Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Jilly Kelley

Jill Kelley is a biography that could use some attention from thoughtful editors with no particular interest in the subject but an interest in NPOV and getting things right. There's some discussion that I posted on the talk page but the tldr is that there's a claim in a reliable source that her charity went bankrupt, but there's also good reason to think that may not be precisely right - per the form 990, it spent all the money donated to it down to the last penny, but there's not really any evidence of filing for bankruptcy. For a few years after the "wind down" (I'll use that for lack of a better term at the moment) it appears to have been revived. I've recommended to the subject that she contact the Huffington Post for a correction, but that may or may not ever happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording has been changed from bankrupt to defunct, which is supported by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Town & Country magazine, refs in the article. Per the Tampa Bay Times - "According to state corporate records, the group was dissolved in 2007". - Gale A308382313. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to deal with the issue very effectively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Axl Rose

Axl Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’m reviewing old edits, I can see the tabloid entries were removed in agreement. That information has made its way back in using unreliable sources. A section has been made called “Legal Issues” and another “Lawsuits”. How is this relative to the entertainer’s notability? His biography reads like a personal attack and in every conflict situation and every accusation made, he’s assumed as guilty. The sources are mostly music blogs using clickbait headlines. Demsuz (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of an article must be notable, but there's no expectation that the article's contents are limited to the subject's notability. If you see content that is sourced to an unreliable source or a self-published blog, or where the ostensible source doesn't actually back up the claim, you should remove it. If you think that there are missing viewpoints, you can add them. If you think that the amount of text devoted to his legal issues is WP:UNDUE, you can edit it, or wait to see what kind of discussion your post on the article's Talk page -- only opened yesterday -- leads to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your direction. I did remove twice and it was put back twice. We reached no agreement on the Talk Page. I am seeking more help. Demsuz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s an option for editors who want to expand on stories that stans have an obsession with and that’s to make a separate page. The average person cannot make sense of every non-essential story about him when trying to understand his life and perspective. Demsuz (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the material and while there may be some claims with dubious sourcing (I deleted one where the claim did not match the source), looking at the bulk of sources, I'm seeing both good general sources (Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Deseret News, the L.A. Times) and good music-specific sources (Rolling Stone, Spin, MTV News, Billboard, etc.) I'm not saying that absolutely nothing should be trimmed, but it is hard to assume that legal matters are not worth our attention when the are being covered in significant and reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

To Demsuz, I took a brief look at both the changes you made and at the article as a whole. You're correct, in an article about a celebrity it's really difficult to keep people from inserting every little bit of trivia they can scrape up, no matter how small. We have policies in place to keep this stuff in check, so pay attention, because this will help you with your talk-page argument.

The main policy we have to mitigate this sort of thing is WP:NOPV, and in particular WP:Due weight and WP:Balance. I'd suggest reading those policies very carefully. Outside of Wikipedia, "notable" means people are interested in it; that is, it's noteworthy. To avoid confusion between this and Wikipedia's definition, I'll use the synonym "significant" to mean this definition. If something is significant or noteworthy, people will write about it in reliable sources, because that's what they do.

I think a lot of people come here with a mistaken idea of what an encyclopedia is, and what one is for. An encyclopedia is not a place for excessive detail. They're quick references designed to give the reader the basic gist of the story without having to read the whole damn story. They're brief summaries, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty, focusing on the most significant aspects of the subject. Weight and balance is how we keep most trivia out of celebrity articles.

What weight and balance means is we take all the sources that exist about a subject and divide up the info like a pie chart. Things that get the most coverage are the most significant and deserve the most space in the article. Things that are less significant get less space, and those with the lowest significance doesn't deserve any. It all depends on the amount of public interest in whatever that thing is, which we can measure fairly accurately this way.

Balance in addition can refer to how the info is arranged in the article. It's like, if you load all the heavy cargo in the back of the boat it will likely sink, but if you evenly disperse the weight the boat will be better balanced. Similarly, putting all the bad stuff in a section titled "legal issues" is like putting all the heavy stuff in the back of the boat. Better would be to work these things into the timeline of events so it's more balanced throughout the article.

Weight and balance are best determined by those who edit the article regularly and are familiar with all the sources, so it's best to take this to the talk page and work it out there. If nothing else, throw down some good arguments for others to read, because once you do that, if you still can't come to a resolution, then you can try our dispute resolution process, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation and it’s written beautifully. This was very helpful and encouraging. I will reread this a couple more times and see about how that info can be integrated throughout the bio. I appreciate the kindness editors like you give when you share your wisdom and experience. Demsuz (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I took your suggestions and put a notice on the Talk Page. I hope editors can rework the page to balance the biography. It has a GA rating. Demsuz (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is Rolling Stone online will use click bait articles and opinion pieces unlike what they publish. Demsuz (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Vexxed

This has been raised before (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Vexxed) but I'm still unconvinced by this article, firstly whether they are actually notable or not, and secondly that their death is currently sourced to Reddit. On the other hand, removing that would suggest that they're still alive, which doesn't appear to be the case but pretty much everything regarding this is on social media and therefore unreliable ... Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is an unacceptable source for a death, I reverted those edits. Also agree his notability is questionable, some of those sources look sketchy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Florentina Holzinger

i am Florentina Holzinger, a choreographer, theatre and opera director from austria. recently one of my shows, which deals with women in relationship to the history of the church, gets hijacked from the conservative and far- right movement. since then i am a victim of cyber hate and bullying and the tabloid press. i just detected that also my wikipedia entry (english) got altered recently as a consequence by an internet troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger The current describtion does in no way represent my artistic work. Please compare here the english and german versions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger

I ask you to urgently remove this offensive and wrongful entry about me and my work.

Thank you Florentina Holzinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.38.85 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You should be more specific given everything is well-sourced, as lurid as the claims were. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Richard Curtis urgent Edits

Dear Editors / Administrators

I am Richard Curtis's assistant. For 6 months now we have been trying to edit his page so that it is up to date, relevant and correct. Every time we have made adjustments they have been deleted and old notes reinstated. Richard is about to receive a humantiarian oscar and so its imperative his page is up to date and lists his campaigning achievements.

Please could you let me know how we can resolve this asap.

Account in question [Richard_Curtis] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portobellostudios (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you have made a request for changes at Talk:Richard Curtis#Updating Richards Page. That's in principle the correct way to go about this, but I suspect that particular request is not going to go very far – you seem to have suggested the removal of a lot of text, primarily that which might reflect poorly on Curtis, with no explanation beyond much of what is written is a little out dated or doesnt list his campaigning achievements fully. You'd do much better to suggest one change at a time, and give specific reasoning for it.

For instance, one of your suggestions is to delete the sentence While at Harrow, Curtis directed a school performance of Joe Orton's play The Erpingham Camp; this controversial choice was given the 'green light' by his classics master, James Morwood. Later, Curtis commented that Morwood's support had helped him understand that it was all right "to push boundaries and to be funny". This is supported by an article written by Curtis himself, and seems to have direct relevance to Curtis' later career; I don't understand what your objection to it is.

Other suggestions (e.g. that the entire "controversy" section be deleted") I do understand why Curtis would not want them to be included, but "Curtis doesn't like it" is not a compelling argument from Wikipedia's point of view as to whether they should be included. As it is it just looks as though Curtis wants to hide any record of potential criticism, which Wikipedia editors generally don't like. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to Delete Categories Affecting BLPs

There is a discussion that may be of interest at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_15#Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent related to a previous BLP discussion here (Patricia Marroquin Norby) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Patricia_Marroquin_Norby . If you have the time and interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification on when to refer to incidents as antisemitic regarding BLP?

In regards to List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime? Furthermore, would it be a violation to refer to something as antisemitic if there were never charges or investigations into the incident as a hate crime, even if sources refer to the incident as antisemitic /potentially antisemitic?

Thank you in advance for your time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's sufficient sourcing for a label we can use the label. If there's not, there isn't.

Convictions really are a special better quality of evidence for accusing someone of a crime, so we certainly shouldn't be saying someone committed a hate crime without a conviction. But they're not necessarily the best source on the elements of the crime by themselves. So if sources agree a crime was antisemitic we can still say that even if that's not present in the original conviction. Loki (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the former, WP:BLP policy is absolutely clear: we don't assert in Wikipedia's voice that a living person committed a crime unless and until they have been convicted of such. Whether the events involve antisemitism or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, I tend to believe much of the racism we see today is perpetuated by the media. It just makes a story much juicier if you can put a racial spin on things. There are incidents that are truly racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's not nearly as much as we're led to believe.

That said, "antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime. There must be more to the story that involves a real crime. Or incident. Because an incident does not necessarily imply a crime was committed. I find "incident" to be a rather overly-broad term here, because it could literally mean anything. I often find lists like these to be rather problematic because they become dumping grounds for anything that some editor even remotely believes fits the bill. As any good psychology book will confirm, at the heart of all racism is categorization. Categorization lumps real individuals under a narrowly defined label, or "stereotype". The title of the category is the sole, defining characteristic of anything placed in it, making it a very powerful propaganda tool, so great care must be taken when categorizing people. A list article like this is just a form of categorizing, and it's far too easy to become the very thing you fight against.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is when living people are involved. For example, the first one on the list names a non-notable person as being a part of this incident, and per things like WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, etc., we shouldn't be naming non-notable people like that, especially if the incident is a crime and they have not been convicted. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

""antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime"

This was specifically what I was trying to get at when asking this. Apologies for not making my initial question quite clear, I was struggling to find the proper wording.

According to WP:BLP policy, is it acceptable to refer to an "incident" as antisemitic, even if no one has been convicted of a crime? Is that acceptable or should it be treated the same way as WP:BLPCRIME? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If a preponderance of reliable sources call an incident antisemitic, you have grounds to call it antisemitic. Hate crimes that lead to a conviction as hate crimes are much more rare than incidents that can be reasonably described as antisemitic. But that's not quite the same thing as calling a specific person antisemitic. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone spray paints "Death to the Jews" and swastikas on the wall of a synagogue, and then throws a firebomb though one of its windows, that is an antisemitic crime even if no one is ever arrested or convicted for it. Unsolved crimes are still crimes. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Loki and AndyTheGrump, and I think I agree with asilvering and Cullen328 too, even though the latter two have some disagreement perhaps. But it can be both be true that an event is an unsolved crime, and described as an unsolved crime by RS, and that no living person is accused but not convicted of a crime that would be BLPCRIME and not PUBLICFIGURE. That's the problem with hypotheticals. I disagree with Zaereth, I think we need to trust the RS, whether they are news media or other RS like books and journal articles, when they use a racial or ethnic lens to look at events. As far as Butterscotch Beluga's question, I believe it's clearly being answered here that "antisemitic" isn't a crime necessarily, and if and only if RS call someone antisemitic, Wikipedia can do that without running afoul of a BLP bright line. Andre🚐 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We can already see some problem in the article as it stands. For example, the incident listed for 5 October 2024 has three sources, none of which calls the incident anti-semitic in the body of the article in the source's voice (one of them cites police as saying it was antisemitic.) And it's tricky because while the incident involves a visibly Jewish person getting punched, and antisemitism thus seems a likely motive, Jews aren't immune to stray violence from other motives. Should someone be charged, it would be a BLP concern for us to have that linked with antisemitism without specific evidence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a matter for the article's talk page. I am not the author of the article. The question was whether, per OP, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime. The answer is that if RS call it antisemitic, that is fine even if not convicted of any crime. I think the fix to the situation you talked about it is simple, simply attribute the claim to the police, and the problem is solved, assuming what you say about the sources is true and no others exist (I didn't check). Andre🚐 07:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is an anti-semitic incident that is not a hypothetical and no one was arrested or convicted because the two perpetrators were killed by law enforcement: 2019 Jersey City shooting. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this was an antisemitic incident? Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I sure hope not. That is pretty clear, and no BLP issue as you point out. But I think OP was talking about a situation with a living perp who hasn't been convicted. Then there is the question of whether BLP applies. Andre🚐 07:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to conceive of circumstances where a living individual is charged with a crime that some sources have labelled antisemitic. In such circumstances we may need to exercise caution, as stating that an antisemitic incident occurred can sometimes be tantamount to stating that individual charged actually committed a crime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Attributing it might be fine in an article on the crime. But we're talking about a list called "List of antisemitic incidents in the United States". It's not "List of possible antisemitic incidents in the United States". This suggests anything in the list is something that can be called an antisemitic incident in wikivoice the same as if we were to add a category. Which by your own admission we can't do since we need to attribute it to the police instead. I actually agree with the wider point that I don't think we need a hate crime charge to call something an antisemitic incident. I think like terrorism but unlike rape or murder, antisemitic incidents is normally taken to mean something different from crimes where living participants are convicted of hate crimes related to antisemitism. So RS widely calling it an antisemitic incident in their voice is enough. But if the only thing we have is police called it antisemitic and even RS weren't willing to do so in their voice (and they was never any antisemitic related convictions) then IMO it clearly doesn't belong in the list. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Onision

There has been disagreement over whether to include some accusations in this BLP. Herostratus is opposed to the information being included while Shamus248 and Sink Cat support the inclusion. We could use some wider input. I don't really have an opinion on this as I am not familiar with how this has been handled in other articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight being given to conviction of non-public figure

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

Louise Glover

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

Alex Breingan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigi Wimala

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

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

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

Irene Tracey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mykolas Majauskas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Which specific BLP violations did I push, and how?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Alternatively, we could impose 1RR on the page.

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

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

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

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

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

Trump exempt from WP:BLP

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

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

Dion Aiye

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

Bad sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Julia Roberts attend college?

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

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

ABOUTSELF at Devin the Dude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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