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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar

This one is a bit strange. I am bringing it here because I do not wish to be directly involved but it may warrant neutral eyes. The subject, Ido Kedar is non-verbal and suffers from autism. He has two books which are said to be authored by him, runs a blog, and does presentations. At one stage he was using facilitated communication which has serious problems and is certainly pseudoscience, but videos also show him independently typing on an iPad keyboard. Those videos makes it look a lot more like augmentative and alternative communication, which is credible. Anyway, the AFD is going down the lines of accusing the subject, who is a living person whether or not he has autism, of not having written anything and being incapable of communication. I'm concerned that such accusations are degrading, especially if, as the sources claim, he is capable of communication and also considering that there are no BLP sources that say he is not. I am not sure of the best way of tackling this, but if he can communicate, as the sources claim, unsourced accusations that it is faked and that he is having his fingers dragged by someone else across a keyboard seem like BLP violations instead of the usual AFD discourse. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, yes, it's completely clear that he can communicate independently at this point. I was hoping Wikipedia had got over this panic of erasing everybody who has ever used anything that looks anything life FC/RPM. Thanks for bringing it here.

One video of him communicating independently, for reference. Oolong (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less concerned as to whether or not he communicates independently. I am concerned that he may communicate independently, and statements such as "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff" or "our article about how he has written books is fiction" are degrading and feel like BLP concerns. If there is a possibility that he can communicate, direct unsourced accusations such as this are extremely insulting. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Bilby, what do you suggest? The BLP policy clearly applies to the AfD discussion. I agree that there are comments in that discussion that are contrary to some of the BLP policy, especially the parts about removing "contentious material ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (I'd say your quotes falls into this category) and never using SPS "as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (some people have linked to / referenced blogs). Once or twice I've removed content from articles for BLP violations, but I've never removed an editor's comments from a discussion, and I'm hesitant to do so, partly because I'm not that experienced an editor (though I'm not a newbie) and also because of my extensive participation in that AfD discussion. I guess I'll start by simply posting a reminder of the relevant parts of the BLP policy and asking people to check their own comments (and I'll check mine). Do you have any guidance about whether something else should be done? And if any other editors have guidance, please weigh in. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point the thing is a train wreck. We woud have to delete various !votes to clean it up, along with a number of comments, which is going to be ugly. At this stage I think a courtesy blanking is going to be required once it is over, but I am not sure what we can do in the meantime. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Berchanhimez's suggestion would work. Although I left a general note there yesterday, I didn't name anyone in my comment, and another option might be to ping specific editors whose comments are concerning, to see whether they'll act themselves after being asked specifically. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the most sensible way forward. - Bilby (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For blatant BLP violations, the template {{BLP violation removed}} can be used - it redirects to {{RBLPV}} and produces the following (BLP violation removed). That allows you to remove only the text (down to the specific word) that is a BLP violation. When editing other peoples' comments, as allowed by point 4 in TPO, you should strive to remove as little as possible. As an example, if the statement is Not a vote berchanhimez was convicted of arson and he is a wifebeater who other people have said smells funny" (signature here) then I would only change it to Not a vote berchanhimez was (BLP violation removed) and he is a (BLP violation removed) who other people have said (BLP violation removed)" (signature here). That allows the bulk of the comment, including the !vote, to remain while removing the specific terms arising to the BLP violation. At the least the !vote and the signature can be retained. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that info and the example, which was helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: That is correct, but in this case there is no blatant BLP violation, and editing the comments of others against their wishes is very very likely to be counterproductive, see here. Polygnotus (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP itself doesn't seem to allow as much wiggle room for 'non-blatant' violations. It's pretty plain: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion and The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. I'm certainly in agreement that practices of facilitated communication is rightly discredited, but if I'm understanding rightly that users are making a leap from that to conclude and say, repeatedly, without BLP-appropriate sourcing that this particular living person, who happens to be autistic and nonverbal, must be incapable of communicating—contrary, crucially, to what reliable sources report about him (and these sources don't say he's communicating via facilitated communication; they describe him independently typing words with no description of physical 'aid')—then I'd say that that's quite contentious material about a living person. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

if I'm understanding rightly nope. Why did you not read the page before responding? Polygnotus (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you not read the page before responding? I did read the deletion discussion page, and there are literally users saying what I said they're saying. Should we be asking if you read the page? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet that is not what you claimed happened... Q.E.D. Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Albert Tappman impression is wasted on me. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: If you do not understand what I am saying then I am happy to explain. Polygnotus (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: what I'm seeing is you aggressively dismissing another editor's seemingly reasonable description of what's happening, without explaining yourself at all. - Oolong (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I love tea! The aggressive behaviour came from the other side, and that description of what's happening is either misinterpreted or incorrect (depending on which one you are referring to, the one at the start of this section or the one that contains if I'm understanding rightly). People could've just asked for help; I am happy to explain. Do you have any specific question? Polygnotus (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Are you saying it's untrue that peope have said "repeatedly, without BLP-appropriate sourcing that this particular living person, who happens to be autistic and nonverbal, must be incapable of communicating"? Oolong (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Oolong: Yes, I am saying that that is untrue. At least not in that AfD at that point in space and time. If I missed something (perhaps on another page, perhaps something that was later removed) I would like WP:DIFFs. Polygnotus (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Oolong: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly in agreement that practices of facilitated communication is rightly discredited, but if I'm understanding rightly that users are making a leap from that to conclude and say, repeatedly, without BLP-appropriate sourcing that this particular living person, who happens to be autistic and nonverbal, must be incapable of communicating—contrary, crucially, to what reliable sources report about him (and these sources don't say he's communicating via facilitated communication; they describe him independently typing words with no description of physical 'aid')—then I'd say that that's quite contentious material about a living person.

Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff. That does not make him notable.

I turned it into a little table for those curious. I've extracted the relevant parts, but please also check the full context to see if I did that correctly. It should be obvious that the left column is not a accurate description of the contents of the right column.

• users is plural, only one diff was provided.
• say, repeatedly only one diff was provided and it did not contain repetition. The user left only a single comment.
• must be incapable of communicating that is not what it says. The right column contains what appears to be a description of facilitated communication, but says nothing about an inability to communicate.

So to then claim that there are literally users saying what I said they're saying is silly. The only reasonable explanation is that they did not read the AfD but based their entire comment on the first comment in this section, which incorrectly states: the AFD is going down the lines of accusing the subject ... of not having written anything and being incapable of communication.. Polygnotus (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I disagree that there are no blatant BLP violations. Re: "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff," the editor made no attempt to provide RS for this, it's false (notwithstanding your assumption that it "appears to be a description of facilitated communication"), and it's degrading. I consider that a contentious claim about a living person. There are multiple editors making these kinds of statements in the AfD discussion (e.g., one editor asserts "none of this is actually him" without providing any evidence for it, more than one editor has analogized the article's RSs to media credulously reporting that someone has psychic powers and is communicating with the dead, another editor said that the article was WP:INUNIVERSE, "Yes, that is about works of fiction. As appears to be most of this article"). Frankly, I'm baffled that you don't consider these contentious. A couple have cited blogs, which is contrary to BLPSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree I think we can agree to disagree on that one since there are a billion other things we agree on. the editor made no attempt to provide RS for this we don't usually require RS for opinions on talkpages. it's false Wasn't FC tried at some point? it's degrading I don't think that is the case or (perhaps more importantly) the intention. Perhaps an incomplete description or even understanding of the situation? I (think I) understand how we read that AfD so differently. Mocking FC is not the same as mocking a person. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I'm not actually sure what you think we agree on. Whether people do or don't refer to RSs on a talk page —and more importantly, whether they need to cite an RS — depends on the specific issue being discussed. If an editor makes make what appears to be an entirely false claim about a living person, where that claim is also insulting to the person the claim is about, then that editor had better provide an RS to show that the claim isn't false.

Re: "Wasn't FC tried at some point?", I don't entirely understand why you're asking this, so I'm not sure that my response will actually be responsive, but here goes: Ido Kedar uses FC. But if you look at video, no one is touching him, much less grabbing his fingers and moving them around the keyboard (the implication being that it's the facilitator—his mother—who is authoring the content rather than Ido Kedar). Even if the editor's intention wasn't to degrade, that's the effect, and the BLP policy focuses on the effect, not the intention. You're also entirely silent about the other examples I pointed out, even things that should be totally black and white, such as the fact that some editors are supporting their claims about Kedar with blogs, in violation of BLPSPS. I don't understand why we're reading it so differently; since you think you do, I'd appreciate your sharing your conjecture about this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: One quick question before I write a more detailed response. Ido Kedar uses FC. But if you look at video, no one is touching him, much less grabbing his fingers and moving them around the keyboard (the implication being that it's the facilitator—his mother—who is authoring the content rather than Ido Kedar). Do you think that that video (at about 1 minute), in which no one is touching him (or the iPad) and he is typing on his own without any outside help, is an example of FC? Because I certainly do not. Polygnotus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I am new to learning about FC, RPM and other augmented means of communication. (I've only started learning about them since entering the AfD discussion for this article.) The WP article on FC — admittedly, not necessarily a reliable source — says "In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all," still considering that to be FC. Several other editors in the AfD discussion are calling his communication FC, and yes, they've seen similar videos of him typing, which they dismiss, saying things like "The handlers are still present in that video. They can still prompt" and "the facilitator is within sight of the person, they can still be cuing the person." Moreover, whether or not one considers it FC, the claim that "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff" is false and therefore a unsourced contentious statement about a living person. In other words, a BLP violation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Louis Theroux has an interesting documentary about facilitated communication called Tell Them You Love Me. Not an easy watch! I am certain that the people dunking on FC are not talking about people who communicate on their own. And they are not insulting/mocking the BLP subject, but FC. FC has caused a lot of suffering for non-verbal people (and their families), which is messed up. Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, no, they are absolutely insulting the BLP subject. The example in your table above is an insulting false claim about the BLP subject. Here are other examples (click through to read the insulting text, which I'm not going to quote): "none of this is ...," "This is especially concerning...," "The skeptics who have commented..." (which links to a blog discussion about the BLP subject, and that same blog was linked to a second time later), "Sources which uncritically argue...", this entire comment, "To be clear, yes...," "this is just another story...," and that's probably only half the examples. Have you truly read that entire discussion? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, facilitated communication is a strawman. Kedar does not use FC. I know everyone is running around in the AFD saying that FC is a psuedoscience, and therefore it does not work, but it isn't even being used in this case. - Bilby (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've now raised that issue with a few people in the AfD discussion, and I'll see what they say. FWIW, WP's FC article says "In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all," sourced to an article reproduced from the Pasadena Weekly by an arts editor that says "Sometimes, the influence of the facilitator is less obvious, because the facilitator might not hold the person’s hand, but support an arm or touch a shoulder—or even simply observe the typing" (emphases added in both). Is the italicized text an incorrect statement about FC? If so, it should be removed from WP's FC article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bilby: Do you have evidence for that claim? It has been used at some point in the past right? His mom said: "He couldn't hold his own pencil, so I had to hold my hand over his hand and as we were doing this I started feeling the pencil moving under my hand" so that sounds a lot like FC. RPM is closely related to FC (according to Wikipedia), so maybe people write FC but they actually mean RPM, which Kedar has years of training in. Do we know how the book was written? @FactOrOpinion: Is the italicized text an incorrect statement about FC? That probably depends on who you ask, but those people in that AfD are not talking about a hypothetical form of FC where the communication is basically un-assisted/un-facilitated.

The idea that people are insulting Kedar is dead wrong. FC has been tested and has been shown not to work. That does not necessarily mean that Kedar cannot communicate.

@Both: Check out that documentary if you get the chance! I once had a conversation with someone on the spectrum and he said (something like) "those NTs just lie all the time!" and I said (something like): "No, they are not lying, their speech is just imprecise because to them the 'I believe' or 'I think' part of their sentence is implied because they wouldn't say that sentence if they didn't think or believe it. You should prefix all their statements with 'I believe' or 'I think' in your head".

Give that a try on that AfD. You will see that the AfD comments suddenly become far less offensive.

Note also that his father says he used "one word utterances". Polygnotus (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You have refused several times to address the quote in your table. Please state explicitly how someone can falsely claim that about him, yet you believe that it is not insulting to say that about him. Please state explicitly how people can deny that he is communicating; can analogize believing that to believing in psychic powers, communication with the dead, aliens, UFOs, and astrology; can assert "nothing about this person is actually from him," yet you do not find a single one of those things insulting. As for the quote from his mother, she was talking about when he was 7 years old. Based on what he's written, he's ~27 years old now. I don't GAF whether he used FC when he was 7. These editors are making statements about a living person in the present. You claim "those people in that AfD are not talking about a hypothetical form of FC where the communication is basically un-assisted/un-facilitated," so just what do you think they're talking about, given that video shows him using a tablet where no one else is touching him or the tablet? They are not having some unrelated discussion about FC. They are arguing that there is no evidence that he has ever communicated independently, and that every single piece of writing that has been attributed to him was actually authored by a facilitator. And no, I am not going to give something a try on your behalf. I you want to give something a try in that discussion, do it yourself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. I tried to help you because you don't understand the situation, but I don't have the time and energy to deal with childish behaviour. Polygnotus (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My behavior isn't childish, and I'll remind you of WP:NPA. You insisted that "they are not insulting/mocking the BLP subject," but apparently you cannot be bothered to actually explain yourself when confronted with evidence that they are insulting/mocking the BLP subject. I think that either you are the one who doesn't understand the situation, or you recognize that actually they are insulting him, but you don't want to admit that you were wrong. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. You can try to find someone else who is willing to explain things to you, but if you behave like this it is unlikely that people will try to help. Polygnotus (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I've asked you to explain in this entire exchange is why you keep claiming that none of those things is insulting. No one else will be able to explain why you believe that no one has insulted him. Only you can explain your beliefs. And I'm not the only one in this discussion who has asked you to explain why you're denying that the editors there are insulting a living person. As Oolong said to you: "what I'm seeing is you aggressively dismissing another editor's seemingly reasonable description of what's happening, without explaining yourself at all" (emphasis added). Saying that something is not insulting does not explain why you think that. I'm behaving like this with you, because you keep denying that there are any insults there. My interactions with most editors is just fine, thank you though. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I've reread our exchange here, and although my previous belief was that the problems in the exchange were just coming from you, I now see that I contributed to the problems as well. It was not my intention to be difficult, and I apologize for my part in that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's really refreshing to see a statement like that. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Thank you, and I of course apologize for my part. Some day we will learn to be zen. This Wikipedia thing ain't easy! Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

His mother has described how they tried FC, and then when she went home and used FC she found it to be unreliable, as she and her hsuband both got different unreliable responses, so they stopped. They did moved to RPM after this, which some say is related, but is also untested as proponents have not taken part in studies. Then there is augmentative and alternative communication, which is what the videos show him using, which is not pseudoscience. The problem is by using FC and spending massive amounts of time debating a discredited method which he does not use the well is poisoned. We should have been discussing RPM, or AAC, which are the ones he actually uses. Not FC, which he does not. - Bilby (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RPM is not "untested". It has been tested and there is no evidence that it works, which is why webpages like https://www.asha.org/slp/cautions-against-use-of-fc-and-rpm-widely-shared/ and https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/policy/position-statements/facilitated-communication-and-rapid-prompting-method exist. The videos also show RPM being used, and it is unclear how the book was written. RPM is not better than FC (or at least there is no scientific evidence to show that, despite the fact that research has been done). And the reason people talk about FC is that at least some of the problems with FC are also present in the videos (which is explained in the AfD). Repeatedly claiming that FC is not used is not helpful, and if you swap out FC with RPM people still have the same objections and questions. The label is just a label, it does not really matter if people use the wrong one. Some people who think they are helping or defending Kedar and others in his situation are doing the exact opposite of helping. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-019-00175-w and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17489539.2016.1265639 for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that those links say what you think they say. At any rate, it seems that you agree that this is RPM and potentially AAC (although I understand that some people believe that the latter is not the case based on their interpretations of the videos), so I do not believe that discussing the merits of FC is helpful due to the risk of poisoning the well. Nor does it address the core problem of the presence of BLP violations. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

About the BLPVIO thing; I don't think I can convince you and vice versa. If there would be any BLPVIOs then I would expect them to get redacted by an admin, and those who posted them to be reprimanded, but that hasn't happened and is very very unlikely to happen. Polygnotus (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, that does appear to be a BLP violation... And I share the confusion of others as to the relevance of this line of questioning to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. But I think we can agree to disagree on that one since there are a billion other things we agree on. And, for the record, I understand that confusion (although an attempt has been made to explain that in the AfD). Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note the Streisand effect in effect. Polygnotus (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think you see there. The AfD page was created on 1/16, so it's no surprise that you see an increase on 1/16-17. There are so many comments about other things at the BLPN and the Teahouse that I don't see how you interpret any Streisand effect from either conversation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Imagine that, hypothetically, there would be an AfD page filled with horrible insults. Linking to and talking about that AfD page on 2 other pages with far far higher viewcounts would only draw more attention to that AfD page. So it would be counterproductive. Contacting an admin who can actually delete the page would be far better. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to consider a hypothetical. We have an actual case, and there's no evidence that it's drawn more WP readers to the page. However, if I ever encounter this situation in the future, I will consider your advice along with Berchanhimez's suggestion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, you appear to be responding to virtually every comment in this discussion. I think you are veering into WP:BLUDGEON terrority and may want to step back a little. I also agree with the multiple other editors here who believe that there are BLP violations in the discussion about this article subject. – notwally (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Notwally Bit late to the party mate, I already gave up trying to help and moved on. I recommend Tell Them You Love Me. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, you commented on this thread just 4 hours ago (and only one other person had commented since then), and have left more comments than anyone else. I recommend not bludgeoning discussions like that and being more civil and less aggressive in your responses as others have also recommended. – notwally (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Notwally One of the least productive things one can do on Wikipedia is, after a debate died down, jump in without understanding the situation and try to reignite a debate with one of the parties. Posting ad hominems and then talking about civility is not a good look. There are plenty of resources online for those who want to learn about FC and RPM and people can check those out if they want to have an informed opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears you know neither what "ad hominems" nor "moved on" means. I am not interested in further back and forth with you, and so please take care. – notwally (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

More insults from the side that demands civility. Such a great strategy. Take care. Polygnotus (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Domineering conversations by responding to literally everything while saying nothing in defence of your position isn't much better civility-wise. I also note you haven't really engaged with what FactOrOpinion says above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So when someone tries to help people by explaining their mistakes they are domineering the conversation. But when someone is tired of dealing with someone who behaves suboptimally and ignores them you note that they haven't really engaged with what they say. Polygnotus (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well you're certainly doing a terrible job convincing anyone that you aren't bludgeoning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Break

The AFD is due to be closed within the next day. It seems that there is a ganeral if not universal consensus that it contains BLP violations because of unsourced negative descriptions of the subject. Would it be reasonable to opt for courtesy blanking when the AFD is complete, whatever the outcome of the AFD may be? - Bilby (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus that there are BLPVIOs. A loud minority is not a consensus. If there were any they would've been redacted by an admin a long time ago, and that admin would've possibly reprimanded those who posted the hypothetical BLPVIOs. Touching the comments left by others is frowned upon, see WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, and a blanking would be quickly reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I am asking, then, if we can form a consensus as to whether or not some statements made in that AFD represent violations of BLP, and if so whether or not courtesy blanking of the discussion after the AFD closes is an option. I acknowledge that you do not belive that courtesy blanking should be used. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You wrote: unsourced negative descriptions but I predict that people will say that sources have been provided. AfDs are noindexed, the AfD will not appear in search engine results when looking for Kedars name if that is what you worry about, (http://en.wiki.x.io/robots.txt) so the only person likely to encounter the AfD page is a Wikipedian, and Wikipedians usually know how to use "View history". Polygnotus (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

About the BLPVIOs, my advice would be to ask an administrator. Having a group discussion about which (if any) statements are insulting has the downside of drawing loads and loads of attention to sentences that would normally only be read by the two dozen people who respond to the AfD. And sure, if there is a consensus to blank then that is fine (to me its not very important, although I see no advantages and some downsides). If you want to you can ping potentially interested parties (but look at WP:CANVAS first). I am just some guy; I can't overrule anyone. Polygnotus (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with some of this, but at the moment I think that isn't really a concern. I regard you as not seeing any signifcant BLP violations, and not wanting to courtesy blank. I'm interested in now seeing if there is a consensus different to that. Let's see how that goes. - Bilby (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience with AfDs, and none with courtesy blanking. As I understand it, a non-admin may close an AfD discussion in some circumstances; however, my sense is that the contentiousness of the exchange in this specific discussion means that it should be closed by an admin. My understanding is also that if the article is kept, there will be a permanent notice on the article's talk page linking to the AfD discussion, which concerns me. At the very least, I think that the administrator who closes the discussion should review all of the comments for BLP violations, not only for keep/delete arguments. Would a request for courtesy blanking also involve an admin reviewing all of the comments for BLP violations (in order to decide whether or not to blank the page)? If an admin reviews the comments in this way, then I am comfortable leaving the decision to the admin. I would hope that if the admin thinks it better to keep the page, that any content the admin assesses to be a BLP violation would at least be replaced with (BLP violation removed), using the template that berchanhimez noted earlier. How would a request for courtesy blanking of an AfD discussion proceed? (That is, do you go to a noticeboard and ask an admin to review a page with that in mind? It seems to me that this is a different situation than a BLP subject requesting that the article about them be blanked.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it'd involve posting something at the Administrator's Noticeboard? (not to be confused with the more urgent and higher octane Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents) Whatever the appropriate mechanisms, I'd certainly support courtesy blanking or replacing BLP violations with (BLP violation removed), for the reason you point out: AfD discussions are usually permanently linked from talk pages. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Bilby, as I said above, I had no experience with courtesy blanking. Polygnotus since blanked the page. I now see what courtesy blanking does, and I don't see how it accomplishes much, as there's still a link to the AfD discussion from the article's talk page, and anyone who wants to can still access the full exchange. I guess I was imagining that it would be something like a revdel where the content could no longer be accessed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In the entire exchange here, I haven't seen anyone other than you saying that there are no BLP violations in the AfD discussion. Bilby, Oolong, Hydrangeans, Horse Eye's Back, notwally, and I have all said that we see BLP violations there, and I'm baffled that you consider all of us to constitute a minority. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus also said yesterday that "I already gave up trying to help and moved on" but yet they have continued to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion since then. – notwally (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean a loud majority? We appear to have clear consensus that this was a BLPVIO, and a lack of admin action is not evidence to the contrary. If there is a loud minority its a minority of one: Polygnotus screaming at the top oh their lungs vs everyone else Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: If you disagree that is fine, but can you stop the personal comments please? Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry... So you can call me a loud minority but I can't call you a loud minority? You're also the one making this personal, you don't even pretend to address the core of the argument which is that you're wrong about consensus... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you really want to keep talking about this topic you are invited to User:Polygnotus/Horse. I don't want to be accused of bludgeoning, but I am genuinely interested in your opinion and why you think I am wrong. I am also willing to explain my side of the story if you are interested. I do think that we disagree on what and where the core is, so you are probably right that I haven't addressed what you think the core is. Polygnotus (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No, all I want is for you to acknowledge that what you said about consensus at the top of this section "There is no consensus that there are BLPVIOs. A loud minority is not a consensus." is incorrect. Remember that claims about consenus are almost sacred on wiki, BS has been called so you need to either retract or support. Responding to direct questions about the veracity of your statements is not bludgeoning, but failing to address the point could be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I courtesy blanked the AfD, not because of BLPVIOs but because we should be ashamed of it, as a community. Polygnotus (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ido Kedar#Disputed Tag

Even with the AfD wrapped up, some behavior continues on the talk page (like contentiously claiming, without BLP-appropriate sources, that nonverbal and deaf people generally are as well as Kedar in particular is incapable of being (a) speaker(s) at events; or claiming, , without BLP-appropriate sources, that Kedar has not produced the books reliable sources say he has produced). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Input requested in dispute at Fadlo R. Khuri

There has been an ongoing dispute at Fadlo R. Khuri about the inclusion of some information about the subject that is negative. This is the Talk page section that is most recent but other, older discussions on that Talk page may also be relevant and informative. The article is currently protected from editing because of this dispute. Input from other editors is requested to resolve this dispute. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I offered my input on the dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaurav Srivastava

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@Yngvadottir @Smartse Could you reply to me? This way, we can all improve the article Joaquienstallfesh (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Julie Szego

On Julie Szego it says she want to some rally that was attended by the neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network (NSN) and its leader Thomas Sewell. The rally made news because the Nazis were there, but that the Nazis were there has nothing to do with Szego. Their presence on her article is awkward especially for someone who not only is Jewish, but her father was in a concentration camp. What do people think? Do they have a place on her article and should stay there? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean the only notable thing about that specific rally was that Kelly Jay Keen allowed a bunch of Nazis to participate. The article also says that Szego was there "as a journalist." I suppose, if we want to show she disapproved, an WP:ABOUTSELF comment from an article where I'm sure she mentioned how upsetting all the nazis at the transphobic rally were is due. Did she write any such thing? Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked the references. One mentions Thomas Sewell briefly, but mentions only that the NSN attended the rally, and does not say that Sewell or Szego was there [1]. The second mentions neo-nazis very briefly, but makes no mention of Sewell or the National Socialist Network [2]. I then checked the rest the sources in that section, and only one other source mentioned neo-nazis [3] but did so with wording almost identical to the Star Observer article, suggesting one was just paraphrased from the other. So I did a search for anything connecting Szego and Sewell, and except for our article nothing does. I also did a search for anything connecting Szego with neo-nazis in any context, and there is virtually nothing usable beyond what we have.

The most we could possibly say is that neo-nazis from the National Socialist Network attended a rally, and based on the sources we need to remove any mention of Sewell as that is currently unsourced. (I'll do that now). Given that the sources that mention that neo-nazis were in attendence in connection with Szego are so few and do so in passing at best, don't see how their attendence is particularly relevant. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This source seems like the best summary [4] so that we're avoiding the appearance of synth and it does not mention specific nazis. Just that there were nazis. So I'd agree that, since we're dealing with a BLP and we should be careful to avoid synth, we should say that there were neo-nazis there and leave off Sewell. However we should not exclude that there were nazis there at that rally that she attended - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and, while I'm sure Szego's father has strong feelings about nazis, our job isn't to protect Szego's relationships. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Given how few sources made that connection, I'm not seeing much value in it at all. If she had organised the rally, or maybe even spoken at it, I guess there could be a case. But the insinuation is that she is somehow connected to the neo-nazis because they both attended the same rally. Interestingly, The Guardian describes the neo-nazis as gatecrashers at the rally. It is hard to suggest a connection between a random person at a rally and a group that gatecrashed it without anything else to go by. [5] - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would leave it out per UNDUE, kinda looks like we're implying guilt by association, because some neo-nazis happened to attend the same rally as her. The one source (news.com.au} doesn't even mention her at all, and the other sources are focused on her being fired. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that her attendance of the rally and the subsequent anti-trans manifesto seem to be the two things that got her fired I might agree. But it does seem that her attendance at a rally with a bunch of nazis was actually relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance, it's not like she specifically attended the rally because they were going to be there, or that she had any sort of connection to them or that she was part of the neo-nazis that performed the Nazi salute in front of the Victorian Parliament, which is basically all the sources say about the neo-nazis attendance. According to The Guardian, they were gatecrashers, obviously looking for their 15 minutes of fame, and it looks like to me this was an unforeseen circumstance that she had no control over. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean it really just looks like she lay down with fleas. But doing so got her fired. Which is relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

She didn't get fired because she attended that rally, she was fired after speaking out about the publication’s refusal to run her column on gender-affirming care for youths. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I deleted the nazi reference, but kept in the information about attending the anti-trans rally. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456 Thank you and thank you to everyone else for the robust discussion. This is Wikipedia at its best! MaskedSinger (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The attendance of the neo-Nazis should be included as it is the most significant event that occurred at that specific rally. If it wasn't for the attendance of National Socialist Network, the event would have hardly been covered at all.

From the source:

Szego had attended a March 2023 Melbourne rally by British anti-trans campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen aka Posie Parker, which saw neo-Nazis performing the Nazi salute in front of the Victorian Parliament. Szego claimed that she attended the rally as a “journalist”.

Given how few independent reliable sources are available giving any coverage to Szego (about a handful), the attendance at that rally is one of the few significant things that have occurred to make her notable. Leaving out the context of what occurred at the rally would be leaving this article in a worse state.

Ps, I agree to removal of mention of Sewell. I thought one of the sources that I'd put into the article had supported it, but upon reflection it doesn't. TarnishedPath^talk 07:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The attendance of the neo-nazis doesn't have anything to do with her attending the rally though. The fact they both attended the rally is independent of one another. It's fine to mention she attended the rally, but UNDUE to mention the unrelated (to her), attendance of the neo-nazis. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If the neo-Nazis didn't attend that rally then there is a good chance the article I cite above may not have existed. The article itself states that Szego was present at the same rally as the neo-Nazis and she is marginally notable by my assessment. If we do not include significant details from one of the few independent reliable sources that covers her in any depth then we are leaving the article in a worse state. TarnishedPath^talk 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess the follow-up question is whether Szego is really notable? If we leave off the rally then she's firmly in WP:BLP1E territory. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That is part of my thinking. If we leave off the rally we only have her being sacked by The Age. The rest of the sourcing is stuff that is not independent. Without the rally we are clearly in WP:BLP1E territory. Given the rally is part of what adds to her notablity then I would have thought that significant details from the rally should be included in a neutral manner, and after discussoin at Talk:Julie Szego#Article edits I added a sentence to make it clear that she stated that she was at the rally as a journalist. TarnishedPath^talk 21:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

How is the rest of the sourcing not independent? Take the Career Section.

She wrote for one of Australia's biggest newspapers. She wrote for other publications.

She taught at universities

She wrote a book that was shortlisted for an award.

All unimpeachable sources. MaskedSinger (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles written by her, or which detail her as an employee of an organisation are not independent from her. The sources which detail her being shortlisted for an award are not in-depth, she is only mentioned in passing. If we were to remove all sources which are not written by her, which are not based on interviews and which only mention her in passing, we would be left with only a haldful of sources which deal with her sacking and the rally. TarnishedPath^talk 22:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ps, being a journalist by itelf does not make someone notable regardless of which outlets they've written for. Refer to WP:NJOURNALIST. TarnishedPath^talk 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If the argument is that she is only marginally notable, then trying to use the fact that she and neo-nazis were at the same rally isn't near enough to establish she is notable enough for an article, especially considering she didn't attend the rally because the neo-nazis were going to be there, and the neo-nazis didn't attend the rally because she was going to be there. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this @Isaidnoway. This should put the relevance of the neo-nazis here to bed once and for all. MaskedSinger (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The article cited above thought it significant enough to mention in relation to her attendance. The fact that she didn't attend because of them and they didn't attend because of her is immaterial. It is covered in a reliable source. Therefore we are open to doing likewise. TarnishedPath^talk 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As for her having taught at universities, WP:NPROF covers the notability guidelines for university instructors. I don't see it from the extant sources but, if it can be improved... Simonm223 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't see that they meet WP:NAUTHOR either. Which leaves us with WP:GNG and I think they'd be a weak pass for that. TarnishedPath^talk 22:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it is very much material, you admit it is just a "mention" in the source, so the fact the source just gives a scant mention of it to begin with, makes it that much more insignificant. The main topic of that article is about her getting "sacked". And the bulk of mainstream sources that covered that rally, don't even mention her at all [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Szego. TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

References

BKEX

Advice requested for allegations against living persons at BKEX. The only source cited for serious legal allegations against two living persons was added in evident good faith by an infrequent editor, who extracted content from a government website and added it to a PDF of their own making, File:董某某开设赌场一审判决书.pdf. As noted in this user talk page discussion, the source is a Chinese government court website which apparently doesn't allow a direct link to the legal judgment. Is the PDF an adequate source for the allegations made? Wikishovel (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed anything that names a living person. We cannot use court records, and we cannot use documents uplooaded to commons as a reference without any indication that they are accurate. I see little cause to keep the article, but I will have a look for sources in case there is something viable. - Bilby (talk) Bilby (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby. I went a bit further and scrubbed the paragraph about the person. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, there was more--from the beginning. User:Salvationist2nd, you need to be much more careful when writing about living people. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Bessel van der Kolk

There's been a bit of back-and-forthing (edit warring) here, with some of the offending parties clearly not abiding by our guidelines and policies for editing and for COI editing. Nonetheless, it's a BLP and it's important that we get it right. Can I ask one or two of you to have a look and see if we're being fair and balanced? Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Reading sources that are more detailed than that Boston Globe source by Kowalczyk, a glib non-paywalled follow-up piece rather than the original longer paywalled Globe article, it does seem that yes, that's not really an accurate statement in the lead and Ross 2024 is more what we should be aiming for. I think that the most useful retrospective source is perhaps Carr 2023 as that does bring back in, albeit slightly differently, some of the stuff that you (rightly) threw out for being cited to a self-published letter. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Ross, India (2024-06-28). "Psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk: 'When trauma becomes your identity, that's a dangerous thing'". Financial Times. in 2018, van der Kolk was fired as medical director of the Trauma Center in Massachusetts over what was characterised as an allegation of bullying, which he denies […]
  • Greenfield, Beth (2018-03-09). "Famous trauma therapist fired over allegedly traumatizing his staff". Yahoo! Life. Pond further told the Globe that van der Kolk, "[…] violated the code of conduct by creating a hostile work environment. His behavior could be characterized as bullying and making employees feel denigrated and uncomfortable."
  • Carr, Danielle (2023-07-31). "Tell Me Why It Hurts How Bessel van der Kolk's once controversial theory of trauma became the dominant way we make sense of our lives". New York Magazine. In an email to the Boston Globe, JRI head Andy Pond said […] According to van der Kolk […]

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

---

@Drmies: The current version appears to be OK, but his promotion of outdated and scientifically discredited theories like repressed memories warrants criticism. It’s not the first time van der Kolk has been there. In the early 1990s, he was a lead defender of repressed-memory therapy, which the Harvard psychologist Richard McNally later called “the worst catastrophe to befall the mental-health field since the lobotomy era.” Van der Kolk served as an expert witness in a string of high-profile sexual-abuse cases that centered on the recovery of repressed memories, testifying that it was possible — common, even — for victims of extreme or repeated sexual trauma to suppress all memory of that trauma and then recall it years later in therapy. -- NYTIMES Expert witnesses who do not tell the truth are a huge problem, e.g. bite mark and bloodsplatter "experts". I would argue that the fact that he has spread misinformation on a large scale for decades also belongs in the lead section. Polygnotus (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oh dear--thanks Uncle G, Polygnotus--please bring this into the article; it's way outside of any expertise I might have. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have access to bostonglobe.com? Does this specify it was "female employees"? Polygnotus (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Spinazzola was removed for reasons that include the string "female employees".[11] [12] [13] Different guy. Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uncle G: What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that Bessel van der Kolk was allegedly fired for alleged bullying. And Spinazzola was allegedly fired for their alleged treatment of female employees. I have removed that bit from the lead and the body of the article. Polygnotus (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies: please unblock 73.175.226.5 and clean up their talkpage. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Justin Wood (politician)

The user who wrote the majority of this article, ReformedPastor1, used to have "Justin Wood - Former Principal Chief of the Sac and Fox Nation" on his userpage. He also created a page for Freeland Wood, Justin's father. It seems to me like he wrote his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EulersNumberIsGreat (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should the explanation of “self-published” in WP:SPS be revised?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/SPS_RfC, as any revision may impact the kinds of publications that the BLP restrictions on self-published sources apply to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Will.i.am name

This diff explains the situation quite well I think, but I'm also happy to answer questions. I'd just like more eyes on it. The tl;dr is that we have an error in Wikipedia for more than a decade on what likely seems like a very minor point, but which has caused annoyance by the subject for many years. There are now overwhelming sources to correct the error, but I'm holding off on making the edit myself due to what is arguably a conflict of interest (I don't think so, but out of an abundance of caution I want to be careful. I think the experienced BLP editors who visit this noticeboard will do a good job of reviewing this. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See below for what a neutral note looks like. Fram (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:will.i.am

All input is welcome at Talk:will.i.am#Newer sources on his name where an old dispute from 2012 (Talk:Will.i.am/Archive 1#Correction of naming error) has been restarted. Fram (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Maye Musk

This is Elon's mother. A recent article in The Atlantic said her father (Elon's grandfather) was an active supporter of apartheid, way back in the day. An editor has added an entire paragraph about it. I feel as though without some evidence how this impacted Maye, it's undo weight, and guilt by association WP:GUILT. Seeking input from anyone who wants to wade in. See Talk:Maye_Musk#Focus_on_father. -- GreenC 17:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's undue weight; undo is what I did to the additions, since they concern a living person and consensus has not been established. I also protected the page. The talk page discussion could use some more input. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Spell checkers make me lazy and stupid looking when they are supposed to the opposite. -- GreenC 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Amen to that Simonm223 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Angela Davis (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Angela_Davis)

There appears to be some poorly-sourced and potentially inflammatory language in this article, in the section "Arrest and Trial":

"Davis became a mentor and teacher to George Jackson who wrote that he believed that women should never be allowed to express an opinion but should quietly listen to men. Jackson also held the opinion that if a woman couldn't find a man to marry her she should become a prostitute. "

The sources are not hyperlinked, so I cannot directly access them. However, several variations of Google searches (using different but related search terms each time) failed to show either these sources or any corroborating evidence; in fact, the top result was usually this same Wikipedia article. Additionally, the Wikipedia article on activist George Jackson says nothing about this.

Someone ought to review the article and see if they can find corroborating sources for these statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstarbuck (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Those sentences and "refs" were added by an IP last June. There isn't sufficient detail in the citation to verify nor could I find any corroborating sources, so I've removed those two sentences. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I found the Nelson article. It says nothing about Davis being a mentor or teacher, although it does say Jackson wrote "For this reason we should never allow women to express any opinions on the subject, but just to sit, listen to us, and attempt to understand."

Here is the Toobin piece. It doesn't mention Davis at all, but does say When the women outnumber the men in the black societies, the men take as many wives as they can afford, and care for them all equally. In the white for some nebulous reason the men can take only one. . . . The rest are left to become prostitutes, nuns, or lesbians. The IP's summary really misrepresents that.

Although I found the sources, I'm not restoring the content because the sentences are only partially verifiable and because they don't seem to have any relevance to Davis's article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Yaakov Bender

On Yaakov Bender and Yeshiva Darchei Torah, User:Filiperz wants to insert contentious material about Bender sourced to an Instagram post: [14], [15]. I and another editor have informed them on their talk page of the policies regarding WP:BLPs and WP:UGSs [16] [17], 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)

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)

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: http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

Input requested in dispute at Vijay Thanigasalam

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)

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

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)

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

Edward Berger

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. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Edward_Berger&curid=48401919&diff=1272504317&oldid=1272503929newsjunkie (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gulf of Mexico

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 [18]--Emm90 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is concerning [19] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Justin Miller (attorney)

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

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)