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    But the kill notices aren't what secondary sources are discussing. We're not seeing dozens of articles and commentary about the kill notices: we're seeing dozens upon dozens of articles and commentary discussing the photograph and the surrounding speculation, both the speculation that preceded the photograph's publication and the speculation that succeeded it. As one Delete-!voting editor said in the AfD, this is what makes the choice of article title so tricky. One issue is that we can't really sever photograph from speculation; another issue is that it's perhaps increasingly unclear to what extent the photograph even is the primary topic here. Many of us were expecting the news to move on after the photograph and...it hasn't; it's moved on to the farm shop video, and goodness knows what else before the Princess of Wales returns to public duties. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    It's so good to see that there are still users on Wikipedia who possess common sense and see this article as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP. I always maintained the position that what we had in the main article was enough. Now we have a page with running commentary about every move she makes. The AfD was dominated to an extent by relatively new users (some had joined within the past two years) so l'd understand if they were not fully familiar with the policies. Now that the article has been kept for the time being, the text needs to be polished. All references to primary sources and any questionable/speculative info should be removed. Keivan.fTalk 01:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Arbitrary Break (Catherine, Princess of Wales)

    There is now a move request at Talk:Where_is_Kate?#Requested_move_21_March_2024. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Arbitary Break? Well deserved, I say. These Royals work jolly hard, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Ah, a "give a bazillion options so there'll be no consensus for change" RfC. It's almost like this whole episode is some kind of elaborate trolling to test how ridiculous Wikipedia can be made to look (and if so, fair play, it's knocked it for six!) Bon courage (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing. The only thing that article should be moved to is a redirect to the main article. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    And now it turns out the PoW is/was being treated for cancer, the media harassment comes into relief for what it was, and Wikipedia as a gleeful fellow traveller. I hope people feel suitably ashamed. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Bon courage: I am genuinely ashamed for all the people who took part in the witch hunt; not in the press and on social media, but here on Wikipedia as well. We now have an article dedicated to analyzing the movements of a person who has been diagnosed with cancer during the period of her treatment. This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.fTalk 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Indeed, this was a shameful violation of BLP. The entire article should be deleted ASAP and everyone involved in writing it should take a good long look at themselves. The world was watching while we invaded the privacy of someone with cancer. Pinguinn 🐧 00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Don't be dramatic... We didn't invade anyone's privacy, we just documented it. If the world was watching then surely you can link to the coverage of wikipedia's handling of the issue in RS, I haven't seen any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Agreed. These type of responses, ironically, are better suited to tabloid headlines than Wikipedia. I !voted in the first AfD, but not for keep, but people who write that sort of hyperbole and use absurd terms like "witch hunt" are the ones who need to take a long look at themselves. DeCausa (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Even if the NYTimes went to cover the gossip and speculation to that much depth, we as both a summary work and with a strict BLP policy that errs on protecting the individual, we would not include that much depth. We do not follow the example set by the media blindly and are not bound to having to consider the same topics as important as they do when that attention violates core content policies. Masem (t) 00:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Well if we aren't going to follow the behavior policies sure lets at least follow the content ones... None of that excuses the hyperbole, dramatization, and/or personal attacks on editors over a content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    (edit conflict) It is an opinion whether it "violated core content policies". The nonsense about "shame", "witch hunts", "gleefulness" and "blindly" doing xyz is kneejerk tabloidese at its worst. DeCausa (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree that people seem to be letting their emotions run amok. I don't follow the royal family nor do I care to. There are a lot of poorly thought and logically flawed arguments being tossed about, and using words like DeCausa is describing is one of them, called appeal to emotion. Likewise, arguments of privacy are also mostly appeals to emotion, and while I am all for respecting people's privacy, this is rarely the case with very high-profile public figures. Royalty is one of the few cases where notability is indeed inherited. There was a time when they were the only celebrities, and we're not that far removed from the age of Henry VIII when people would even pay to watch them eat or sleep or have sex. The laws don't protect their privacy as they would a private individual, so the privacy argument is more of an ethical question. Not that it should be ignored, but it should be treated as a matter of ethics rather than a BLP policy issue.
    That said, BLP policy is not really where the problems lie. Despite its rapid expansion, the article is still very unencyclopedic in nature. It still reads very much like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. By that, I mean it's written in a narrative style rather than expository style, as sort of a blow by blow account. It's sensationalistic to the Nth degree. It's mostly rumor and speculation and just as fringe as any pseudoscientific article I've ever seen. It's not really about any particular thing that would deserve a standalone article (such as her political stances or anything of that nature) and thus is giving undue weight to sources because we're not weighing them in proportion to all other sources about the subject, like we would if this were a part of the main article. In short, it is just a really poorly crafted article, and to call it anything else is merely fooling oneself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    This, for the most part. As we now know several of the issues around her absence is related to this diagonsis for cancer, there's still some details to explain that while she was getting this, she was scarce from public appears and led to this weird photo issue. But for WP, at this point, that's all we can summarize in a short paragraph in talking about her cancer diagonsis. It no longer needs the blow-by-blow that the article was written in.
    Stepping back from this specific case, we do have problems with editors writing in newspaper style, updating details but without summarization in many breaking and ongoing news articles. That leaves for massive cleanup issues down the road. For example, most of our articles related to how COVID was handled by various countries or states or the like are beyond excessive in the level of detail that WP should be written in. Normally that's not a pressing matter, but when BLP or other higher level content policies become involved, then we have course correct and rather quickly. —     Masem (t) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Up for deletion again

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination). Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Now been procedurally closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Tee hee. Just like when someone appeals and then refiles in real life. JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    It appears the DR will fail and the article will again be listed for deletion.
    As one editor mentioned, there are articles about malicious gossip and conspiracy theories and they can be written neutrally. The problem with this article is that it treats the speculation as well-founded and therefore continues the malicious attack on the Princess of Wales and her family.
    In order to present the topic in a neutral manner, it should adhere to WP:FRINGE. The story isn't about Kate but about the deluded people who were asking where she was. To draw a comparison with the Moon landing conspiracy theory, which has been cited, that article does not use 9/10s of its text questioning the official version.
    If the article is nominated for deletion, I suggest Blow it up! as the best reason. The article is so hopeless that it can only become neutral by starting again. And let's choose a non-neutral title. TFD (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tim Hunt

    CLOSED BY POSTER
    This post may have been premature and has certainly caused too much unnecessary controversy. Thanks to those who contributed constructively. Apologies for the bother.Thomas B (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]

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

    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: [2]
    • Current consensus: [3]

    Since the allegation led to an intense online shaming campaign that upended Hunt's life,[4] 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.[5]

    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)[]

    Update (March 29): While I think it has been made largely in good faith, the current version[6] is factually incorrect in subtle ways that only people familiar with the case (not just a few selected sources) appear to understand. It says, in effect, that Hunt said (it literally asserts that "Hunt said...") something that offended a lot of people; the fact is that Hunt was accused of saying something offensive. It is not clear from (the balance of) the sources that his original remarks actually offended anyone, only that a version of his remarks, which was designed to shame him on social media, caused a public outcry. (Even his accusers claim it didn't bother them; they were just embarrassed for Hunt and offended on behalf of women in science.) Leaving this wrong impression in his BLP, is simply unfair to Hunt.--Thomas B (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    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)[]
    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)[]
    Based on my recent efforts to catch up with this drama, you appear to be right. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    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)[]
    I was not saying it was against the rules, per se. That doesn't make it "perfectly fine". It's quite clear evidence of heavily tendentious editing and a total inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Loki (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I have concerns about the proposed solution in the RfC to expand the other sections given WP:BLPBALANCE. Who's going to do it? Are they going to do it? It is not "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape". The weight of this biography should be pointed towards peer-reviewed books and journals not news sites like WP:DAILYBEAST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    With good reason, [7], it seems that the group seeking to expand this section don't feel it is necessary. WCMemail 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Firetangledfeathers has stripped down the controversy section to about as minimal as it can get really. I've spent time expanding the cyclins section, but the blunt truth is that basically no detailed biographical accounts of Hunt other than his Nobel prize autobiography exist, and I am unsure how appopriate it is to lean on that account to expand the article, given its lack of independence from Hunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Books and articles about the impact of his work and how he got there are more critical to his biography than random items about what he did throughout his life.[8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    As usual, we follow the sources, and there's quite a lot of sources about this particular controversy. The RFC close was to follow WP:PROPORTION but I'm frankly not convinced that's meaningful here or that expanding the rest of the article follows. As far as I can tell, if we were to just go by quantity of reliable sources about each subtopic, the controversy section would be significantly longer. Loki (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Basically, should Wikipedia be mansplaining to readers that the sexism stuff is NBD so "look over there!" at the science (despite the balance of sourcing). Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes, the question I'm asking editors to consider is: How big a deal is Tim Hunt's sexism? My reading of the sources says, precisely, that it's not big. The big deal that he was made to symbolize was sexism in science. Since it has been decided to make a big deal out of his toast in his biography (not just in articles on sexism in science or social shaming), it is our obligation (to both Hunt and the readers of WP) to clarify that he is highly respected among his colleagues (of all genders) and nobody who knows him thinks he is a chauvinist. There are plenty of sources that say this. Thomas B (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    That is simply untrue. Sometime colleague David Colquhoun was for example scathing. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The two men did not know each other (just worked at the same institution). And Colquhoun's evidence was risible. But it's clarifying that you actually think it is "simply untrue" that Hunt is not a sexist. That's also the impression I get from many of the people who are pushing for the expansion: they want to paint Hunt as a sexist. I don't. And I hope someone will eventually see that doing so is in fact a violation of WP:BLP given the facts and sources available to us. Thomas B (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Well, you're twisting my words now as everybody will see. Look, you've been busted on this and your dodgy campaign, on- and off-wiki, has hit the buffers. The matter is settled and it's time to move on. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'm not interested in debating. I'm only saying what my impressions are and what my goals are with this posting to the noticeboard. If it's so obvious that I'm twisting your words, I hope anyone will read us both charitably enough not make this more dramatic than need be. I really wish you well and hope thing go well with the article (it has already improved since I posted). I'm in no position to disrupt anything. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    WP:BESTSOURCES > WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The perennial problem with this article is that the reporting in Wikipedia's voice isn't presenting a neutral summary of what happened. There is a disconnect between what actually happened and what was reported to have happened. The controversy arose not because the remarks were sexist, its because the remarks were taken out of context, then embellished with statements that were simply untrue. At the moment what is in the article is in conflict with our     WP:BLP policy because it doesn't reflect accurately what the individual's actions were but mixes the fake news reporting and any attempt to address this is being reverted. Further, if you tag for neutrality, the tags are removed and outside commentary deterred by what is a toxic editing environment. WCMemail 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes. Biographical facts: Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life. WP's BLP: Hunt said he had "trouble with girls" in the lab and people got mad. Thomas B (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Do you have reliable sources for, Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life? This appears to be something you strongly believe, but I haven't seen sourcing that is both relevant to and supportive of that claim. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The Fiona Fox chapter is probably the most comprehensive source for that. I mentioned it on the talk page [10]. Which part of the claim do you think it doesn't support? Thomas B (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    At least as paraphrased in the review, this source does not appear to support falsely accused. Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Which part do you think is wrong: "falsely" or "accused"? Fiona Fox documents both that he was accused of being a sexist and that he is not a sexist. Thomas B (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Fox's book supports Hunt was accused of sexism but does not clearly support Hunt is not sexist - at least, not going by the account presented in the review. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    "[Female scientists who knew him] insisted that he was not sexist." That's quoted in the review. The chapter brings together such testimony and behavioral evidence and absence of evidence. Not sure what more you'd want. Thomas B (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Fox reports that scientists who knew Hunt insisted that he was not sexist. That is very different from sourcing in Fox's own voice that he is not sexist (which in turn, in the presence of competing RS statments, would still fall below the threshold for Wikipedia to state in its own voice that Hunt "is not sexist").
    In the current article version - and all recent versions that I checked - no statement is made, in Wikivoice or otherwise, about Hunt being or not being sexist. The only reference I see in the current version is to the perceived sexist nature of the 2015 remarks. In this context, treating the claim that "Hunt is not sexist" as, in your words, a "biographical fact" is unsupported by RS and it would be a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to include such a statement in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Have you read Fox's chapter? Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    No; I have only read the review that you linked as evidence in the prior discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I guess that's par for the course. You didn't even read Zanahary's quotations immediately after? It's been a while, but I don't think I can do much better to convince you that Fox makes a convincing case that Hunt is not a sexist. Literally no one who has ever worked with him says he is, on the contrary, they say he's not. She did a pretty thorough job. Thomas B (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Consider: it's been almost a decade since Hunt was accused of (and widely shamed for) being a "sexist scientist". What evidence exists today that he has ever hindered a female scientist in her career? Literally, none. Thomas B (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    We've been over this, but let's circle back:
    The important question regarding this controversy is not whether Hunt is or is not in his heart a sexist. It's not really even whether his prior behavior is sexist. The controversy is about a particular comment at a particular conference.
    I also would oppose a statement in Wikivoice saying "Tim Hunt is sexist", but you'll notice that the current version does not say that or anything like that. What it says is that Parts of the remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature. It's easily sourceable that the comments were perceived as sexist, so that's what we get to say in Wikivoice.
    If female colleagues of Tim Hunt say he wasn't a sexist, that's only relevant to the article insofar as the sources think it's relevant. Because that section of the article is about a particular event and not about trying to look inside Hunt's heart or pick over every decision he's made in his life, it's not obviously or directly relevant. Loki (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Hi Thomas. I can see you are having a lot of difficulties convincing people here, so I'm going to offer some advice in the hopes it will help. The reason you're not convincing anyone is because your arguments are logically flawed. For example, your comment directly above is a logically fallacy called appeal to ignorance, which is why it fails to convince anyone. Likewise, your main argument here is based on a false premise, that "sexist" is a thing that someone either is or isn't. It's not. It's an opinion that others either have or they don't. Unfortunately for the subject, the price of fame is getting judged by the world, and Wikipedia notes significant opinions their words or actions incur, whether those are good or bad.
    Now, assuming for argument's sake that his remarks were indeed meant to be a joke, that's why jokes are better left to comedians, because even with the best of intentions it's very easy to fall flat on your face, and things like that can stick around for the rest of one's life, especially if they're notable and generated a lot of public backlash. I don't foresee this as ever being something that will just go away, but the article, as currently written, looks to me to be very neutral and fair about it all. It doesn't make the false conclusion that he is a sexist, just that his remarks were seen as sexist by some yet not by others, which seems perfectly fine and balanced to me. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that "Hunt is not sexist" beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.
    I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content, which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the straw goat question whether Hunt has "hindered any female scientist in her career" - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.
    Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the WP:BALANCE of WP:HQRS, and the current article appears to so so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Hi Loki, Zaereth, and Newimpartial, I am not suggesting we should say Hunt isn't a sexist. I'm suggesting we should not devote so much space to the baseless accusation that he is. It is an opinion about him that is being given WP:UNDUE weight in a WP:BLP. Thomas B (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I realise this is futile but what is in the article doesn't conform with our BLP policies.
    The article as currently written doesn't reflect what sources have to say about Tim Hunt. Were it to do so, it would note that the prevailing view in the literature, is that he was joking, he isn't sexist and much of the furore whipped up at the time relied on quoting him out of context and a series of untrue statements (part of a "wider problem of trial by social media"). The furore wasn't over what he said, though he recognises that his remarks were ill-advised, the furore was over what he was reported as saying. And that distinction is critical for a WP:BLP and IT IS EASILY SOURCEABLE.
    Were the article written to WP:BLP standards, it would put the purported quote into context, that it isn't a verbatim transcript but the recollection of an anonymous EU official written two weeks later. Its acknowledged as flawed, since for example it doesn't include the recollection of Nadia Demina that Hunt followed his single sex labs joke, with a further quip that labs would be the worse for being a single sex environment. It was also leaked to the media, it was not intended for publication. If you want to include this "quote" you need to acknowledge it is not a verbatim record of what was said.
    Sourced from the same anonymous official the article would also include that his speech was well received by his hosts and not met with a stony silence as was originally claimed. One of his hosts commenting how impressed she was that “Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech” at such short notice. Oh and he didn't as the article implies stand up and give an impromptu toast of his own volition, he was asked at short notice by his hosts.
    If we write to a WP:BLP standard we'd also include that his colleagues sprang to his defence because he has always advocated for diversity and inclusion. In a letter to the Times 29 of his colleagues, male and female, said his help had been "instrumental in the advancement of many other women and men in science beyond those in his own lab" and "actively encouraged an interest in science in schoolchildren and young scientists, arranging for work experience and summer students of both genders to get their first taste of research in his lab."
    What isn't helpful is this toxic atmosphere of us versus them prevailing in the discussion where anyone voicing a dissenting opinion is denounced and any attempt to engage in addressing the article issues is simply reverted. I have broken my own rule to comment here and I really shouldn't. Again I fully realise this is futile suggesting the article reflects what sources say and I will be finding more useful things to do. WCMemail 13:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes, my hope was to get people who are more interested in BLP than Hunt to take a look at the article. The current consensus seems to be centered on the idea that Hunt said something that warranted public censure. But that just isn't what the sources tell us. Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Meanwhile, for anybody interested in reality, the complaint at the time from the Korea Federation of Women's Science & Technology Associations (KOFWST), and Hunt's apology, are still available online.[11] Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    It is well worth reading to get a sense of the hysteria that prevailed at the time. But it is obviously OR for the purpose of this article. Thomas B (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Hysterical women eh? How very dare they! But this gives the lie to this whole mansplaining myth that everything was just a laugh. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    It seems to me that The current consensus seems to be centered on the idea that Hunt said something that warranted public censure is an assertion made without evidence. That isn't what the current or any recent version of this article says, nor do I see any editors making similar statements in this discussion on Talk.
    Furthermore, the assertion that the prevailing view in the literature, is that he was joking, he isn't sexist and much of the furore whipped up at the time relied on quoting him out of context and a series of untrue statements isn't borne out by any evidence here, either. The only source provided in support of this perspective does not, in fact, refer to any such "prevailing view", and most of the sources offering statements along these lines are neither secondary nor reliable. WP:BALANCE in BLPs must be cautiously based on what high-quality sources actually say, not on what editors fervently believe - the strongly-held opinions of editors who have been blocked from an article's Talk page are unlikely to be reliable arbiters of appropriate content and tone for a BLP, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    You don't seem very familiar with the case and somewhat new to the discussion of the article. Is that correct? Thomas B (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I am a fresh voice in this discussion, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I hope you will familiarize yourself with both the case itself and the sort of discussion we've been having. With this posting I'm mainly trying to attract people who care about BLP to the article, because I know what they will find if they look. But I grant that's it's a lot to ask, a lot of work. If you choose to do it, you have my thanks. Thomas B (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    John G. Stackhouse, Jr.

    John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Stackhouse is currently suing Crandall University for wrongful dismissal, defamation, privacy breaches and other claims by publicizing the alleged findings of an investigation into anonymous complaints at Crandall of professional misconduct. Crandall University and CBC sensationalized his termination, which he is disputing in the first place. Wikiuser: Discospinster continues to try and use sensationalized tabloid style journalism as citations for libellous and potentially libellous statements that are currently being litigated.

    The inline citations being used themselves are potentially libellous and the tone of the article is not neutral but negative. Additionally the weight and significance given to his termination and the surrounding media blitz that Crandall orchestrated around his termination, are disproptionate to what they should be.

    Additionally, the lead on his page continues to state he was fired for sexual harassment, giving his termination too much emphasis and significance, especially considering he is suing them for wrongful dismissal and defamation amongst other things.

    Additionally, prior to Crandall University's violations of Stackhouse's privacy rights, his personal life about his marriage and children were not included on his wikipedia page. Only information about his academic work, since November 2023 users keep trying to add information about his private life, marriage and divorce that is irrelevant to his work as a Canadian Scholar and further violations of his and his family's private lives.

    The information under dispute is relevant to a biography of a living person and reliably source to news organizations such as CTV News and the CBC, not tabloids. Furthermore, the information about his spouse is sourced to his own webpage (while the posts in question have been removed, the Wayback Machine has archived copies). ... discospinster talk 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    As long as it didn't rise to the level of being a criminal matter, the dismissal and lawsuit are definitely relevant to the subject's bio, but, as with most spouses and non-notable family members, the names of his wives should not be included per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Especially if the source is the subject's own website that he has subsequently removed. Private individuals have the right to keep their privacy, and simply replacing the names with the word "wife" won't alter the reader's understanding one bit. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree. Sources have been removed to protect the rights of privacy and safety of living persons. My concern was not that the dismissal and lawsuits were not relevant to the subjects bio, I didn't try to remove them. I said in my changes that the current wording in the descriptions and headers were all negative in tone and cherrypicks inflammatory language from the cited articles towards the subject, especially considering the sensitive nature of the allegations and that the subject is denying the claims of his employer and suing them. Naomi2015 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Stackhouse falls under WP:NPF and his article should only include "material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources", not items that an editor thinks is important from the subject's own blog.[12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    If you are complaining about a version of the article, it would be helpful if you provided a link to it. TFD (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    What are you talking about? The diff link is there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The poster wrote, "The inline citations being used themselves are potentially libellous and the tone of the article is not neutral but negative. Additionally the weight and significance given to his termination and the surrounding media blitz,,,," I assumed they were referring to more than one difference. TFD (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I tried to make updates and edits in multiple places around the sexual harassment controversy and current litigation, but they were all reverted back.
    I tried also to remove private information and his marriages and divorce, some of which had citations that didn't actually support the statements on the wikipedia page. Such as saying the subject divorced his wife. There is nothing on his blog or anywhere that states what went on in his first marriage and who divorced who, but that too was reverted back by discospinster, who threatened me I would be blocked for not giving explanations for edits, but I had given explanations for edits and only removed citations that didn't support what was being claimed and were irrelevant to anything else, and said so.
    Additionally, the CBC articles consists of an interviewee who is an alleged complainant where she says she started an instagram account targeting the subject. While the investigators report, libellously published by the former employer, states that there were no previous allegations or complaints against him. The CBC article is biased as it leaves all this out and more and leans heavily on the opinions of an alleged complainant who never filed any previous complaints but went to social media and news media to cybersmear the subject.
    Additionally, the above mentioned instagram account named itself "Truth Tellers" and one of the first wikipedia editors to add about the termination and the sexual harassment allegations, named themselves "TheTruthWins77" and it was only about 12 hours after Crandall's publication. It's more of the same, they are now using the subjects wikipedia page, and the editors are insisting on a certain narrative about the events. In that same vein, it's notably nothing is on Crandall's wikipedia page and they were the ones that went public with it all, it's only this subjects wikipedia page. Naomi2015 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I tried to make the revisions on March 29, 2024, they were reverted back almost immediately. Naomi2015 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    This article needs to be extensively rewritten since everything outside of the controversy is unsourced and makes the article look like a CV Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree with all that. You're right, it looks like the article was created in 2007, and remained entirely unsourced until last year when this incident made the news. It grew substantially in size over the years, but only the subject or someone very close to the subject could have known all that without any sources. A prime example of WP:ABOUTME. In my opinion, the total lack of reliable, independent sources shouldn't pass notability guidelines, but then again I've always thought NPROF was far too lax on that sort of thing so I'm not sure how it would fare at AFD. If we excise everything unsourced, we're left only with the allegations and lawsuit, making it a BLP1E thing, and that wouldn't be fair either. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    It is no surprise this sort of situation would arise out of the circle jerk of WP:NPROF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I was a bit skeptical that the subject here passes WP:NPROF -- it is a very low citation field, I don't think Christianity Today is an academic journal, and the academic leadership roles are far short of president of the university. He did however apparently hold named professorships, which may pass WP:NPROF C5, if they could be supported with sources. But indeed, in a field like theology, it is more frequent that academics pass WP:NAUTHOR. The latter guideline looks likely to me (with a large number of books, at least some from reputable publishers). It would generally require reviews of his books, which are not currently in the article, but my very cursory search suggests that reviews exist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    First, the article was indeed sourced: biographical sketches in both the Bob Harvey profile and the annually updated reference work Canadian Who's Who. Not every single fact in a bio needs a separate citation, and those two sources cover most of the material here. (A quick Google search turns up lots of reviews of the author's books, for instance.)
    Second, the author meets both NPROF and NAUTHOR criteria, having held named professorships (twice), being named to Canadian Who's Who (a rare honour in Canada), having published more than a dozen books in several fields (including more than half-a-dozen with the Oxford University Press), and having sound h-index and i-index scores for his (humanities) disciplines. But he may well qualify as WP:NPF.
    Third, the article does read like a CV. Most articles about scholars do, however, being concerned with public facts. So a rewrite isn't necessary—or even easily imaginable.
    Fourth, the main problem here is contributors pumping up the scandal quotient for a case that is being disputed in the courts regarding a person of relatively low public interest. Wikipedia should be scrupulously neutral, and perhaps the current controversy should be left out until it is resolved. SergeS18 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree with what User:SergeS18 just said. And just leave it out. It isn't required to meet GNG, and it doesn't touch directly on notability. It's an extrinsic event. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    It's relevant to his career, and cited to major Canadian news organizations. Trimming it down is one thing, but there's no need to remove all mention of it. ... discospinster talk 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The very facts of the matter are in dispute: that's what the lawsuits mean. Wikipedia is not about "he says/she says," but about what is properly evidenced.
    Discospinster keeps citing "major Canadian news organizations," but only the CBC has independently reported on this issue, and the CBC is being sued by Dr. Stackhouse for defamation. To put up on Wikipedia a highly incendiary matter--career-ending stuff--that is being litigated seems...precipitous. Better to leave this matter off Wikipedia until it is definitively settled, no?
    WP:NPF says, "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
    And even on public figures, WP says, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are NOT multiple, reliable third-party sources documenting several of these allegations—such as "who divorced whom," whether the Regent College investigation, if there was one, was in fact over sexual harassment, and so on.
    Frankly, this is a mess of gossip, speculation, and, one hopes, some actual factual reporting. It's not ready for a Wikipedia bio page of a living person. SergeS18 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    It's also been reported on by Christianity Today ([13]), The Christian Post ([14]), and Global News ([15]). He was fired, that is not in dispute. Should the article mention the reason for his firing, or should we leave that up to the reader's imagination? ... discospinster talk 01:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    It's not yet shown to be relevant to his career as they're currently in civil litigation and the page should be protected as being a biography of a living person or NPROF. The CBC articles cited do not look like they can be used as reliable third parties, they look suspicious, like they were tipped off ahead of time, the whole thing looks suspicious. CBC's first story, that's cited as a "source" for the wikipedia editors, aired at 5:00 am the morning following of Crandall's late night publication. Naomi2015 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Renaud Camus

    Closing this discussion because the talk page is the best forum for a consensus on the alleged issues, and related or identical discussion have occurred there. Also, this wall of text approaches legal threats. Wrong forum and wrong tack. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]

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

    Renaud Camus This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel. The first paragraph states:

    Renaud Camus (/kæˈmuː/; French: [ʁəno kamy]; born Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus on 10 August 1946) is a French novelist, conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist writer. He is the inventor of the "Great Replacement", a far-right conspiracy theory that claims that a "global elite" is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples.

    In order:

    1. Renaud Camus is a French novelist, yes, but to call him such in the very first sentence of his biography is misleading; Camus has written over 150 books in his career, nine of them have been novels. It would be much truer to simply refer to him as a "writer," which is what he is.

    2. Despite rumors to the contrary, rumors very much encouraged by this entry, Renaud Camus is not a "conspiracy theorist." Neither in his book Le Grand Remplacement (2011) nor in subsequent works does Camus present anything recognizable as a conspiracy theory. Camus has long maintained that the "Great Replacement" itself is merely his name for the rapid demographic transformation of Western societies brought about by mass immigration (a phenomenon that is, in itself, in no way a matter of dispute). A reading of the original text of his 2007 speech of the same name, the transcript of which was republished in Le Grand Remplacement, gives that book its title, and may now for the first time be read in authorized English translation (cf. Enemy of the Disaster, Vauban Books, 2003), bears this out. In that text, Camus mentions the possibility that the Great Replacement may be the result of a deliberate plan only once, and then only to immediately dismiss it. In his later work and, in particular, La Dépossession(2018), Camus does develop a theory to account for the Great Replacement, centered on what he calls "global replacism". But this theory is also not a conspiracy theory. At the most general level, it is a critique of the tendency of post-industrial capitalism to extend market logic to the governance of human beings, which it sees as little more than fungible commodities. This is not a "plot" but rather, in Camus' words, "pure tropism" and "the spirit of our times".

    3. Camus is in no sense a "white nationalist". Camus is a critic of mass immigration; he is not an opponent of immigration per se and nowhere claims immigrants from elsewhere, of whatever race or nationality, cannot (or should not) become French. Indeed, he explicitly says the contrary. Instead, he is a proponent of relative demographic continuity, which he sees as a necessary condition for the preservation of cultural particularity at the national level. To the degree that mass immigration disrupts this continuity, he opposes it.

    4. Yes, Camus is the inventor of the phrase the "Great Replacement". No, the "Great Replacement" is not a "conspiracy theory", much less a "far-right" one (even if some on the far right have appropriated the term for their own uses). See point 2. above.

    5. Camus does not attribute the "Great Replacement" to the machinations of a "global elite", a term that moreover never occurs in his writing. Instead, he speaks of "Davocracy", referring, once again, to the phenomenon of market-driven, neoliberal technocracy, which he believes to be responsible for encouraging mass migration to Europe. There is no "collusion", on his view, all of this is happening right in the open. Nor are the stakes essentially racial: Camus believes that it is the search for profit that is enabling mass immigration to Europe; that the immigrants are black and brown and the historic host population white is merely an accident of this historical conjuncture. The immigration flow could reverse direction, with whites mass emigrating to historically black and brown countries, without essentially changing the phenomenon. Not only does global replacism not care about race, it is, on his view, essentially hostile to it, seeing it as an impediment to human fungibility and thus market efficiency.

    The remainder of the entry is similarly problematic, containing multiple errors, half-truths, and omissions. In correcting it, it is hard to know where to begin. The only responsible course of action, in my view, is to rewrite it from scratch, updating its claims with the most recent available literature and avoiding the sort of tendentious and motivated presentation that so mars its first paragraph. Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action. I will be glad to supply additional material to substantiate each of the above claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vauban Books (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Greetings. Thank you for this wall of text. Please consider raising these points at the article's talk page, Talk:Renaud Camus. Some points you raise here have been discussed at that forum previously. Please consider making a more concise, condensed post there. I do not see any reason to bring this content discussion here, since the talk page and interested editors are evidently available for you to try to form the consensus you'd like to see. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Angela Rayner

    There is current disagreement at the article, with a new editor, as to whether Rayner can be described as being under investigation by Greater Manchester Police for tax fraud. I have now removed the relevant material, as I feel it is contrary to WP:BLP. Any advice on how to progress this matter would be very welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    The editor concerned has how said that they will "leave it there for now until the outcome of the police investigation is concluded". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Rayner is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but is the allegation just at the investigation level? Is the investigation reported by multiple high quality sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Quality sources report that Greater Manchester Police are reconsidering their original decision not to investigate Rayner, following a request to do so, in a letter from Tory MP James Daly, i.e. it is not yet clear if they have even decided whether to investigate or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    So there's not even an investigation yet? Just an allegation and a prompt from a rival politician? I guess that could still be written neutrally. I guess inclusion is up to a consensus then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes it could be included, in a neutral way. It has been widely reported over the past few weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I can confirm. That's what it's looking like now. (And it probably doesn't belong yet, if at all. Time might inform us differently). JFHJr (㊟) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    The new editor has now re-added the material using this source. I raised this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#property118.com and another editor has responded "Not reliable and certainly not a high quality sources as should be used in a WP:BLP". Some help or new ideas would again be welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    The new editor seems rather over-excited on this point. I can see that this is quite likely to end badly for Rayner, but this is still at the level of WP:RUMOUR and so should largely be kept off the page for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    As per my point at RSN Property118 is not a good source for BLP details, especially if it disagrees with other higher quality sources. The decision to not investigate is being reconsidered, but as far as any reliable source states Rayner is not under investigation at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Dan Keen

    Eyes would be appreciated and are needed on this article. The creation of the article in itself seems to be very suspect and this one is really convoluted because it’s difficult to tell if the guy even exists. There is a Wired article that claims that a “Dan Keen” owns a company called Registered Agents Inc (RAI) which owns a company called Epik which has its own article. It is strange to me that Epik is (according to the article and press release) is a subsidiary of a company that doesn’t even have an article, but in any case, in the Wired article source, the company denies Wired’s allegations that “Dan Keen” is an owner or employee of either company, yet this was not mentioned in the article by the author. Further confusing things the crux of the cited article is that RAI allegedly uses fake names and fake personas in the business of the company. I suspect (but cannot prove) that “Dan Keen” may be another of these fake personas/names. The webpage for the individual on the page goes to the RAI company which it isn’t clear if Keen actually owns. If Keen does exist, and doesn’t own the company, it could potentially be libelous as the article alleges neo Nazi ties based on RAI’s acquisition of Epik which apparently has a sordid history of hosting undesirable websites or being a registrar for their domains. Whether or not it still does, I can’t say, however the Epik wiki article mentions that it is the registrar for “Bitchute”, but I checked the Whois and the registrar is actually CloudFlare, so this is a false statement in the article. I didn’t check the other domains the article claims that Epik hosts, but I’m guessing those are incorrect as well. I have not made any edits related to the false statements on the page because I’m hoping someone sees what I’m seeing. It really appears to be a hit piece, but I can’t figure if its a hit piece even on a real person. Also, I’m thinking that the notability of Keen seems only to be his alleged connection to RAI and Epik, so why does he have his own article? Shouldn’t this be merged into either the Epik — or an RAI article? It seems that this is essentially an RAI article anyway since it lists RAI’s website as Keen’s personal website which is another factual error in this article. So I’m hoping other eyes are maybe seeing what I’m seeing, or can provide more solid sources about Keen. If the guy exists, he is apparently a ghost.Dougieb (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    I'm not sure why there needs to be a standalone article of Keen outside of Epik. The cited sources write about him in relation to that company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Agreed. That is why it is suspect. And the two editors trying to create consensus seem to have an agenda on this.Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Could editors please comment on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#RfC: description of RFK Jr's views on vaccines etc. TFD (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Anatole Klyosov

    Notice that the page on Russian scientist Anatole Klyosov contains politically charged comments about his work which are borderline slander. It is quite possibly grounds for defamation. You cannot just publish such comments without being a willing eco chamber for libel. That section must be edited asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1946 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    Hello, Ps1948. You will need to be much more specific. The article summarizes this article, and Foreign Policy is a reliable source. Please also familiarize yourself with No legal threats, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    He was a mainstream and well-respected scientist in the past and described as such on the page. However, after 2008 he proposed some "theories" (e.g. "white race" originating from Slavs) that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists. That is well-sourced and reflected only in a couple of paragraphs on the page. This is fully consistent with our WP:BLP policy. In fact, an effort was made to describe him in the most favorable fashion on that page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Cullen328 77.100.225.124 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and Jay-Z

    Closing this guideline-related post because it has moved to Wikipedia Talk:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]

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

    I’m writing on this noticeboard as I have noticed a wider issue on some articles about living people, and I think it needs to be addressed as a Wikipedia-wide issue, not just on the individual talk pages when this happens as a whack-a-mole, because it affects the security of living individuals.

    Beyoncé and Jay-Z are two of the most high profile individuals, and their address is the title of the article about their home. I think it should be moved to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California mansion’, or some variant of that, with all reference to its exact location removed.

    The article about one of Taylor Swift’s homes, High Watch, contains the building’s address, its coordinates, and a map. But confusingly, the article also says “Several stalking, trespassing, and home invasion incidents have been reported at the house since Swift's purchase.” acknowledging that the house is a target. So it seems very irresponsible to have its address and the geographical coordinates on it. And so does the article about one of Swift’s other private residences, Samuel Goldwyn Estate. Furthermore, it is well reported in the media that Swift herself sees this as an issue. For example, she requests her planes are hidden from live flight data trackers, and has demanded that Jack Sweeney stops aggregating her flight data, with her attorney saying it’s “stalking and harassing behaviour”.

    Bill Gates’s house has the same issues as above.

    The buildings are not notable in their own right, and have only gained notoriety because of the people that own it. None of these articles were created before those notable people moved in. I fail to see how having the exact location data on living peoples private residences enriches the encyclopedic content of those articles. I don’t think the articles should be deleted, as they have since become notable, just the exact location data removed.

    They live there as private individuals, not as public figures. Is having the address/map location/coordinates so easily available responsible?

    The difference is homes like Mar-a-Lago and Buckingham Palace are notable in their own right and can be visited by the public, and were notable before the owners moved in. I think Wikipedia needs to set in stone some clear and written policy about this. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]

    You're about to discover the exact same thing Barbra Streisand did when she asked geological researchers to remove images of her waterfront home from their project. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I am well aware of the Streisand effect, which could be why these notable people haven’t requested the data to be removed and why I’ve come to the Wikipedia back-office noticeboard first. I think there should be some written Wikipedia policy about the inclusion of location data of private residences of notable people. And also, should this data be removed, it should also be removed from all of the page history versions, eliminating the Streisand effect inadvertently happening. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't think you understand the Streisand effect. Eliminating it from Wikipedia does not eliminate it from the millions of other websites that must have and it definitely won't stop other websites give the address if it does blow up. (I find it unlikely anyone will care, but the point remains, the Streisand effect works because what others do, not what the original website does other than as it may cause the others to care.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    How is 27712 Pacific Coast Highway notable, even? The coverage is pretty WP:ROUTINE. Maybe in 50 years it will be a "historic" house, but it isn't today. BD2412 T 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I’m speaking specifically to the ethics of Wikipedia and its BLP policy- regardless of what other websites do. For example, Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. It should also be noted that those other websites sometimes get the location information directly from Wikipedia, and deem it acceptable to also publish that data merely because Wikipedia does so too. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    I rather like your idea for improving BLP policy. But this isn't really the forum where guidelines and policies get changed. That starts on the guideline discussion page. Try an WP:RFC there? Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thanks. Let’s move the discussion to here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Publication_of_Living_Individuals_Home_Addresses TheSpacebook (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gareth_W._Peters

     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Talk:Winton, Queensland

    This edit has names and addresses of people and makes allegations about them. I think it needs to be redacted. Thanks Kerry (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    The whole essay has now been redacted as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sonja van den Ende

    I translated and expanded information about a Dutch journalist. But that person is generally seen as "affiliated with Russian propaganda and disinformation". I tried to make this as objective (NPOV) as possible, but I'd appreciate if someone could double check this, given this is a BLP article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I've gone other the article and it's sources, I can't see anything blatantly wrong with it (other than a minor typo). Everything is properly referenced and attributed as necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Proposed expansion of WP:BLPGOSSIP

    See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed expansion of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Suspected bias on Joseph Edelman's page

    My fellow editors and BLP reviewers, Aquillion, Armadillopteryx, Atsme, Bastun, Bilorv, Bobfrombrockley, Buidhe, Chipmunkdavis, Crossroads, David_Gerard, Dmehus, Edwardx, Guy Macon, Hemiauchenia, Historyday01, Jayron32, Jimbo Wales, JzG, Masem, Muboshgu, My_very_best_wishes, Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, QEDK, ReconditeRodent, Rhododendrites, Sceptre, Seraphimblade, Slatersteven, Spy-cicle, Symmachus_Auxiliarus, Thenightaway, XavierItzm.

    I would like to bring to your attention a concerning issue regarding the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Wikipedia article on Joseph Edelman. Currently, the section focuses solely on the foundation's support of the DO NOT HARM organization, which presents a biased and unbalanced view of the foundation's activities. According to the reliable source, ProPublica, the Edelman Family Foundation has been active since at least 2011 and has made overall donations of over $8 million. The foundation's assets exceed $100 million, indicating its significant financial capacity and broad scope of activities.

    However, the current "Edelman Family Foundation" section fails to provide a comprehensive and neutral overview of the foundation's donations and initiatives. When I tried to include information about other organizations supported by the foundation, such as the $400,000 donation to the University of California, San Diego, for students facing mental health challenges, the information was quickly removed by several editors.

    For example, here is the text suggested about the donation to the UC San Diego:

    In 2015, Joseph E. Edelman pledged $400,000 to support the university's student mental health program. The donation provided operational support for UC San Diego's mental health services, and aimed to address the mental health needs of the university's over 30,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Edelman's gift also supported specialized fellowship training and clinical research in college mental health.

    The source we can use (it already appears as reference #7): link

    Here is another text that was removed:

    The foundation has contributed to the American Jewish Committee, Brown University, Cato Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, PragerU, Ralston College, Shoes That Fit, and Team Rubicon, among others.

    Surprisingly, it was removed by XeCyranium and then by NatGertler as contentious and based on primary source. However, ProPublica is a reliable source and all I did was listing the same contributions without adding any contentious information or interpreting, so these accusations do not make any sense.

    Now I suggest:

    The foundation has contributed to a number of nonprofits and educational institutions including the the New York Genome Center, American Jewish Committee, Brown University, Cato Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, PragerU and Ralston College, among others.

    This selective inclusion of information raises concerns about bias and the violation of Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality (WP:NPOV). By focusing solely on the foundation's support of DO NOT HARM, the section presents a skewed and incomplete picture of the organization's activities.

    It is worth noting that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has also suggested expanding the section to encompass the foundation's activity in full, rather than focusing on a single donation event:

    I don't think there's any doubt as to the reliability of the Huffington Post reporting of the fact that the Edelman Family Foundation contributes significantly to the Do Not Harm organizaiton. I also don't see it as a particularly difficult BLP issue - Do No Harm is a 501(c)(3) charity in the United States with a particular worldview and mission.

    If I were to critique our biography of Jospeh Edelman, I think I'd be more concern with WP:UNDUE. Forbes says his net worth is $2.5 billion, and this donation was for $1 million. The Edelman Family Foundation has $100 million in assets and appears to give over $8 million a year in grants. It is not at all clear to me why this one donation deserves to be such a large part of a very short biography. However, the usual solution to that would be to see if we can find more sources to create a more well-rounded biography. (Jimbo Wales)

    Furthermore, it is important to address the sources used to support the inclusion of DO NOT HARM, namely the Huffington Post (1), appears in the section US politics) and Pink News (2, it is mostly a copy of the Huffington Post and doesn't provide any additional independent opinion. Since Huffpost is already ineligible, it is logical that we can't use the copy of the source) articles. In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics, and the community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics (WP:HUFFPOLITICS). Pink News, in particular, has mostly copied its content from the Huffington Post article, also making it an ineligible source.

    To ensure a balanced and accurate representation of the Edelman Family Foundation, I propose expanding the section to include information about the foundation's other significant donations, such as:

    1. $1,000,000 to the New York Genome Center for genomic research on neurodegenerative disorders (ProPublica, 2023)

    2. $800,000 to Brown University for educational research and scholarship funding (ProPublica, 2023)

    3. $600,000 to Ralston College to support education (ProPublica, 2023)

    4. $500,000 to the UATX Center for Politics, Economics, and Applied History (ProPublica, 2023)

    5. $500,000 to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to promote the FIRE ad campaign (ProPublica, 2023)

    6. $400,000 to Prager University to support PragerU personalities and the Big Tech Independence Initiative (ProPublica, 2023)

    7. $500,000 to the American Jewish Committee for general operating support (ProPublica, 2023)

    I kindly request a broader consensus among editors to address this issue and work towards improving the section's neutrality and completeness as encouraged by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Llama Tierna (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I don't know why I'm pinged, but this looks straightforward. NPOV is about adequately summarizing the best sources on a subject, and Wikipedia prioritizes independent secondary sources over primary sources or those with a connection to the subject. The ProPublica database alone does not provide any WP:WEIGHT. Likewise UCSD publicizing a gift to UCSD. The reason the current claims are included would be because PinkNews, which is an independent secondary source, wrote about it. Looks like HuffPost did too. Now, neither of those are top-shelf quality sources, but a fine starting point. Perhaps, with just [currently] one source supporting the material, it should not have its own section but rather be folded into the section above. If you'd like to challenge the material, you'll have to challenge the PinkNews source, and if you'd like to add more, just find independent reliable sources about the foundation and argue for them to be summarized along with the rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I have to agree with this analysis. Historyday01 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    • it is mostly a copy of the Huffington Post and doesn't provide any additional independent opinion - this is, generally, not a valid WP:RS argument. It is expected that a RS will summarize and rely on sources of their own, which do not have to themselves be reliable; in fact, part of the purpose of an RS is to do this. We assume that if they're repeating something or reporting on something, they have verified it or found it reliable enough to stake their reputation on. If anything, this sort of situation goes in the other direction - when dealing with a borderline source like the Huffington Post on politics, WP:USEBYOTHERS can make an individual piece usable. EDIT: Also, regarding the other donations... as I said when writing WP:PHILANTHROPIST, donations generally ought to have secondary sourcing. In particular, describing donations to places like the Cato Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and PragerU as philanthropy, as you did [16], is certainly WP:OR - that's making a value-judgment as to his intent, which you can't do without a secondary source. Balance is important but pushing in things that have no secondary coverage at all in order to "balance out" things that have significant secondary coverage is WP:FALSEBALANCE, so what you ought to do is look for sources that cover his support for those organizations, which can also guide how we describe or characterize it. As an aside, the Huffington Post source does mention it, but it describes it like this: The Edelman Family Foundation, by contrast, which he founded in 2017, has showered six-figure grants on conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; the anti-critical race theory Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism; Prager University, which markets right-wing videos as teaching material; and UATX, Bari Weiss’ unaccredited anti-cancel culture university. This would also require attribution and, of course, we would have to maintain their characterization to avoid misusing it as a source - if a source describes grants as being used to advance his politics, it's obviously misusing it to turn around and use that source to describe them as philanthropy or charity. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    As has been pointed out to you before, that "ProPublica" source that you are pointing to is the tax filing of the foundation. ProPublica is a reliable source for it being their tax filing; they are not a reliable source for the claims made in the content, which is not a third-party source but a first-party one. The choices you made on which donations to highlight were your choices, not something we deem a reliable source.
    The good news is that we have a perfectly viable source to discuss their other donations, and that is the Huffington Post source, a source which, despite you bringing it up repeatedly in various fora, you have not found anyone else to show your distaste for in this instance. (As I have pointed out before, "Every single editor but you who has weighed in on the HuffPost and Pink News sources, whether on this talk page, on the Biography Of Living Persons Noticeboard, or on Jimbo's page, has supported their use. Consensus does not require unanimity. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.") HuffPo's statement that the Foundation has stated they've given money to the groups they listed is not controversial; the majority of them can be verified at the ProPublica source, which makes a fine second source in such matters under WP:PRIMARY. The material that can be taken from HuffPo is listed at Talk:Joseph_Edelman#Consensus. If you are worried about supposed bias, we could attribute it -- "The Huffington Post notes that the Foundation has given money to...", some of that nature. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Attributing to the Huffington Post seems like a good idea, since PinkNews does that itself anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    And I see that you've now taken care of that. Good work, thanks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Please note the significant CANVASSING by Llama Tierna at e.g. here and here - by my count LT has posted on 31 user talk pages which the same leading message. GiantSnowman 18:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    And before there's any suggestion that they just dropped a note on the page of everyone who had taken part in the discussion, let me point out that I was dropped no such note on my talk page, and I've taken part in every one of the conversations that I've been aware of; all 31 of those messages were dropped in a 21 minute period that is more than 21 minutes past, so it's not just that I'm next on the list. But yes, the note tries not only to encourage involvement in discussion but tries to argue for a result. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'd like to note I also discussed this with Llama Tierna but was not pinged.
    Additionally, the Huffpost source states the foundation
    1. has showered six-figure grants on conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; the anti-critical race theory Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism; Prager University, which markets right-wing videos as teaching material; and UATX, Bari Weiss’ unaccredited anti-cancel culture university.
    2. previously gave large donations to one liberal organization, the pro-abortion rights Center for Reproductive Rights, but those gifts stopped after 2021. “The Edelman Family Foundation no longer supports the Center for Reproductive Rights because of their adoption of gender ideology,” a spokesman for the foundation told HuffPost.
    3. has donated $400,000 to the Manhattan Institute to support, in the foundation’s words, a “gender identity initiative.”
    4. and Parents Defending Education, an advocacy group which describes itself as a grassroots network but has close ties to the Koch network of right-wing political donors, received a $200,000 donation from the Edelmans in 2021, the year of its founding.
    I personally find it a little funny Llama Tierna argues so much against the use of the Huffpost, then argues we should include details covered by the Huffpost cited to a non-RS instead. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    HuffPost and Pink News show that it is due weight to cover Do No Harm prominently and to make some mention of the EFF's numerous donations to right-wing groups, perhaps a couple more of which could be named. UCSD is not independent and has little weight. ProPublica's raw data is reliable and worth citing but marginal in terms of adding weight. Jimbo's opinion is an important one, but not more important than other editors, as Wikipedia works by consensus. Because of this edit (reinstating a tag after consensus and reversion), I've given a warning to Llama Tierna about edit warring (recall that there is no minimum number of edits required for behaviour to be edit warring). — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    The section Joseph Edelman#Edelman Family Foundation is currently sourced to HuffPost, Pink News, and LGBTQ Nation. Can we find sources that don't have such a strong political bias?
    In my opinion the reliability of Pink News should not be considered here. The Pink News article [19] is a description / close paraphrase of the Huffington Post article [20] and thus WP:HUFFPOLITICS, applies, not WP:PINKNEWS.
    Likewise, the LGBTQ Nation article [21] is really an editorial, not a news article, and only mentions Edelman is passing in a sentence that is yet another description of what is in the Huffpost article. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391#LGBTQ Nation. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I have been unable to find significant other sources on it (one caution if you do go for it is that there are other groups that include "Edelman Family Foundation" as part or all of their name, which applies to the only mention of the term one finds in a newspapers.com search, for example.) It is unsurprising that sources that care about anti-trans and other right-wing efforts are the ones to notice the EFF. Even when someone like the OP, who seems to be trying to take away that focus, post donations, they include things not in the HuffPo list like Ralston College, which, like UATX, is an unaccredited right-wing institution (its chancellor is Jordan Peterson.) OP also doesn't note that the donation to Ralston appears to have been undone, as there are separate entries for a $600,000 donation and a -$600,000 one.... which is again a problem with relying directly on primary sources which one may not know how to interpret. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Ed Piskor

    Unreliable sources [22] [23] are reporting that Piskor may have committed suicide. It might be advisable for his article to be monitored until these rumours are either confirmed or refuted. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    The page is now protected, which should at least reduce the unsourced claims being placed there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    "Obits: Ed Piskor, ‘Hip Hop Family Tree’ Comic Book Artist, Dies at 41. He died by an apparent suicide following allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior"
    Source: https://www.thewrap.com/ed-piskor-dies-suicide-hip-hop-family-tree-artist/ --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Carla Martin

    This entry is entirely libellous against a private citizen for the sole purpose of smearing her professionally to prevent her from securing valuable doc review projects. There is no relevance to the general public. 2600:1700:14D0:C1C0:94E1:5399:235F:84A4 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I have removed all assertions that were only supported by WP:BLPPRIMARY sources. She seems to be a notable attorney due to her cases but every aspect of her alleged missteps was not supported by secondary sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Charles Banner, Baron Banner

    Charles has been deleting his personal life section whilst it is very relevant for people to know what kind of person has been selected into the House of Lords and is going to be making laws on everyone’s behalf. Charles has been deleting this section of Wikipedia because he does not want the truth about his personal life to be known. Everything that was put in that section is factually correct and can be proven. The page should be unlocked and the edit including his Personal Life to be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:DCED:9000:8134:940F:5487:4EA6 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    As all of your edits have been repeatedly reverted and deleted for violations of the WP:BLP policy, the article should not be unprotected at this time. Schazjmd (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Need additional eyes on Abdullah Öcalan

    Some pretty serious violations of WP:NPOV overnight. I've reverted but I would prefer not to edit-war to maintain a stable article here. Suggest additional eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sadhguru

    There is an old allegation that Sadhguru murdered his wife (the allegation originated from his wife's father). A user on the talk-page is requesting to put this content on the article. I am not convinced this is being done in good-faith. The allegation is not supported by reliable sourcing and is potentially libellous if we add in what this user is suggesting.

    The father of Sadhguru's wife was the only person to make the allegation but it was dismissed by the Coimbatore Police. It is an old allegation from 1997. I have not seen any good WP:RS on this topic. The user on the talk-page is requesting to use this VICE article [24] for the claim he was charged with his wife's murder. I am not convinced we should be using this source on Wikipedia for a controversial claim like this.

    See talk-page discussion [25] Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I have to agree with Horse Eye's comment. That sort of approach is rarely helpful. That said, the Vice article is definitely not usable. It's an op/ed column and not an actual news report. You can easily tell because the author using a persuasive style and giving their own opinions. The article from The Week, on the other hand, looks very well written and neutral on the matter. The article is more about how this was dug up by some politician to use for political reasons than the actual allegations, and if we use that source, we should not simply cherrypick the allegations and ignore all the rest, but summarize the actual points that the article makes.
    The court document is definitely not usable, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and should be redacted from the talk page. I cannot read the AsiaNetNews source, so I don't know about it.
    The big question that relates to BLP policy is one of WP:BLPCRIME. Is this person some kind of celebrity in India? If so, then BLPCRIME wouldn't apply and it would become a matter of RS and NPOV. If not, then BLPCRIME would apply. Just going by the length of his article and the volume of sources, it's possible he would qualify as a public figure, but I don't know enough about him to be sure. So far, we've only got one source that may qualify as RS, and the main point of that source is not the allegations themselves but what they were being used for, so that doesn't give it much if any weight. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Sadhguru is undoubtedly a well known public figure in India. That said, this particular Vice article is a very weak source and I don't think this allegation should be included unless better sources are found. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Jose Altuve addition

    Can someone official add to Jose Altuve’s wiki that he has been in a modern day record of eight no hitters after Ronel Blanco’s no hitter on April 1st? 2601:248:8383:A350:A447:48D7:3DEE:70DD (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Please provide at least one URL leading to a reliable source to support your request. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    David Leonhardt

    I’m not an editor (nor do I know him), but noticed that his bio doesn’t include the book he did in 2023 “Ours Was the Shining Future”, economic history about the fate of the American dream. Pretty well-reviewed, and seems worth mention. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/books/review/ours-was-the-shining-future-david-leonhardt.html

    It’s a wonderful thing you all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.78.111 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I've added a mention to the article – thanks for mentioning it Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Tiffany Henyard

    On the article for Tiffany Henyard, information pertaining to an arrest and charge has been repeatedly reinserted using Chicago Police records and an NY Post article. However, per both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NYPOST, I'm 90% sure that this information should be removed until better sourcing is utilized. I am also fairly confident that this constitutes a 3RRNO exemption under reason 7, but would prefer this resolved without leaning on that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    It looks like all parties are in agreement now on the page, but comments from the experts here would be appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    That article is a mess of WP:BLPCRIME violations and near violations. Especially the section on her political tenure. I've never heard of Henyard before so there may be context I'm missing but much of this article should be nuked. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I came to it during a brief anti-vandalism sojourn and it's been popping up in my watchlist with BLP issues since. I feel like I lack the BLPCRIME expertise necessary in this context, but I may remove some of the most obviously not-permitted stuff. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I mean please do. Apparently she's a public figure (I've never heard of her and she's apparently the mayor of a village in Illinois but I guess that counts) so accusations can be included, I suppose, but we should certainly be avoiding anything in Wikivoice that says she's an extortionist and should likely be avoiding lurid blow-by-blow details of things like arrests. (for the record, the BLPCRIME adjustment for public figures is If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.)Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Wow, that article is absolutely terrible. I couldn't get past even the first few sections without my eyes glazing over and nodding off. It has a hell of a lot of words that don't actually say anything. (I'd almost guess it was written by a politician.) It comes off like the usual political-mudslinging that someone tried to turn into an article. For example, here's just one paragraph:
    "As mayor, Henyard has become greatly embroiled in scandals involving allegations of corruption, fraud, and other misconduct. By early 2024, these scandals had attracted attention from national, and even foreign, news outlets.[29] Henyard has dismissed criticism of her, accusing opponents and the news media of engaging in "politricks" (a portmanteau of "politics" and "tricks").[30] She has accused political opponents of being misogynistic.[31]Within the first several months of her tenure, a number of controversies she was involved in had caused her to face protest from some community members and calls for her resignation.[32] In February 2024, Fox 32 Chicago (WFLD) reported that numerous individuals in Dolton had confirmed to them that they were interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of an evident probe into Henyard's activities as mayor.[33] The Chicago Tribune soon after reported that an unnamed law enforcement official had confirmed to them that a FBI investigation into Henyard existed.[34] The FBI itself has not confirmed this.[35] In 2022, the editorial board of the Chicago Sun Times called alleged corruption in Henyard's governance of Dolton as, "a theme that's common in too many south suburban governmental units."[36]"
    Yet the article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct. We never actually describe these alleged controversies beyond saying they exist. No facts or details about this alleged FBI investigation. It's all just a bunch of doubletalk, and the entire article reads like that! And my goodness is it a long article, even for a president let along a mayor of a small town, and it apparently reads like that all the way through! It looks like it's just a laundry list of allegations, none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist. (And on a side note, does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending?)
    Then there's other crap about her having mold in her house and wishing the former mayor well after his stroke, and stuff like that. Really trivial crap no one is interested in.
    But when it comes to the allegations and how it relates to things like BLPCRIME, I don't even know where to begin, because other than a long, drawn-out list of vague statements we really have no facts or details about them that I can tell. Granted, I was not even able to make it halfway through the article before my brain was numb, but I'd say first this article needs a complete rewrite to make it even readable, and massive amount of that stuff cut out, before getting into specific accusations, because as is I don't know what this is all about or even where to begin. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'll chip in here since I made prior comments about the article at its talk page: I cited WP:UNDUE after adding Template:Overly detailed due to the extensive list of allegations/controversies stemming from local sources, but I agree that some of the issues probably fall more clearly under BLP policies – I'm just not too familiar with those policies (hence why I didn't try to discuss them originally). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Here's the deal, as I see it. As BLP policy is concerned, the subjects falls under the rules in WP:WELLKNOWN. This means that things such as fraud that are criminal allegations need to be widely reported in RSs. Not a single source, but widely reported. Other things such as lawsuits and "controversies" that are not criminal matters need to be weighed and portioned out according to NPOV.
    The big problem here is none of these allegations or controversies are described in the article, anywhere, so how do you judge what's criminal or civil, or even what's real and what's mudslinging politics? These things should all have a what, where, when, who, and how. In other words, there needs to be some substance to them or they're just hollow, meaningless statements. It's no different from name calling. But in cases such as using the word "fraud", now we're into criminal offenses, so regardless that falls under WELLKNOWN.
    If a fraud was committed, there should be a time, place, and person it happened to, and a specific way that it happened, so one would expect that info to accompany the allegation. Likewise, the definition of "controversy" is a "large public debate about a topic or an issue", so there should be some coverage of this debate and what is being debated. This article lacks all of that, so it's hard to know exactly what are BLP problems and what are not. It amounts to basically name calling, and in my opinion that in itself is the biggest BLP problem, which is why I suggested we blow it up and start over, below. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    What constitutes a public figure

    So working on Tiffany Henyard has me wondering what constitutes a public figure. Because it seems clear from review of the sources that Henyard is notorious but what she's notorious for is entirely coextensive with the various things she's been accused of doing. If Henyard is only a public figure by dint of being accused of a bunch of things then it almost seems like we shouldn't be covering her on Wikipedia. However if her status as a public figure is because she's a mayor then we have a smaller problem but still a problem. That is that her controversies are the entirety of her page. And they're extensive and heavily detailed. This raises the question of WP:DUE. I'm curious to see if we can find reasonable comparables. I found one but it was a much shorter page about a municipal politician who was convicted of crimes rather than merely accused of them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I don't think she's a public figure because of her alleged crimes. But I think her being an elected mayor means she is a public figure "a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs" Note this doesn't mean she is notable as plenty of public figures are not notable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree. The term "public figure" is actually a legal term that was defined by the Supreme Court back in 1964, although it has been around since the 1700s. The definition is very specific and applies to Wikipedia and its authors just as much as it does to newspapers and journalists. The reason is because a public figure cannot sue for libel or defamation whereas a private individual can, and the laws recognize this. This especially applies to politicians, because there's an overriding "public need to know", so while actors and rock bands must rise to the level of celebrity to be considered a public figure, anyone holding a public office is automatically given that status.
    That said, I'll reiterate what I said above. I think the easiest way to fix this article is to WP:Blow it up and start over. I don't necessarily mean delete the article, but in that the text is just too far gone to fix. It'd be far easier to fix it by wiping the slate and starting from scratch. List only those allegations that have been widely covered and have some kind of significance, with facts, a point, and everything, and leave all the mudslinging in the campaign ads where they belong. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I apologize in advance for my peevery, but Zaereth, I agree almost entirely with you both on the policy and the best path forward. I do need to just slightly correct that, for the United States, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan did not say that public figures cannot sue, they made the standard much more stringent, by creating the actual malice standard (which, of course, has nothing to do with malice). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    No need to apologize. Your input is always valued. That's actually true, because of course anything can be taken too far and cross the line, but I was trying to keep my reply short so I guess I glossed over that. Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Reliability of Looper.com

    Closing this post because the discussion has moved to WP:RSN. The discussion should happen in one place. Repost as necessary for BLP stuff. JFHJr (㊟) 04:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]

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

    Exactly how reliable is the entertainment news site [[26]]? Particularly when it comes to biographical details? I can't tell if it's reliable or if it's some clickbait website that web scrapes info from elsewhere. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I don't know. Do you have a specific article you want to use as a citation? The reliability of a source depends greatly on the specific information it is giving. I mean, you wouldn't get medical advice from a cookbook, would you? So, reliability is not simply black and white, and we'd need to see exactly what the source says and what info it's supposed to support in order to give a real assessment. If you want to know what people think of it as a news source in general, you might have better luck at WP:RSN because that's what they do. But I'm not just going to start randomly reading their articles to give a general assessment here. (Or is this post some kind of clickbait?) Zaereth (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'm referring to this particular edit on actress Loni Anderson's page.[27] It's being used as a ref in regards to her being voted the Queen of the Valentine's Day Winter Formal. There was another ref prior to, but I removed as it was a high school yearbook on Classmates.com and that would probably fall under WP:PRIMARY. Plus Classmates.com is user-generated. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    This is an WP:RSN question. Zaereth is correct: they do this there. To answer your question, it looks like an unreliable source and could be removed with an edit summary saying so. But absolute answers about sources come from the other forum. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Fair enough. I'll ask over at WP:RSN. Thank you. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    For that particular information, I don't see any reason to doubt it. The article looks to be well written and cites its own sources a majority of the time. The problem I see is it doesn't contain nearly the amount of information that it's being used to support. It doesn't say where she grew up, what high school she attended, or what year it happened. In 1963 she was apparently enrolling in college according to the source. So, while I would probably trust it for that particular info, it's misleading to use it as if it supports the entire sentence and paragraph above. Zaereth (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1

    In response to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1, I have added two stories about Thom Darden that are unflattering. I want them to be reviewed here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    I have removed his alleged contribution to the ouster of his coach since The NY Times article does not directly verify this, instead using the weasel language "Some Browns historians remembered that Thom Darden had been one of the ringleaders in the players' unrest". It can be seen as WP:BLPGOSSIP and also requires more than one RS citation under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, the Boston Globe sports columnist, Michael Madden, should not be used to assert facts under WP:RSEDITORIAL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    User:Morbidthoughts Are you saying that the content can be restored with supporting RS?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes. Multiple RS are needed to discuss his role that led to the alleged ouster while RS is needed to support whatever facts Madden raised. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    User:Morbidthoughts, Can I readd the ouster with the recently added content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Just added a bit more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    Reviewing the cited news article, the detail about the ouster is more appropriate in the Forrest Gregg article. Also, there may be too much detail about McInally when the focus of the article should be on Darden. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Abbas Ansari

    Do these edits meet our NPOV and sourcing policies? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    There are some BLPCRIME concerns since it's not clear if he is convicted of anything yet.[28] It seems like he is in jail awaiting trial. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Morbidthoughts Ouch. Apologies, I didn't include a diff! Specifically [29], Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    Mike Rinder

    Closing this post because the discussion can be found at the article talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]

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

    This biography makes false claims about his achievements and awards. Mike Rinder is not a co-founder of The Aftermath Foundation. He was invited onto the board of the foundation after it was co-founded by Luis Garcia and Aaron Smith-Levin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:B80:59C0:BCFD:4E17:5C10:91DE (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]

    There's a recent discussion on that issue at Talk:Mike_Rinder#Founder_or_not_(The_Aftermath_Foundation), you could participate there. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1217865836"