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.

Gavin Wood

• Gavin Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! In the article Gavin Wood, a founder of Etherium, there's a controversy section discussing a blog post he made in 2013 (which he acknowledged writing but claimed was fiction). One source is Buzzfeed News, which is fair enough, and another is Business Insider, but the rest are crytocurrency news sites which I have no idea how to evaluate in regard to BLPs. Thus I was wondering if there were any thoughts in regard to their use in the BLP. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

An 18yo guy wrote a fantasy blog involving sex with an underage girl. There is no suggestion it was anything more than bad-taste fiction, and the author deleted the blog post after internet outrage. Now enthusiasts can use Wikipedia to right great wrongs by keeping the outrage alive. An argument could be made for a very brief sentence with the 2018 BuzzFeed article as a reference. However, the current detail and Controversies section are totally WP:UNDUE. The issue might be DUE if a reliable source explained how the incident had a significant and long-lasting impact on the subject. At the moment, the issue is that a successful tech entrepreneur has made a lot of money in an area (cryptocurrency) where there are a lot of opponents who would like to amplify Gavin Wood's problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use any of those crytpo sources, BLP is very clear that we must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Those are not suitable for a BLP. And I wouldn't use WP:BUSINESSINSIDER in a BLP either, as I don't see it as a high-quality source, which only leaves WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS. So, with only one source remaining, I think it's reasonable to argue that an entire section is UNDUE as well.

And on another note, I am appalled by the personal attacks and aspersions against Bilby made by Lustigermutiger21, seen here, here, here and here. Granted, they have been warned, but I'm not convinced by any of their responses that they fully understand how totally unacceptable those comments are. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The listed material seems more like cheap gossip to me and I'd agree their inclusion is undue, and I also think the insults levied against the editor above are completely unnecessary to the point of administrator involvement. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the comments, in that I would block if used against another editor, but I'm considering it closed in relation to me. If it starts again against anyone there is only one possible outcome.

I was unsure re WP:DUE, which is why I initially trimmed it back. [1] But once you start including some, you need to include a bit more - mostly that the post was rapidly taken down and that there was an apology. But if it is deemed undue I'm completely ok with that, and I'm ok with not covering it if the only viable source is buzzfeed news. Crypto isn;t an rea I usually touch in any regard. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I am worried they don't fully understand how totally inappropriate those comments are. They didn't even acknowledge those comments were personal attacks, apologize for them or retract them by striking them out. That is unacceptable. In my view, if they don't fully understand what they did was wrong, now, in the first instance, then they should be formally warned by an admin that they will be blocked if it happens again. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources I have given are, in my opinion, reliable and the topic is relevant. I have acted in good faith to expand the article with a relevant event in Wood's life. My statements against @Bilby were not personal attacks but were made in the heat of the moment because the subject is very sensitive. The sensitive topic, the media interest, the publications and the outcry that followed in the crypto community are, in my opinion, reason enough for the controversial section. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lustigermutiger21 - No, your comments about Bilby were personal attacks; you made derogatory comments about an editor, as the diffs above clearly demonstrate. And the fact you don't fully understand that is problematic. You were advised to remove the attacks, and you haven't. Will you retract all of those attacks by striking them out? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I had no intention of attacking anyone personally and I apologize to @Bilbyif it came across that way. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lustigermutiger21, those were definitely personal attacks, and you should strike them as has been recommended by other editors. – notwally (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this material is probably undue if the only reliable source is BuzzFeed News. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – notwally (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I consider BuzzFeed and Business Insider as reliable sources for the "Controversy" section and would like to highlight the fact, that the article has bunch of unreliable sources backing other sections. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Matt Morgan

Details added to the Career/Radio section, citing an article from September 2023, regarding an ongoing legal issue involving Russell Brand should be removed as per this government guide advisory notice: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/media-advisory-notice-russell-brand 37.228.204.18 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean Matt Morgan (comedian)? Wikipedia is not subject to UK law but even so I can't see anything currently in that section of the article that is improperly sourced. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A WikiProject people watching this page may be interested in

Hello folks. I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I started a recent discussion there as well. Given that this has implications for BLPs more broadly, I figured it wasn't entirely inappropriate to leave a comment here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:MrBeast

In the talk page there is frequent discussion of adding serious allegations to the article of criminal conduct without reliable sources based on the belief that the allegations are true, including through refrences to self-published youtube videos not made by the youtuber in question, analysis of primary sources and of poor secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalcola (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

all that is appropriate to add is that theres a controversy, not that mrbeast is somehow complicit beyond what is objectively true and reported NotQualified (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson

• Kris Kristofferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello there. Additional opinions might be needed on the Kris Kristofferson article regarding his 2016 Lyme disease diagnosis. The current discussion can be found at Talk:Kris Kristofferson#Lyme Disease - revisited. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Since no one's responded, I go ahead and give you my two cents. This isn't really a BLP issue as much as it's an NPOV issue. Now, if it were a case of people speculating someone had a disease, it'd be a different story. For example, if we tried to put in his article that so-and-so said, "Biden's poor performance in the debate was the result of mental illness." that would be a big no-no per BLP policy. In this case, the source of the information is the subject himself, which the article makes clear, so we can simply take that for what it's worth. Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it a misdiagnosis? Doesn't matter. It is simply what he said.

The bigger question is: is it DUE? We have one source, Rolling Stone. The other two sources are simply regurgitating the Rolling Stone article, which they freely admit. (This is a reliable source's way of saying, "We're not taking any credit or blame for this. We didn't do any fact checking. This is all on them.) Is this one source enough to show that this is due weight, or is it just trivia?

One thing that strikes me is how very little this tells us about the subject. As someone who's never heard of him before (yes, I've been living under a rock... rock n' roll) the sentence in question made little sense until I read the sources. Without knowing any of the background info, I was like, so? Who cares? People get lyme disease, so what? It wasn't until I got the background information that it began to show some significance in his life, and this is what's missing for the average reader to be able to understand. When we summarize a source, we need to summarize the whole source, not simply pick parts of it and leave the significance of it all a mystery. Of course, if we do that it might make it even more undue given the lack of independent sources.

The one thing that really stands out is the next sentence, and I quote, "Noting that the diagnosis was facilitated by an alternative medicine doctor, David Gorski commented that Kristofferson had become a victim of chronic Lyme disease quackery." That one is poorly written in that it could have several different meanings, depending on how you look at it. Is this Gorski his alternative medicine doctor? Why use the word facilitated? People don't talk like that except when they're trying to sound smarter than they really are. Does this mean he was diagnosed by an alternative medicine doc, or that an alternative doctor passed along this info from another doctor? What is "lyme disease quackery"? Does this Gorski think that lyme disease is not real? (Please, God, don't tell me you expect me to click the links to find out, because that ain't happening.) This really reads like it was tacked on by a lyme-disease denier in order to make some vague point known only to themselves. but all of it is lacking any of the necessary background info needed to make it understandable and significant to people who don't already know it, that is, the average reader like me. Not to mention "quackery" is a colloquialism and shouldn't be used in formal writing. Oh, and the source is both a blog and an opinion piece.

To sum it up, I see no BLP violation here, but y'all need to have some serious discussion on the talk page regarding NPOV, due weight, and wording. We should only include information that shows some significant impact on his life and career, but we also need to convey that significance to the reader. Otherwise it's pointless. Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• The trouble is there's lyme disease (the all-too-real thing) and "lyme disease" (sometimes also called "chronic lyme disease", a made up disease which often "diagnosed" as part of a medical fraud in which the fraudster can then sell lucrative unnecessary treatments). In the latter case, often the victim will believe some deep underlying problem in their body has been found and evangelize for the very quackery they've fallen prey to but which "conventional medicine could not find". Don't know about this particular case but Wikipedia needs to make damn sure it's not mixing things up. WP:SBM is a generally reliable source, particularly on medical fraud. Bon courage (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but only after reading the sources. It wasn't clear at all from reading our article, in fact, I had to read that sentence a few times before it began to make a little sense. And I would have had to go down a couple of rabbit holes to really understand it, which I really hate having to do. The sentence itself needs to be rewritten; gaps need to be filled and questions answered. But I still don't know if any of it is DUE. Has the subject gone off on some campaign to promote this, or is it just this one interview? I mean, it's always good to try and debunk some quackery, but that also has a WP:Don't stuff beans up your nose effect. Often it's better to give such things less weight, not more, unless there's a much deeper story and public interest in it. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

92.233.82.113 is the forth troll account that has griefed his talk page / article this month. tommy has now been called, without proof, 'an international terrorist', 'self-proclaimed nazi', and more. someone even demanded publishing videos of child porn in order to confirm he combatted grooming gangs, which is obviously absurd and bad faith trolling. this repeated defamation in such a short notice mandates a raise in protection for his page. NotQualified (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for page protection can be placed at WP:RPP. Note for any looking on, it's Tommy Robinson (activist) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't usually protect talk pages (the article has been semi-protected for months). I hardly think that an IP describing a video that makes false allegations regarding a teenager, and which was screened in violation of a court order and means that Yaxley-Lennon* now has an arrest warrant out for him, as "shite" is a major issue. * "Robinson"'s real name Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

it's the international terrorist, and nazi claims that mainly concern me. not 'shite' NotQualified (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but page protection will make it so all IP (and some non-IP) users cannot edit on Talk page, and some have been making honest attempts to contribute there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

thats why we dont usuallt just make protections, this page is being griefed too much and tol badly NotQualified (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like that much; you're saying four times in a month? And looking at the talk page in question, the "terrorist" claim wasn't this month, but last. If you wish to remove that from the discussion, that is something that can be deleted under WP:BLPTALK. I see that a few comments this month were deleted under WP:NOTAFORUM, which may apply to some (but only some) of what you're concerned about. In any case, this is not the page that can grant you page protection. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew McManus

I would appreciate it were an editor with experience in BLP issues to take a look at Andrew McManus, to which I was drawn by a reference error (now fixed). McManus is a music promoter, and I would judge is likely notable. A large part of the article comprises criticism of his business practices, based mostly on a single article published in The Sydney Morning Herald, an Australian tabloid, and I suspect that the article may have seen COI editing by people who have lost out as a consequence of the failure of McManus' companies. I am unsure how to proceed – probably some discussion of the legal issues is appropriate, but the article as it stands is close to being a candidate for G10. Thanks in advance, Wham2001 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

While I have no comments on the article and deletion, just a note that The Sydney Morning Herald shouldn't be called a tabloid. Yes it publishes in tabloid format (nowadays?) but it's not tabloid journalism which is what matters to BLP. In fact, AFAIK despite suffering (as with many sources) from an increase in sensationalism and with more focus on entertainment as many news sources have done to try and survive in the modern media landscape it's still generally considered one of the best Australian news source considering the dominance of Murdoch media there. See WP:RSPS and previous WP:RSN discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The Sydney Morning Herald is tabloid in size, not journalistic style (in common with many other newspapers in Australia / New Zealand which have changed from broadsheet to tabloid size in the last 20 years). It's Sydney's newspaper of record and up there with other former broadsheets such as (in NZ) the NZ Herald, the Post and the Press.

As for the content, it could do with a prune (we don't need to know about all the article subject's failed business ventures) maybe limit them to ones that have ended up in court. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've pruned a couple of sections of excessive trivia or peripheral involvement and will leave it to the BLP experts for further work. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies should be summarized, we don't need to know insignificant details like the room number of the hotel or that it was a "5-star Hilton Hotel" or what Owen Hanson has been described as. In my view, it is wildly UNDUE and some sections also suffer from excessive bolding. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Imane Khelif is a woman by birth and chosen identity. People have edited her page to change pronouns to ‘he’ because they believe she is trans (she is not) and they are transphobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:240:2C60:B54C:129F:5FFB:C570 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this is working itself out on the talk page and the current version of the article looks OK to me. The article is also semied. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been ECP'd because of speculation edit warring. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a comic strip that an editor User:Wehpudicabok is intent on repeatedly adding a paragraph[2] of negative opinions about the artist's mental health that is sourced to a single unreliable self-published blog. Talk page discussion I've started at [3] seems to be going nowhere and I'm about to hit my third revert. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The section as it was written on Wikipedia was entirely about the comic, not its creator. Admittedly, part of it was sourced to Kleefeld talking about the artist, not the comic; I removed that portion. The portion that is about the comic itself should stay, as it's the result of community consensus, as I have repeatedly mentioned (and been persistently ignored about). Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See here for some background and the consensus for the current (as I type this) version of the disputed text. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good news: Talk page discussion has resulted in removal of about half of the BLP material sourced to a self-published blog,[4]. However, bad news, there is a continued effort to now take a portion of the blog post saying the artist is allegedly "on a downward spiral [from] nerd [to] extremist" and insert that in the article as instead a passage about the artist's work rather than the artist themself. I've just removed it again.[5] I'd rather be editing other things, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You have put words in quotation marks that are not in the post being used as a source; it actually says "To quote Ryan Broderick, who wrote a summary of everything you need to know about Ishida and the downward spiral of Sinfest not long after Kaella's thread ...," which is unambiguously a statement about the downward spiral of the comic strip. I don't know where your not-a-quote comes from. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I finally figured it out: your "[from]" replaces one sentence of Kleefeld plus four sentences of something that Kleefeld is quoting; "nerd" and "extremist" are then words not of Kleefeld's but from the end of the quote. This is rather misleading! You are correct that Broderick's comments about Ishida, as quoted by Kleefeld are not usable in WP; luckily, no one seems to have been using them, and the assertion that Sinfest has experienced a downward spiral is manifestly not a comment about Ishida (neither in our article nor in Kleefeld's article). I see that at least four or five other people have made this point on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go to the article talk page and address the points made there that the contested content is a description of the comic's themes, not of the author (about whom little is known).Daveosaurus (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Apostol Tnokovski

The page of Apostol Tnokovski should be deleted because:

1. There isn't enough independent coverage to pass the General notability guideline.
2. It is very poorly sourced. Some sources can't be verified, others are broken links, and the ones that work are from small blogs with no authority on the subject.

This is a self promotion page from an aspiring designer. A simple Google search shows that his designs have never been turned into products for him to be considered a Product Designer as the opening line suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar.pm (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than here, as this is a page for handling issues related to how to cover living persons, not whether to have articles on them at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Taral Wayne

Many sources are adding content to Taral Wayne claiming the subject has died. However, I have yet to find a reliable source claiming as such. So far it's just social media posts or fan-created content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

List of intersex Olympians

There is no RS confirming that Imane Khelif is anything but a cisgendered woman. Including her in the article is highly misleading and inappropriate. It needs to be removed until we have consensus for otherwise

• @Zenomonoz:--Trade (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The referencing for at least one of the other entries is not what I would expect for a BLP matter. Red Fiona (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa, Talk:Jason Momoa, Lisa Bonet, and possibly other pages

For some time now, a mostly dynamic IP user has been trying to add information about Jason Momoa having a new wife. I'm not sure how to describe this situation without violating WP:NPA. If this fantasy relationship exists, no reliable source has ever mentioned it. Page protection is simple, but what can we do about the multiple nonsense edit requests? --Onorem (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:RFPP Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa is about 30 days into 90 day semi-protection. Where is the recent disruption occurring? Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple edit requests/comments (4 at Talk:Adria Arjona and 13 at Talk:Jason Momoa yesterday) demanding that wikipedia be updated to say that Nicolle A. Morea is Momoa's wife. The attempts to add that name to Momoa's article began last September. This is the obsessive fantasy of a person in Germany. Her "source" is her post on Medium which explains the "sign" that Momoa has given in a photograph to validate her fantasy so that the "relationship" can be updated on wikipedia. Short of a project-wide edit filter blocking edits that include the name "Nicolle A. Morea", I don't know what else can be done to tamp this down. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the person in question isn't notable, I don't see why that couldn't be done. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Southasiapress

[6] What is the reliability of this source and the news site overall for exceptional claims being made about deaths squads and human rights violations? Other than being a non notable source, it also appears to be an op-ed and questionable source making claims about multiple living people allegedly running death squads Axedd (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The best place to post this inquiry is probably WP:RSN. Once a threshold determination is made on reliability, it's easier to apply that consensus to relevant WP:BLP content. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB and Associated Press as a RS

Since it involves BLP policy, wanted to post a notice here as well for the discussion at RSN regarding the reliability of AP for famous birthdays.

Awshort (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Using names in 2024 Southport stabbing

Could those here familiar with WP:BLP policy please take a look at ongoing discussions at Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Suspect's name, Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Organisers' names, Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Victims' names, and Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Should we name the accused?, to help with policy guidance/arguments. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP issue at History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

As happens with a lot of these lists of crime articles, there are some BLP issues with BLPCRIME and lack of sourcing for perpetrators. Additional eyes would be welcome. Currently there is an attempt to add a name without any evidence of conviction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Only the perp's name needed removed (so I did that). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This absolutely did not warrant a discussion about this, ScottishFinnishRadish. I have stated before and I will state again, you really should read LGBT and Wikipedia. Thank you, EvergreenFir. 9t5 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@9t5: While we have to ensure our coverage of LGBT issues is good, in no way shape or form can this override BLP. And sorry but any editor who thinks it does should voluntarily desist from editing anything concerning living persons or they should expect to be topic banned. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not acceptable on the English wikipedia and it's especially not acceptable when it comes at the expense of BLP. Note while I won't give a formal alert for contentious topics, BLP and gender and sexuality are both contentious topic areas meaning editors need to be on their best behaviour. Treating BLP as being overriden by some desire to fix problems perceived with the world or wikipedia, is most definitely not that. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, while I'm not opposed to EvergreenFir's fix, BLP definitely means that if there are no or insufficient sources for any of the names, removing the entire entry is preferable to leaving it in. Any editor who reverts to keep the material without fixing it is solely at fault for the BLP violation that results. (To be clear, the editor who introduced this change is also at fault for their violation, but their violation doesn't excuse any editor also violating BLP by reverting an attempt to fix the problem.) While it might have been better ScottishFinnishRadish to implement the same fix, their actions were perfectly reasonable especially since such lists are always very tricky since it's unlikely that the list should have every single alleged act of violence that is reported in one or two sources so it's an open question what level of coverage we require before including an entry. (Frankly I hate lists of non notable cases.) This case happened long enough ago that sustained coverage should be demonstrable by now, so if it can't be, I think there's a good question if it belongs. Note that while removing the name reduces the harm to the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator, it doesn't actually eliminate it. Early reports can sometimes be misleading or incorrect, and of course the details of crimes can be disputed, and it is imperative we don't claim stuff happened in wikivoice when there is dispute. Note also we have to consider any living victims, which applies to the victim in this case. It seems the victim in this case voluntarily put their name out there which reduces concerns, still we need to remember victims may sometimes do stuff they later come to regret, so we do at a minimum need reliable secondary source coverage before including it and I only found this on IIRC the fourth source so it's easy to see it can be missed. More to the point, my earlier commentary comes into play, being fair to the alleged perpetrator means we may have to report any dispute over what happened, especially if it was never resolved e.g. via a legal case which can affect victims. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

When editing via desktop-on-mobile it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to edit a large section in the source editor, so sometimes a revert is the best tool available to deal with blatant BLPvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The current listing of every crime against LGBT ever done does not serve the purpose of being an encyclopedia. IDK about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but listing like this makes the page less informative and likely buries the gist of info for folks looking into the history of LGBT violence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It took me about two minutes to spot a gross violation of WP:BLP policy in that list. [7] There are undoubtedly more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot sourced to a defunct LGBT hate crimes wiki, too. I spot checked a few, and luckily that wiki has decent sourcing. The whole thing needs a thorough check, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I found three more blatant violations, in less than 10 minutes. The article is a disgrace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested on the talk page that the list be pruned down to Wikipedia-notable events and people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A list article full of non-notable examples of anything is mostly meaningless. Worse about people. Worst about crime. The article could benefit from either WP:TNT or a re-write with a more constrained scope. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

John Clauser

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive 91 § CO2 Coalition, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 94 § John Clauser

Rationale: I am submitting this BLP report based on an edit I've restored due to the use of WP:EXPERTSPS. See also: Talk:John Clauser#Recent deletion of Sabine Hossenfelder.

Summary: John Clauser is a Nobel prize-winning physicist who joined a leading climate denial organization shortly after winning the award, gaining some currency in right wing media circles for promoting climate denial. For what it's worth, Clauser's odd behavior is not entirely unexpected. People who win the Nobel prize are susceptible to Nobel disease, a common affliction.

Recently, fellow physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder evaluated Clauser's claims on her YouTube channel, stating "Clauser starts with a made-up definition, suggests that climate scientists miscalculate an uncertainty by forgetting to mention how it’s actually calculated, suggests that they lie about something that’s clearly stated in every single paper on the topic, presents a self-made hypothesis that climate scientists have told him since last year is trivially wrong, and to top things off calls everyone who has actually works on the topic 'dishonest'." Hossenfelder's opinion is considered the mainstream consensus viewpoint, so there's nothing controversial here.

Editorial behavior: User:Kbahey recently added Hossenfelder's analysis to Clauser's biography,[8] followed by User:Panian513 removing it based on WP:USERGENERATED,[9] and my subsequent restoration of the material.[10]

Question: Was I wrong to restore this material? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Hossenfelder's video[11] seems sane, rational and good, but it makes statements about a person. If we could use experts' Youtube videos to debunk nonsense, Wikipedia would be far too easy. BLP is clear-cut about not using self-published sources for content about a person. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your position. But my position is that Hossenfelder is not commenting about Clauser, the person, but rather about Clauser's comments regarding climate denial, which are two different topics. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If that were true, you might (might) win a fight to keep it. But there are statements in the video describing him (e.g. as a 'climate changed denier') not just focussing on the bollocks he utters. Basically, this is clear-cut and bios are a WP:CTOP so trying to push it will just get you sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "push" anything. I'm trying to understand if the material Kbahey was acceptable. I thought it was, which is why I restored it. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to give a quick explanation - apologies if it isn't concise, as I'm just about to head to bed.

An important part was left out of your summary - I left a message on User talk:Kbahey explaining the policy reasons behind the removal. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. WP:UGC makes it clear, as video hosting services is defined as user-generated content. YouTube is especially perilous since it toes the line between a video hosting service and a social media site, which is another type of source which is generally unreliable. I do think that there should be mention of refutations of Clauser's claims, since they are considered fringe views, but as I explained on Kbahey's talk page, this should be a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed article from a reliable science journal. As you said, Hossenfelder's views are the mainstream views, therefore, it shouldn't too hard to find a journal article specifically refuting Clauser's claims.

In sum, the medium of a claim is important. Certainly, Hossenfelder's views are mainstream, but a YouTube video can't be peer-reviewed - only a journal article or a book can. Panian513 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My reading of it is that Hossenfelder views meet WP:EXPERTSPS. The question then becomes, can her analysis of climate denial be included in an article about a living person? Both you and Bon courage say it cannot, but I don't see any reason why it can't other than "Clauser is a living person and we can't use SPS" in a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's wrong to say Hossenfelder's views - it's more accurate to say Hossenfelder's medium of presenting her views. I'm not saying that her views are wrong, but that the medium of publishing the views isn't good enough for an article. Since YouTube is social media, by citing a YouTube video, it'll sound like the article is just commenting on Internet drama. If the article instead cited an article or another reliable source, then it'd qualify as a notable dispute in the scientific community. Panian513 04:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I see YouTube, as it is used in this case, as a distribution channel for Hossenfelder's show. YouTube is not being cited here, Hossenfelder's content is; nor are we citing the social media elements. I will revert my restoration as a show of good faith, but I hope this discussion continues. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

She's not a climate scientist, as she says; she relied on other people to pull the material together for her. Hossenfelder is a good egg, but pushing this is futile. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's the second time you've tried to say that I'm "pushing" something, when I'm not. I've already said I'm going to restore Panian513's version as a show of good faith. Clauser is not a climate scientist, he's a physicist, and his comments about climate science were rebuked by his peer. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)