Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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:



    Gaurav Srivastava

    [edit]

    Draft:Gaurav Srivastava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This article was deleted as an attack page, then restored and today I blocked the creator of it for undisclosed paid editing. In light of that, the article is definitely problematic, especially at the title of Gaurav Srivastava scandal where it was previously and so I have moved it to draft. It seems as if WP:BIO is met though, so we should have an article about them, but it needs a fundamental rewrite to make it a biography about a person and make it clear that the "scandal" is a based off various allegations rather than proven fact. SmartSE (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I also decided to blank it, but the previous version is here and I noticed there's another quarantined draft written by the other side in the dispute: Draft:Niels Troost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). SmartSE (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse Came across this while I was on the noticeboard. I had a quick look at this and all the news about him appears to be about the scandal. I will do some more research and see if there is what to add that can make an article about him more balanced. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smartse I haven't gotten round to this yet, but another editor just submitted a draft for review. Prima facie, it's suspicious that a editor who is 2 days old and made 13 edits worked on this page, especially given the origins of this article. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What's so suspicious about it? Everyone has to start somewhere. How many days did it take you to make your first edit? Joaquienstallfesh (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just reverted to the blanked version. I can't see the deleted version, but if the draftified version was either substantially the same or also an attack page, the new version should be deleted, not blanked. I suggest salting Gaurav Srivastava. That would still allow for creation of a draft via AfC. Draft:Niels Troost should probably at the very least be watchlisted by folks here. I'm not sure of the protocol, but Joaquienstallfesh should probably receive a BLP contentious topics notification for their re-expansion and submission of the very unbalanced Srivastava draft? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yngvadottir Thanks for being on top of this. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Gaurav Srivastava has been re-expanded by Joaquienstallfesh, the same editor whose expansion I had previously blanked. It still consists predominantly of "Controversies" (the rest of his career is subsumed within a top section that doesn't have a separate lead/intro), and includes a statement in wikivoice about certain publications being commonly used for reputation laundering, footnoted to a source where the closest statement appears to be a quote (and the source is a highly critical article). Again, I can't see the previously deleted version to compare the two. And I suppose it's possible that most reliable sources on this person are negative. (Search turns up mentions of the "scandal" at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee#Recipient of funds in the Gaurav Srivastava scandal, Tumblr, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act; but I see the article Gaurav Srivastava was deleted as promotion in 2013.) But as it stands, I believe it's too much of an attack article for us to just leave sitting in draft space. It should either be re-deleted and salted (not just blanked, given that it keeps getting recreated and re-expanded) or rewritten neutrally and then watched with hawk eyes. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, community. I don’t understand what the issue is with the article. I wrote about a personality who appeared in the media connected to intelligence operations and decided to create a bio about it. Why is the article being removed or deleted? How can I make it more neutral? Is it my fault that all the sources say negative things? It seems like you're using arbitrary criteria. Joaquienstallfesh (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yngvadottir @Smartse Could you reply to me? This way, we can all improve the article Joaquienstallfesh (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this guy meets the notability requirement for an article, but I also don't want us to just hand the UPEs what they want. I think we all need to take a step back and look at the sources available. That is, if someone is going to blank it again, at least keep the references worth keeping. I don't know of a reason out of hand to doubt the WSJ and Politico articles, or the Project Brazen material. The Fox article seems fine apart from the pot-shot at Biden. I'm not familiar with a lot of the other sources but I'm reluctant to just throw them out: they may be WP:BIASED, but they're not necessarily unreliable. Apocheir (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apocheir I think you hit the nail on the head in being concerned about handing the UPEs what they want, but when they're on both sides of this, it's becomes incredibly nuanced. It's clear someone doesn't like this guy ie the creation of the attack page, adding references to him/this incident on a bunch of other Wiki articles, the article rebooted just days after the attack page was taken down, etc
    But this doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist. As you mention, we need to be led by the sources and some of them are quite strong.
    I'm 100% with you. The only thing regarding any of this that I'm sure about, is that it's making my head spin! MaskedSinger (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaskedSinger @Apocheir can I then rewrite the article if my sources are reliable, as mentioned? Politico, WSJ, Fox—what else is needed? … On the other hand, maybe I can add more personal information. But I repeat, this person has many scandals linked to him. It's logical that there are negative connotations, but it's not an attack piece. Joaquienstallfesh (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joaquienstallfesh thanks for your question. I'm not in a position to answer as this is honestly way way way above my pay grade. And it's not about this article in isolation - everything is entangled - for instance, the fact that there is an active SPI investigation against you and you were found to have created a 2nd editor who added content pertaining to Gaurav Srivastava on a different article is not a good look. In fact, it's as bad as it gets.
    MaskedSinger (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yaakov Bender

    [edit]

    On Yaakov Bender and Yeshiva Darchei Torah, User:Filiperz wants to insert contentious material about Bender sourced to an Instagram post: [1], [2]. I and another editor have informed them on their talk page of the policies regarding WP:BLPs and WP:UGSs [3] [4], but they re-add the information each time it is reverted. Filiperz claims that the Instagram account posting the purported letter is "a legitimate non-profit" and "well respected" and therefore the post may be used in support of the contentious material on Wikipedia. Jfire (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted their latest addition of the material. Looks like User:Filiperz is a SPA that is hellbent on adding this content, since that is the bulk of their 26 edits. I will also leave them a CTOP notice. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about the public knowing about a rabbi who publicly supported a child predator. The instagram who published the court documents belongs to zaakah, an organization that publicizes abuse within the jewish community, you can find their organization here: https://www.zaakah.org/. They are funded by Survivors Networks of those Abused by Priests who even have their own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_Network_of_those_Abused_by_Priests.
    The reason there is not a more "legitimate source" is because Jewish newspapers do not want to cover these issues because it goes against power structure. Similar to how for decades it was difficult to talk about abuse in the catholic church. But it is not some random gossip instagram page. If the goal of wikipedia is to publicize knowledge and democratize information, it should not let the censoring of abuse victims get in the way. Filiperz (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The letter in question in no way excuses the abuse nor minimizes its severity. As a matter of fact, it acknowledges the congregant's guilt. The notion that the letter amounts to censoring of abuse victims is belied by the plain wording of the letter. It is the job of prosecutors to call for severe punishment for terrible crimes. It is the job of clergy to call for mercy, and they should not be pilloried for doing so. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ok then let's make it public knowledge that he asked for mercy for a man convicted of child rape. I'm not saying he is censoring victims, I'm saying the newspapers refusing to publish it or discuss it are. Filiperz (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our policy on BLPs is very clear - Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Instagram can not be used for claims about third parties. Find better sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ok sorry I got a little heated there. So if I could find a website that provided firsthand access to these court documents that would be ok? Filiperz (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't use primary sources like court documents. We use reliable 3rd party sources like newspapers, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the policy is "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary
    I believe a court case is an example of a primary source being reputably published Filiperz (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy - Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The fact you can't find any third party sources discussing this letter also indicates this content is not WP:DUE for inclusion.
    Since you joined Wikipedia, you have been a single-purpose account whose only edits have been pursuing this matter. You might think that Wikipedia is the place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. Please drop the stick, and find some other area of Wikipedia to edit. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Input requested in dispute at Vijay Thanigasalam

    [edit]

    There has been an editing dispute on this page between me and another user. I have since made changes while keeping his reference and using more neutral language, and have addressed other changes that he had reverted without reason in the talk page and tried to reach out to them on their user page but did not get a response.

    I am suspicious that the other user is editing to purposefully defame the subject of the article, since Thanigasalam is a Sri Lankan Civil war refugee and has become a prominent character in the Tamil community, and the user makes a lot of edits to the Sri Lankan Army/related pages, in addition to their user page describing themself as a "proud Sri Lankan".

    Partridgepentathalon (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    US Cabinet nominees being confirmed, but not sworn in 'til a later date

    [edit]

    I realize that sometimes it's roughly less than 24 hrs, between when a US cabinet member is confirmed (by the Senate) & then sworn in. But, we're still having problems with editors pre-maturely updating 'yet to be sworn in' cabinet members. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Current examples: Scott Bessent, Sean Duffy and related articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Berger

    [edit]

    Edward Berger Could you please advise user User:Laterthanyouthink to stop adding information stating that it is not clear whether Edward Berger has German citizenship or that other (incorrect) sources refer to him as German? Berger has explicitly stated in a reliable 2023 German language news source that I already quoted, cited and translated that he "is not German by passport" and that his citizenships are Swiss and Austrian. It's correct for the moment but the incorrect information was previously added back after I had already fixed it. I don't care about any other style fixes the user is doing, but that part should be left alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Berger&curid=48401919&diff=1272504317&oldid=1272503929newsjunkie (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Gulf of Mexico

    [edit]

    Erring on the side of caution and bringing this here because of WP:RVDEADNAME, I was reading the RfC at Talk:Gulf of Mexico and saw that one of the !votes currently deadnames and misgenders Elliot Page [5]--Emm90 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really an issue. The fist sentence of the article Elliot Page also "deadnames" Page, mentioning the name used when Page was first widely notable, and indeed for the majority of Page's life and career. Many of the sources used in the article use the prior name as well. "Ellen Page" is not a forbidden phrase or a taboo spell. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but the utilization in the Elliot Page article follows MOS:DEADNAME. That said, MOS:DEADNAME also says Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. As to the "forbidden phrase" or spell comment, just using the name "Ellen Page" isn't quite the same as deliberately misgendering him and using their deadname to try and prove a point on a completely unrelated discussion about a body of water, which is why I brought it here. Emm90 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Elliot Page is a well known case where he was notable under his former name, so using it briefly as part of context for a discussion of topic renaming in general doesn't seem like a major issue. If we were talking about a person whose DEADNAME was not well known, that would be a concern. Masem (t) 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a patently absurd support argument though which makes the invocation of the deadname borderline at best. I think the editor should be cautioned to be more cautious in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that plus using the pronoun "her" for Page looks tonedeaf at best and provocative at worst. That said, they have already been advised about this on their talkpage so hopefully will take this under advisement in future. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is concerning [6] - was it before or after they were warned? Also, not the right venue for this, but this is grossly uncivil. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did warn that editor after I saw the comment a few days ago, as did another editor. They removed the warnings but acknowledged them, and it has not been an issue since. The comment was poor, but considering Page had an entire career before transitioning, I don't think this rises to the level of a serious BLP violation for revision deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And all those comments were before I collapsed the discussion and warned everyone. See this edit summary; nobody has taken me up on my offer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This does makes me wonder, is there a guideline similar to MOS:DEADNAME but for non-BLP subjects? Something like that could help settle many of the article naming disputes e.g. Twitter/X, Denali/Mount McKinley, Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America, etc. Some1 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1:. Probably WP:COMMONNAME to start but WP:NAMECHANGES if its proved later to be used routinely. I know we had a similar issue over Port Elizabeth. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think having WP:DEADNAME cover non-BLP articles, would be a good idea. It's tricky enough for editors to be cautious on what they post in BLP discussions. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Justin Miller (attorney)

    [edit]

    This reads like a resume rather than a valuable resource. Not sure of the relevance in creating a whole page for him. Recommend deletion.

    Omar Harfouch

    [edit]

    Hi, I'm a contributor from WP:FR and over there we discovered that Omar Harfouch was paying at least one person to turn his article into a resume. This person - who admitted to its ties with the man - is also a major contributor ont the WP:EN version of the article, as well as other suspicious accounts.
    The article here on WP:EN seems to have the same major issues : lack of high-quality sources, twisting some sources to say what they don't, cherry-picking of informations, etc.
    Anyway, I just wanted to give you guys a heads up about this matter. Vaudreix (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's tagged with "major contributor". Please feel free to edit and clean up the article to be compliant with our policies and guidelines. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional input on adding reference to John Bercow

    [edit]

    John Bercow Not sure if this is the right place, but I was wondering if there could be additional input on whether it would be an appropriate citation to add as an additional reference a link to John Bercow's full Alternative Christmas Message speech (from either the Channel 4 network's official Facebook or Twitter page, the two places where it is available) in addition to a Guardian article about the speech (which does not include a full transcript or full video).newsjunkie (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Other editors have explained to Newsjunkie, both on the article talk page and at their own talk page, what a citation is and what it is not. This is as blatant a case of WP:IDHT as I've come across in a long time. If this does not stop now, a referral to WP:ANI remains the only option. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ali al-Sistani

    [edit]

    Both of these individuals have been recently described by Taha Danesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as Iranian, based on being born in Iran. Both have lived in Iraq for some time. Is it appropriate per MOS guidelines for the introduction to describe them as Iranian in the introduction of the articles? My concern is undue weight on their place of birth and the proximity of this claim of being Iranian to statements they have issued against outside interference in Iraqi politics. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How do RS refer to these individuals? --Malerooster (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this article by Sajad Jiyad, Ali al-Sistani retains his Iranian citizenship although he has lived in Iraq since 1951. He clearly has major political differences with the current government of Iran. Jiyad has written God’s Man in Iraq: The Life and Leadership of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani a well-reviewed biography published by The Century Foundation. I think the best solution is to mention his Iranian birth and citizenship and then immediately mention that he has spent his adult life in Iraq and has enormous political and religious influence in Iraq (and among Shiite Muslims worldwide). Cullen328 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His son Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani was born in Iraq, so I do not see why he should be described as Iranian in the lead sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes these are fights about Infoboxes and, to me, some of the listings in infoboxes are optional. In these article, mention where they were born and where they currently live but leave the "nationality" line in the infobox blank. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Cass_Review#Far_Right

    [edit]

    Notification of discussion, if anyone else wants to weigh in. If folks want, feel free to use that talk section, dont wanna try to follow discussion in multiple places at once. @Sweet6970 wanted to post here. Gonna just see if anyone else wants to weigh in, but currently see a 2 to 1 consensus that meetings between Hilary Cass and Florida government can be described as far-right. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit in question [7] operates as a smear that Dr Cass has connections to the far-right. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On January 28th, @User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist added the following text on the Cass Review page, about its author, Hilary Cass:

    Trans advocates have worried Cass was linked to broader far-right activism due to her alleged ties to a working group that harshly restricted transgender healthcare in Florida

    I reverted this citing WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPGOSSIP.

    In the ensuing talk discussion several editors swiftly called for reinstatement while a minority objected.

    User:Bluethricecreamman has now reinstated the original "far-right links" claim with the same sources, over the minority objections, citing WP:PUBLICFIGURE

    I would appreciate an impartial assessment of this debate from someone not normally involved in this contentious area, rather than a retread of the same arguments from the same contributors.

    Tagging all involved: @User:Sweet6970, @User:Barnards.tar.gz @User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist, @User:Bluethricecreamman, @User:HenrikHolen, @User:Bejakyo, @User:Lewisguile, @User:Simonm223, @User:LunaHasArrived, User:Snokalok Void if removed (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your pings did not work. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The RS cited for the claim explicitly states Some trans advocates expressed concern that the Cass Review was linked to broader far-right activism, especially from the U.S., in part due to Cass’ alleged ties to the working group that helped establish harsh care restrictions in Florida in 2022.[8]
    2) Medical organizations have also criticized Cass working with anti-trans activists - here is the PATHA (new zealand's trans health org) statement: The final Cass Review did not include trans or non-binary experts or clinicians experienced in providing gender affirming care in its decision-making, conclusions, or findings. Instead, a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice.[9] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend starting an RfC. Some1 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - I don't particularly want to start an RFC - the numbers on the page as it stands are obvious and entrenched. I'm hoping to solicit outside advice and input on interpretation of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPSTYLE with these sources, outside of what is quite a polarised discussion. Void if removed (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a BLP concern in addition to the very poor quality of the sourcing. Based on the poor quality sourcing (discussed at RSN) the material is UNDUE for inclusion. The BLP nature of the addition is a second policy based reason for removal. It's a gossipy smear that attacks Cass as an individual. Springee (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: Thank you for your comment here. The main discussion is at the Talk page of the Cass Review. I suggest you also add your comment there. Talk:Cass Review. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed

    [edit]

    Smallbones and I frequently disagree on just about everything, so it would be advisable for editors more experienced than myself to review Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed and its compliance to BLP policy (and legal considerations) in the Signpost newsroom: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom § 21:02 Op-ed. Svampesky (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fadlo R. Khuri

    [edit]

    There's some edit warring going on here. I've blocked some editors and used page protection, but this article is not really on a subject that I have much experience with. Some extra eyes and/or advice on how to handle this situation would be welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Karla_Sofía_Gascón

    [edit]

    Trans woman who played role in controversial movie Emilia Pérez.

    • some talk about whether inclusion of her deadname should be allowed.
    • some talk about recent controversy regarding controversial tweets she previously posted
    • some talk about how to refer to her explicitly trans character in the movie article Emilia Pérez (to call the drug cartel leader with old pronouns before the transition).

    More eyes would be nice, not really sure how to parse through it all. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Borgwardt infobox image

    [edit]

    Ryan Borgwardt is a newly created article which probably meets WP:BIO. The mugshot of Borgwardt being used for primary identification purposes, however, seems to be a problem per WP:MUG in addition to the non-free issues associated with WP:FREER. Borgwardt is apparently currently out on bail (for USD 500 it seems) and is still awaiting trial. Given that he's yet to have been convicted of any crime, seems to only have been charged with obstruction of a "officer" (police officer?), and is facing only a USD 10,000 fine and nine-months in jail, the use of a mug shot in a Wikipedia article about him (in the infobox or otherwise) seem to be really pushing things WP:BLP-wise. My guess is that the file is going to end up being deleted as "replaceble non-free use" in a few days per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and WP:F7, but the file should be removed even before then, So, I've removed it for that reason so that it can be discussed here. The file will be tagged as orphaned non-free use per WP:F5, but it won't be deleted for that reason for five days; so, it will either be deleted before than per F7, or a consensus about its BLP issues will be resolved by that time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this article is a good idea per WP:SUSTAINED, but time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come to no firm conclusions as to whether or not this living person is notable but I certainly have my doubts. I think that the mugshot even if properly licensed creates an unacceptable impression or implication of guilt and therefore I oppose the inclusion of the mugshot at this time. I might reconsider if his notability is firmly established and he ends up getting convicted. Cullen328 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not at all sure there should be an article here, but I certainly agree that using the mugshot is inappropriate, particularly since there's another picture included in the article, so we have an alternative. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other picture being used in the article has WP:FREER issues and will likely be deleted in a few days. In fact, any non-free image of Borgwardt would also likely be considered "replaceable non-free use" regardless of the whether its a mugshot like this or photo found on social media. It's likely that only a image of him licensed as public domain or under an acceptable Creative Commons license can be used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Invader (artist)

    [edit]

    I just reverted an edit that had restored a name for this pseudonymous artist. I removed one blogspace source, but I don't speak French and don't want to trust google translations on how confident the other 2 references are in naming an actual person. Can someone verify if these sources are valid for naming the artist or are they just speculating? I did see the name on one after reverting and before hitting the paywall, but would appreciate a double check on a BLP related article. --Onorem (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Le Parisien and Le Progrès are newspapers, so they appear to be reliable sources. And his real name doesn't appear to be a big secret, I found his name in Le Monde in an article dated July 2019, and in Welt am Sonntag (June 2021), and in The Straits Times (February 2020), and in Die Presse (August 2021), in The Times (February 2020) -- A Mona Lisa made out of nearly 300 Rubik's Cubes has sold for 480,000, breaking the record price for a work by the French street artist Franck Slama. Slama, who works under the name Invader, has styled himself the founder of "Rubikcubism", Agence France-Presse (February 2020), and even in American newspapers like Poughkeepsie Journal from June 2022. So it appears his real name has been reported in reliable sources for several years. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly looks like enough to cite his name. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    There's a lot going on at Department of Government Efficiency which could do with the attention of BLP aware editors. Notably we now have articles on Edward Coristine, Luke Farritor, Gavin Kliger, and Ethan Shaotran all of who seem to be ~19-24 year olds with a recently appointed very controversial high level role on the US federal government. Most of them were probably non-notable before now. (For clarity I'm not saying they are notable now.) We lack articles on Akash Bobba and Gautier Cole Killian but they're also mentioned. There are other people named both non-notable or at least lacking articles (which could change) and notable but these are IMO the most significant given various factors but especially the ages. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: Am I missing something? ~19-24 year olds are all adults so what is the age factor here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what Nil Einne might be getting at is all of these people have not be officially appointed to any US government post as might typically be expected for someone in their position, but rather seems to be more of a "private", "out-of-the-box" type of hiring and are receiving coverage at the moment precisely because of their ages and because of the way they've been brought into DOGE. For the most part, their Wikipedia notability seems to be entirely a WP:BLP1E type of thing, and probably a redirect to the main article about DOGE is in order. Of course, that's probably not a discussion for this noticeboard per se and better off taking place on their talk pages or at AfD, but the BLP concern could be that lots of WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NOTHERE type of content might start being added to their respective articles by those on both sides of the issue, and thus more eyes on the articles could help keep that under control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just that though. While they are not minors and I intentionally avoided using any word to describe them to avoid controversy, it's generally accepted that people that young often still lack the maturity to thorough comprehend all they're doing and therefore should not necessarily be treated the same as a 40 year old who chose to do the same thing. In fact, since we're talking about the US here, I'd note that some of then still can't even legally drink alcohol and none of them could run for any elected federal office (with the possible exception of DC stuff). I don't think I'm the only one to feel that way since Wired seemed to initially refuse to name some of them because of their ages [10] although did later changed their mind [11] But also it adds to the question of what our articles will cover. All of them seem to have done some stuff besides attending school. Still most of the time if someone has just graduated high school last year there's very little to cover. While there's no guarantee that someone older will have more, still they often will at least have more career history. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're saying and apologize if I misrepresented you. At the same time, though, Wikipedia articles can be written about a person of any age if they meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and whether the subjects are Wikipedia notable outside of DOGE is probably something for discussion either on their respective article talk pages or at AfD. If you're arguing WP:BLPNAMES somehow applies here, then I don't see how that takes precedence over WP:N. Similarly, if you're arguing WP:BIO1E or WP:BIOSPECIAL here, then again that's probably a discussion for the articles' talk pages of AfD. I don't believe BLPN is the best place to try and hash out whether someone is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written. Ultimately, that decision is more for suited for AfD than here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only exceptions we have are for children, we don't have any policy or guideline that would let us treat a 19 year old differently than a 79 year old. You're also wrong about the drinking age in the United States, there are certainly places in the US where 18-21 can drink. What I find odd is that we have articles for 19-24 year old criminals all the time and I've never seen you make this argument. Do you make this argument consistantly or only when its a hotbutton issue in US politics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Barring any other actions, I think BLP1E applies (only notable for being part of this agency), and thus should not have articles, and there's even a question for the need to name them from a WP perspective (fundamentally not encyclopedic information at this point, outside that they are all young adults) I understand why their names are been repeated on every other forum but that doesn't need to be done here. — Masem (t) 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have articles for thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are only notable for being part of a government agency... Thats not the same thing as only being notable for an event... Being part of a government agency is not an event. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the administrative head of such agencies leads to significant coverage of what they have done prior as well as actions while leading the agency. Being a subordinate rarely has the same type of latter coverage. We are also talking a burst of news coverage here (alongside grassroots efforts to know more about these people) which means we have no idea about the long term aspects of notability. Thus, it is far better per "minimize harm" to not have full articles on these otherwise non notable individuals, much less name them. We can talk about them and their actions as a group without names, since none of the coverage I've seen specifically has called out the actions of one named individual in recent events, just Musk and his doge team as a broad term. — Masem (t) 19:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That goes well beyond the expectations that we minimize harm into censorship, these figures are receiving more in-depth international coverage than any of the administrative heads unless I'm missing something. I don't understand why you would want to rush to deletion, that is the opposite of what we are instructed to do. Also just because you have no seen it doesn't mean that the coverage doesn't exist: [12] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is basically name dropping the person as part of a broader discussion of Musk's activities. I am not ignoring that there is reliable sourced discussion of these individuals and what best we know about them, but for all of them, they have had a non notable background and are only being identified because of what doge is doing. This is almost falling into the sane rationals we use around BLPCRIME or VICTIM, in that it is the event (what doge is doing) that is notable, not the people involved, and thus we should avoid excessive details about otherwise non public people.
    And while I am sure there are editors here extremely upset at what is going on, we should be very careful of ignoring strong policies like BLP to engage in the grassroots efforts to fight back. That's just not appropriate ever, andis a long standing problem in the AP area among others. This is an extension of trying to make WP participate when we shouldn't be. — Masem (t) 19:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It meets your standard of "called out the actions of one named individual in recent events" so to now pivot to that basically being namedropping seems disingenuous... It doesn't fall into the same rationals we use around BLPCRIME or VICTIM. You also seem to be casting aspersions against me, implying that my opinion is only based on political bias (especially when I'm actually in the trenches fighting the BLP fight on this one, see Talk:Gavin Kliger#BLP). That is very rude, please don't do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the article and basically doesn't say anything more than he appears to be doing what doge wants him to be doing. Also, importantly, these are all claims, there has been no verification exactly what role they have or what they've done, making the BLP CRIME aspect even a greater concern
    And I am calling out on edits that appear to try to overly back grassroots efforts to out these people. We never should be doing that, at least until we can establish notability of the individuals via enduring coverage. Doing these types of edits is what leads to massive POV issues is many AP articles. The editors may seem to be "correct" because they are coming from RSes, but they are also not consistent with policy and guidelines, particularly RECENTISM. Calling out the use of a daily fail link is all good and all but I think the bigger picture of being an encyclopedia is being missed in all this. — Masem (t) 19:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What BLP CRIME aspect? And note that if you are intertested in consistancy with recentism... "Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the broad sense, we are treating them as "guilty" of getting into these systems without proven evidence of that. That is, just as we are not support to treat BLP guilty of a crime simply because they have been accused of it, we should be careful of putting undo attention on individuals that have been claimed to have taken actioned deemed questionable, when what actually has happened still remains a big question mark. — Masem (t) 19:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confusing me, either there is a BLPCRIME aspect or there is not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ┌───────────────────────────┘
    I an saying that the same reason we practice BLPCRIME is why we should take the same approach with dealing with these non notable individuals that have had accusations of questionable activities that many fine egregious, do not jump to conclusions and avoid bring non public figures into the limelight until more information can be independently confirmed. To be clear I am not saying BLPCRIME explicitly applies here, but the same shape of thought of why we have BLPCRIME in the context of BLP (in our care of handling non public figures) applies here. — Masem (t) 19:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you've walked it back, it was an absurd statement (this 2+2=5 act isn't much less absurd either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be clear that I in no way was trying to say these individuals committed any crime, only that the nature of why we document BLPCRIME to avoid excessive coverage of non public individuals accused of actual crimes should also extend to non public individuals accussed of highly disliked actions (in this case, doing what doge told them to do). It's part of the general problem that as a volunteer work, editors will heavily focus on the negative particularly if that's seemingly back by RSes without caring for NPOV and RECENTISM issues among other concerns like BLP. Things like BLPCRIME are aimed to make editors think along the long term implications of what they add. — Masem (t) 20:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What editors specifically are you casting these allegations against? RodRabelo7 is the primary author of all of these articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the author of none of the articles. I just created their redirects. Please be careful with your words, and make sure to ping me if you mention my name ever again. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I apologize, you are the creator not the primary author but on the other hand you've done more than just create redirects. If you are involved in the discussion I will not be pinging you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors in the very broad sense, and it's just an observation of how articles often get developed (eg my experience in video game coverage shows that as soon as as a user complaint is documented in a reliable source, editors tend to rush to add it. And that's behavior I've seen replicated in other topic areas) my comments are about this general problem on WP and why we have policies like BLP and NPOV to try to discourage that editing practice — Masem (t) 20:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only people I see not caring about RECENTISM are those pushing to hold contentious deletion discussions... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agree they are technically adults who are WP:PUBLICFIGURES if there is enduring coverage.
    also agree WP:BLP1E applies... if DOGE and the craziness in the first few weeks of Trump 2.0 is all they are notable for, mentioning them is def not due. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the articles of those DOGE "kids" all seem like BLP vios in general, BLP1E suggests deletion. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. The ones with articles are notable not simply because of DOGE. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E has three criteria, can you explain how all of these subjects meet all three criteria? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them? Take Luke Farritor for instance. He "won a $250,000 prize from the Vesuvius Challenge for using artificial intelligence to decipher one of the Herculaneum Papyri scrolls". I'd say he was notable even before 20 January. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    he sounds somewhat notable enough to pass blp1e at least User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    they are famous for the first few weeks of the trump admin only.
    2) The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual before this, being a worker for musk wasn't notable. when this is over, its highly likely they will fade into obscurity.
    3) The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented That they are elon's lieutenants is like being a gear in a machine. necessary, but not that important, musk has enough crazed fans to recruit from.
    some of these articles go into uncomfortable detail, like what some of these folks twitter or linkedin handles are. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being low profile and being non-notable aren't the same thing, Gavin Kliger for example has a public policy blog so can't be argued to be low profile. A lieutenant plays a substantial role (and in this case a well documented one). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD notification

    [edit]

    see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Coristine#Edward_Coristine User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bluethricecreamman: if you're going to ignore WP:RECENTISM can you at least break them up into individual discussions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    could you explain?
    generally, seems all three of these i nominated are notable only for being part of DOGE. seems reasonable to combine them all into one AfD. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Combined AfDs should be avoided unless there are simply too many of them to effectively evaluate seperatly or when the coverage of all the subjects entirely overlaps. Neither is the case here. You also know this from the discussion above where you learned that at least one of the three wasn't low profile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of David Maland

    [edit]

    Can people please take a look at Killing of David Maland and do whatever is necessary to keep it in line with WP:SUSPECT? I´ve tried to clean it up a few times, to no avail. There also may be a deadnaming issue of the dead suspect. Fram (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    C. Nicole Mason (living person) defamatory information and abuse

    [edit]

    William M. Connelly has inserted false and defamatory information regarding C. Nicole Mason (living person) on at least two occasions (2/5/25 and 10/24). She resigned from her role at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightwords99 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It was neither false nor defamatory, as would have been clear if you'd simply checked the source, written by a law professor and quoting a judicial ruling that "In January 2023 ... IWPR's Board fired Dr. Mason." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gus Johnson

    [edit]

    Libellous information has been added to the Gus Johnson page, and then locked, stopping it from being edited.

    The allegations against Johnson by his ex-girlfriend have since been proven in high-profile investigative pieces to have been highly exaggerated. 2A00:23C7:F930:BF01:EC05:6C9:D9E8:12F7 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be referring to Gus Johnson (comedian), and the 'investigative pieces" appear to be YouTube videos. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC at Kash Patel

    [edit]

    There is an RFC at Talk:Kash Patel#RfC: Whether to call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence that deals with labeling a BLP in the first sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1274337885"