Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

I would request editors take a look at the recently created page for Chloe Cole. This person appears to be a hot button topic as a teen who has detransitioned and is now speaking out on the subject. The article reads in a way that suggests doubt for her claims, a position that doesn't seem supported by the sources, and appears to use loading language and phrasing to create negative associations with the subject. Springee (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads as an attack page, and it does not appear to be verified by the sources it cites:

• name used by an... alleged detransitioner -- Sources cited state both of these things in their own voice
• known for appearing on far-right media -- Attached to this sentence is six sources, none of which say anything about "far-right media" or anything close to it
• According to her unverified testimony -- Nothing like "unverified testimony" is in that source
• Cole's parents [...] have not verified any of her testimony -- Again, all the source says is that they haven't spoken to the media, this framing is OR.

I don't think this is an acceptable article to have on Wikipedia. @TheTranarchist: ??? Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is touching that neither of you seem to have bothered reading the article's history or talk page...

For context for those watching, @Springee and I are currently debating the validity of a source at the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. They have refused to once cite any wiki-policy relevant and have just kept insisting that the source should not be used (because they described it as "activist", which is not a description used by any RS discussing the organization) and refusing to acknowledge or even try to counter any of my points or references raised. Instead of responding with any relevant wiki-policy or references there, this morning they've claimed my "other articles" (this one) are impartial and biased in a section on the page devoted to spurious attacks on my editing by editors who've refused to discuss whether the sources are reliable or not. That comment was posted a few minutes before they filed this here.

At Talk:Chloe Cole, a 5 second read would have shown that I have opposed the pieces of text that issues have been raised about... I have explicitly objected to putting that skepticism in wikivoice, such as "alleged", "unverified testimony", and "have not verified any of her testimony" and said the sources do not warrant such language and asked for them to be reverted.

In terms of far-right media, reviewing the sources that's an admitted mistake on my part. Three sources refer to her connections to right-wing media. She also has appeared on far-right media and with far-right figures often to be fair, but the sources don't state that explicitly (that it's a notable pattern, individual instances are well-documented). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm genuinely concerned over the proliferation and what i believe is the dog whistle-esque use of "far-right" on wikipedia. while certain sources (we all know which ones) are more prone to claim "1st amendment" protection and use it without concern to slander and libel, i might argue that wikipedia editors should know better. we're supposed to be impartial and the arbiters of neutrality, not propagandists. BLPs on wikipedia are all but useless now because there are activists here that are eager to leverage this term without discernment or consideration towards neutrality. given that sources that often refute these claims aren't considered reliable only exacerbates this issue. i've observed on this article, and others, "unreliable" sources are often used to support the claims made by "reliable" sources, but when it comes to disputes -- well, we can't have that, that source is unreliable and must not be cited. there is no good solution here until the pendulum swings and people realize how damaging and harmful current "reliable" sources actually are (if ever). so i'll just lobby my observations here in hopes that editors will start to consider their actions will eventually have consequences. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "alleged", "unverified" and "unverified by parents" as her gender identity has been stated in multiple sources. Testimony can't be unverified. It was testified to or it wasn't. No one seems to question that she testified. Same with the parents, there's no "HS students words only have meaning if an adult validates them" policy. Slywriter (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter Thank you so much for clearing that up! I was trying to avoid an edit-war so started by trying to resolve the issue on the talk page but glad you cut through the red tape to fix it! And thank you for pointing out the ridiculous ageism, I may admittedly not be the biggest fan of Cole but claiming her parents need to corroborate her testimony was ridiculous - I'm no hypocrite, minors know themselves and don't need parental verification. I also went ahead and updated "far-right" media to "right-wing" media to keep with reliable sources. Though, a quick review of the sources does show more support than I'd remembered for the extent to which her testimony is spread by far-right politicians. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheTranarchist, far-right vs right-wing may be worth more discussion. The rest is just bad word choice. There's definitely questions being asked by RS and we should (and do) cover them, but in descriptive prose. Far more useful to the reader and more in line with our BLP policy. And yes the ageism seems out of line with current thinking on gender identitySlywriter (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the article is currently including too much indiscriminate detail. I don't think we really need a blow by blow account of all the rallies and panels she attends (and in a number of the sources I've checked she's just mentioned in passing) Tristario (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Round and rounder was blocked as an LTA sock so I removed their comment which received no reply. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on whether the sourcing supports describing Cole as an "anti-trans activist". A review of the sources used for the label has been organized into a subsection of the discussion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]

Note: Moved from WP:NPOVN. Levivich (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Chloe Cole#LA Times lawsuit opinion on whether the LA Times, which provides both Cole and this specific lawsuit WP:SIGCOV is WP:DUE source for the following paragraph:

Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik described the lawsuit as "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care" and stated it "incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field."^[1]

This was originally listed at WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit which concluded it was a question for here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• honestly I think the entire article in its current state needs attention from uninvolved editors experienced with NPOV and FRINGE. I just looked through it and there's not a single reference to any criticisms this activist has had. I'm not going to repeat anything that has already been said, but in my assessment it's highly unlikely that a notable activist on such a highly controversial topic hasn't received a single criticism throughout her career, and I think that's a stronger sign that something is off here than any individual discussion I could point to. I'm mostly staying out of it because I'm even less experienced than the editor above me and honestly I don't need a 600 page ANI discussion in my life, but it's becoming a problem and shutting up about it is not the way to solve that problem. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having briefly looked over the article, I'd say that the above line is undue, but that the article itself is scattershot and doesn't do a good job putting the subject in context. Considering the article as it was brought here in the previous section cast aspersions on the subject's existence, this is still an improvement. There has to be more than one business columnist talking about the lawsuit, and those opinions can be collated and summarized, rather than relying on single extensive quotes, which creates the DUE concerns. I'm not sure exactly why this is at BLPN though—is there an issue with the talk page discussion where editors are being disruptive? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's at BLPN because levivich took the liberty of moving it from the NPOV noticeboard, which I have reverted there, because the concern I brought up above is an NPOV one. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created as part of discrimination activities against Mr. Tamaz Somkhishvili, who has open court cases against City Assembly of Kiev. His connection with criminal groups and especially calling him "thieves in law" is absurd and is not supported by any sources of information and is a huge personal insult. He is a living person businessman, philanthrop with activities in Georgia , EU and Great Britain. He is a citizen of GB as well. In his 65 years he does not have any criminal records in any country. All the articles that supports he Wikipedia page is recently created (2022-2023 years) as mentioned before, for his personal discrimination.

Secondly, non of linked sources justifies his "connections" with Russian mafia bosses Aslan Usoya and Zakhary Kalashov!

Moreover, On December 23, 2019, the Commercial Court of Kyiv ruled to recover jointly and severally from the Department of Economics and Investments of the Kyiv City State Administration, directly the Kyiv City State Administration and the Kyiv City Council, funds in the amount of $24.46 million (671.56 million hryvnias at the time of filing the claim) in favor of Kyiv Terminal LLC ( case No. 910/17647/18). The ultimate beneficiary of Kyiv Terminal is Mr Tamaz Somkhisvili.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo 1900 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't be saying someone has committed crime without a conviction per WP:BLPCRIME - and any suggestion of a connection to crime needs strong sources. Baker Pumpkin you need to be very careful when writing about these things Tristario (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are some parts left in the article hinting his connection with "russian mafia" and should be deleted, also 1 tv channel is not reliable source of information. Mr Tamaz does not have any connections with JSC Tbilaviamsheni, he has a stake in LTD Tbilisi Aviation manufacturing management company (TAM Management) , which does not have any connections with Russian ministry of defense or any company in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Management Bobo 1900 (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

on the page of TAM management Tbilaviamsheni is mentioned as partner company not subsidary or any related https://tammanagement.com/about/partners/. Also there is no any Russian partner or affiliated company mentioned there Bobo 1900 (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A well meaning IP user came along back on 26 Oct 2021 and vastly expanded this article. Unfortunately the formatting is not up to Wiki standards, and none of the information is sourced. None of the info seems to be contentious though, which is why I'm asking for volunteer help to fix the formatting and sourcing issues. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all unsourced and probably WP:UNDUE. I will probably just revert it Tristario (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP keeps adding unsourced content and changing sourced date of birth for Chip Cravaack.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the birth date: Poorly sourced, that is. I have removed it for now; WP:BLPPRIMARY (to a lesser extent) and WP:BLPPRIVACY (to a greater extent) apply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi: It can be conclusively proven that this founder of a new religious movement has died, but COI editing has ensured that his status on enwiki remains limited to disappeared. This is a good started to read on this person. Also see, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group#Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

While the case here does make it non-BLP, it is for now being treated as such on enwiki. Please help with how to proceed with this further. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi, Hamza Ali Shah, Iskandar323, Owais Al Qarni, and M.Billoo2000: Inviting WikiProject Islam memebers for a comment on this. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very odd, persistent edits going on with the Mako Komura article, particularly in regards to her marriage with Kei Komuro.

Her marriage to Kei Komuro was not popular in Japan, and a lot of people in Japan strongly dislike her husband: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/world/asia/japan-royal-wedding-princess-mako.html

I think someone with that perspective is editing her article, as there are a lot of extra additions to the Mako Komura: Marriage section that are stringing together outside information about happenings with her husband's school and former employers which are not relevant to the article, but taken together, appear to be trying to create impression of a vast conspiracy/web of favors.

A lot of this section of Mako's article feel like someone read a bunch of Japanese tabloids/gossip magazines, translated them into English, and pasted the conspiracy gossip into Mako's article while citing as proof ordinary articles that have absolutely no mention of her or her husband.

"In August 2019, he entered the Fordham law school's JD program for two years (official JD degree program is 3 years for full time students[40][41]) despite the school's policy does not permit any advance credits from LLM program.[42]" - this isn't even true, Fordham's own policy says: "For transfer students admitted from ABA accredited law schools, credit for classes in which the student has earned a “C” or better will be accepted." Fordham is going to take credits from their own law school, and the LLM is part of Fordham's School of Law.

https://www.fordham.edu/info/29784/transfer_and_visiting_programs

For another example, this entire section about a month ago was about how Kei Komura wasn't at his graduation - and another editor had to go in and add a lot of extraneous information about how Komura wasn't present, but was listed as a graduate. Then someone listed how the president of Fordham stepped down after Komura graduated? It's totally not relevant, but strung together, reads like a hit piece implying that the president resigned out of some disgrace/favor after Komura graduated?

"In 2021, the names of degree candidates of Fordham University School of Law were listed in the program for the school's virtual diploma ceremony on 23 May and he was named as a Juris Doctor degree recipient.[48][49] The lists that appear in the booklet were prepared by the registrar prior to 22 May 2021 and do not represent the final lists of graduates, except where stated as conferred.[50] His name is not listed on the recognition page of Commencement for the Class of 2021 at Fordham University.[51][52] On September 2, Joseph M. McShane announced his plan to step down as president of Fordham University after 19 years of serving in June 2022.[53]"

In this part:

"All Kei Komuro's living costs in New York were supported through the Okuno & Partners law firm, while he was studying. Also, his former work place, the largest bank in Japan, MUFG Bank Ltd., is listed as one of the donors and sponsors to Fordham University School of Law.[54] A month before his marriage, on 21 September, MUFG and MUFG Bank, a core banking subsidiary of MUFG, announced an agreement to sell all shares of MUFG Union Bank, N.A., MUFG’s subsidiary owned through MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, to U.S. Bancorp.[55]"

There's absolutely no citation on Okuno & Partners law firm paying for Komura's the living costs. The former work place as a donation is true, but the sale of the core banking subsidiary - and connecting it to Mako and Komura's marriage - seems wildly out of place.

I think that there's a really strong effort here to create a narrative about backroom favors and corruption done on behalf of Mako's husband - probably ripped straight from Japanese gossip magazines - on this particular article, without citing any actual news articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanealamarckii (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down a lot of the WP:BLPGOSSIP detail.[1] It is an article about Mako rather than Kei. Others feel free to chop it down some more. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a current edit war with the ip address who inserted the previous extraneous detail. For some reason, they want to also remove cited material on the reason why the couple is moving to New York (his graduation from law school and job at a law firm in New York). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: since you engaged with this ip range over multiple issues the past several weeks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the correct place to take this now is WP:RFPP? Semi-protection should solve this problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a specific ip range. Not sure if a semi-protection is appropriate. I have already reported them to EW3.[2] I am also at 3R without a clear BLP exception. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts, I'm just glad you reported the incident on the administrator's noticeboard because there was no way I could personally handle the IP without violating 3R. Yes, it appears to be a specific IP range, but I can't say for sure if it's the same person. All I know is that the edits to Komuro's article were becoming less and less constructive and clear examples of WP:UNDUE. Keivan.f^Talk 07:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ip range points to Calgary, which I don't think is a hotbed of Japan royalphiles, I think it was the same person. The article has now been semi-protected a month and the ip range has been blocked for 3 months. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to edit Kaitlyn Lawes Wikipedia page because there are errors I noticed on it. She is a curler and I know they are errors because I follow this sport very closely. I would like to make the changes but can’t because the site is protected. The changes I’m trying to make are the following: the current Curling Club is St. Vital CC, it should be Fort Rouge CC. This is the link to the incorrect info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Vital_Curling_Club this is the link to the info i want the incorrect info replaced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Rouge_Curling_Club and finally the link to the site the changes need to be made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaitlyn_Lawes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian kerwin (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian kerwin: Hi there! As you were advised at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Kaitlyn Lawes page, the proper place to make the request is the article's talk page: Talk:Kaitlyn Lawes. If you prefer, you may find it easier to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to edit Kaitlyn Lawes Wikipedia page because there are errors I noticed on it. She is a curler and I know they are errors because I follow this sport very closely. I would like to make the changes but can’t because the site is protected. The changes I’m trying to make are the following: the current Curling Club is St. Vital CC, it should be Fort Rouge CC.

This is the link to the incorrect info https://www.stvitalcurling.ca/

this is the link to the info i want the incorrect info replaced with https://curlfortrouge.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian kerwin (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk · contribs) without sources for pseuodhistorian. The editor has then gone through articles mentioning him changing his description. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I don't see sources. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current description of peter james in the main article mentions theories of real attempts to pinpoint atlantis, and alternative chronologies (published with David rohl who has unreliable credentials) not accepted by mainstream historians, which is enough evidence that he is indeed a figure in pseudoistory. Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the move so did a search to see how James is characterized in sources. Two newspaper articles refer to him as an archaeologist. Multiple journal reviews about his book don't characterize him by any profession. One rather scathing review (the others praised the explanation of the chronology problems but didn't agree with the proposed "solutions") simply lumped James in as a Velikovskian. I did not find sources calling him a pseudohistorian or his books pseudohistory. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Velikovsky is known for his pseudohistorical interpretations of history as stated in his Wikipedia article.Direct quote from that article says "his work is considered canonical example of pseudoscience" If peter james is indeed described as a Velikovskian, that is saying Peter james is a pseudohistorian without saying it.Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bit in brackets is purely for disambiguation - it's not meant to be relaying information about the subject. Is there another Peter James who is a legitimate historian that this guy has to be disambiguated from? I assume not. If there is some objection to calling this guy an historian then the title should be something like Peter James (author). "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words" says WP:NDESC. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a better known Peter James (writer) who writes crime fiction. I don't think "author" would disambig from "writer". Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James (researcher) then. I'm sure there are other options. Unless it's a very commonly used label for the person it's just unencyclopedic to use such a opinionated term as part of a disambiguation. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do we all agree the article should move to Peter James (researcher)?Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back just tagged the article for notability. Centuries of Darkness is a notable book, but like HEB, I'm not finding coverage to support notability of James. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move and notability tag both reverted by StAnselm. Article is back at "historian" now. Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most people at Category:Pseudohistorians are disambiguated by "author". I removed the notability tag because there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter James (historian) that the subject is notable. StAnselm (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Waltzingmogumogupeach's editing of links in articles now produces the POV popup statement "Peter James (Pseudohistorian)" when the link is mouse-over'ed. The redirect should be deleted per WP:RFD#DELETE #3. The user is also spamming "pseudohistorian" through Peter James related articles and DAB pages. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm that discussion was more than 10 years ago! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful for editors' opinions on whether George Santos's spouse from 2012 to 2019, Uadla Santos Vieira, can go in the infobox on his article, and whether WP:BLPPRIVACY would prevent that. Per the requirement in WP:BLPPRIVACY, her name has been "widely disseminated" by RS:

• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/george-santos-planned-an-engagement-dinner-to-a-man-while-married-to-a-woman-report
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230222193847/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/does-he-even-really-need-glasses-lying-george-santos-clings-on-6sx6xqgrc
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230228235334/https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-george-santos-time-in-orlando-20230209-rrzt7wawrbfpdhr6547shtswem-story.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230301223010/https://abcnews.go.com/US/promised-green-cards-catfishing-threats-santos-boyfriends-left/story?id=96797395
• https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/george-santos-lud-zu-verlobung-mit-seinem-freund--waehrend-seiner-ehe-mit-einer-frau-33124568.html
• https://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/us-abgeordneter-und-hochstapler-mit-frau-verheirateter-george-santos-lud-zu-verlobungsfeier-mit-mann-ohne-dessen-ja_id_183752263.html
• https://veja.abril.com.br/mundo/o-que-ele-sempre-buscou-foi-fama-e-poder-diz-ex-namorado-de-george-santos/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230125065335/https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/lucia-guimaraes/2022/12/filho-de-brasileiros-eleito-para-a-camara-dos-eua-e-um-personagem-de-ficcao.shtml
• https://piaui.folha.uol.com.br/an-avalanche-of-fibs/
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-santos-hid-marriage-woman-230930789.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20221229073029/https://www.advocate.com/politics/2022/12/22/george-santos-hid-marriage-woman-says-hell-explain-alleged-lies
• https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/george-santos-openly-gay-married-woman

But Daniel Case has repeatedly removed her name, citing WP:BLPPRIVACY and everything from not enough English-language sources having published the name for it to be considered widely disseminated, to inconsistency with presumed New York Times ethical principles, to Santos not publicly acknowledging the marriage until December 2022, to the ex-wife not responding to media requests, to the existence of ongoing legal matters involving this ex-wife.

The article devotes a lot of space to this marriage, relying heavily on two New York Times stories that do not use Vieira's name but also using one of the citations from the list above that uses Uadla Santos Vieira's name:

He did not publicly acknowledge his marriage to a woman, a Brazilian national,^[1] until it was reported in December 2022;^[2] that month he told the New York Post, "I dated women in the past. I married a woman", adding that he was "OK with my sexuality. People change."^[3]

Records show that a filing to dissolve the marriage in May 2013 was withdrawn in December. Four months later, Santos filed a family-based immigration petition on his wife's behalf; it was approved in July, typically seen as a sign that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services believes the marriage is valid. His wife filed for the removal of conditions in July 2016 and was granted her green card in October 2017. Five years later, she became a U.S. citizen.^[1]

Malcolm L. Lazin, a former federal prosecutor and LGBT-rights activist, filed complaints with the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics in February 2023 asking that Santos's marriage be investigated as a possible green card marriage entered into solely so that his wife might gain legal residence in the U.S., and later citizenship. He cited news reports that Santos had lived apart from his wife, in relationships with multiple men, one of whom he proposed to, and another account that he had offered to marry one so he might be able to stay in the country.^[1]

Both WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY seem to justify the inclusion of the name, but hopefully this helps at least to help define the term "widely disseminated".--Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Daniel Case here. Excluding her name doesn't result in much of a loss of context, the information about her is contentious (which should make us think more about whether this is necessary to include since she isn't a public figure), and the New York Times has chosen to conceal her name. The NYT is a good quality source, and I think their decision to exclude her name should carry weight.

I also wouldn't say her name is clearly widely disseminated - those are mostly passing mentions, sources seem to primarily refer to her not by her actual name Tristario (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like this, I often find it better to look beyond the mere words of policy and at focus more on the spirit of the policy that resulted in it's creation in the first place. I'm speaking in general here, not specifically to this case.

In general, we tend to lean greatly in favor of respecting and even protecting the privacy of people who are private citizens. Not everyone wants to be famous or have their name mentioned in a Wikipedia article, and to some people it's downright horrifying. Special sensitivity is needed in cases involving children, who are too young to really know what they want (or might want later in life) and the inherent dangers of having their name mentioned on Wikipedia. Likewise, victims of crimes often don't want their names forever linked to that crime, and ex-spouses often want to cut all ties with their exes. That's just basic human decency.

In reality, though, most readers don't really care what so-and-so's name is. The only people who really care are the persons themselves, people who know them, and inevitable the weirdos, stalkers, and identity thieves out there. In most cases, unless a person is notable of their own accord, to most readers it's is just meaningless jargon. A name without a face goes in one ear and right out the other, so what's the point in naming them? Therefore, the general bar for inclusion is this question: "is the person notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia?" If yes, then we have a name with a "face", so to speak, and it's something a reader might want to look into. If no, then to the general reader it reads just the same if we simply use a generic descriptor, such as "wife", "ex-wife", "children", "cousin", etc..." That's often clearer to the reader in fact, who, in their mind, is like, "I don't know any of these people! Why are you tossing these faceless names at me? Just tell me what role they play in the story."

But in any writing, we have to weigh the drawbacks of naming a person with the reader's need for the information in order to understand the story. If changing the name to a generic descriptor somehow alters the meaning, or the story really can't be told properly for the reader's understanding without naming them, then we have to seriously consider adding it at the expense of the person's privacy. The question I would ask myself is, "If I remove the name, has anything really changed?" A good example of this would be Casey Anthony. Not notable enough of her own accord to have her own article, but there's no way we could tell the story without naming her. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth So, you're saying that someone has to be WP:N to be named in an article? Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. You must have stopped about halfway through or something. I'm saying that if the person is not notable then people really don't give a rat's ass what their name is. We shouldn't add stuff just because we can. Wikipedia is not a random collection of factoids and trivia. There should be some point. Some reason the reader would want to know this name. What is gained by adding it? What is lost by removing it? These are questions that should be answered, not to me and not to everyone here, but to the reader --within the article itself. If it's not readily apparent by reading the article why we need the name, then we don't need it. If information cannot demonstrate it's own significance, then it's not information at all but meaningless filler. Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. Why would her name have been printed in so many RS if it were meaningless filler? I would also point to the fact that articles for almost all U.S. politicians list their spouses' and ex-spouses' names, and often dates of marriage and/or divorce. I think that speaks to the value and utility that people associate with this information in articles of politicians like George Santos. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth Also, the question is about an ex-wife rather than a child. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're deflecting now. If you read beyond the individual words and sentences, you might find a larger point in there. I started off by saying that I wasn't going to comment on this specific case, and punctuated that twice by adding the word "generally". Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that what you wrote about children is irrelevant to this specific case. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add to this that Casey Anthony was an infant and is long dead, so not only BLP but BRDP no longer reaches her. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristario What would your definition of widely disseminated be, and what type of mentions would it require? You seem to suggest that the majority of sources (not sure how that would be calculated, though) would have to mention a spouse's name. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with others that adding her name doesn't really add much to the article, she's not a public figure or otherwise notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hemiauchenia Should names of spouses who are not public figures be removed generally from infoboxes? Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. But in this case where they have been implicitly accused of immigration fraud, there are definitely reasons to favour this persons privacy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:BLPPRIVACY addresses, saying that at the point a name is widely disseminated, it meets the standard under that policy. In that (and this specific) case, withholding the name under the pretense of privacy makes no difference if anyone can just google it and find it in these sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with Hemiauchenia here. Considering WP:BLPCRIME, if the article is going to discuss the marriage fraud complaint that may lead to an investigation, it's better not to name her. WP:BLPNAME says that inclusion is subject to editorial discretion that the information/name is relevant to our complete understanding of Santos. It's not to me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names of spouses should simply be verifiable, it is basic, factual information about a person. People seem to be inventing criteria here in order to exclude it. Zaathras (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But not about a notable person, that is, the subject of the article. Notability is not inherited. Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not following the line of thought on notability, as the question isn't about the notability of Uadla Vieira Santos but rather the use of her name (in accordance with WP:BLPPRIVACY/WP:BLPNAME. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take it to be self explanitory. If there's one thing I've learned here, it's that you can't argue policy like a lawyer would argue law, because policy is neither written nor enforced like laws. You have to look at all the policies working together, all at once, all moving together at once like clockwork. We can't have cookie-cutter rules for every situation, because every case is different and requires a different level of care. This is one of those cases where some good, old fashioned, editorial judgment will have to come into play. I gave you my generic advice, so do with it what you will. I suggest doing what we always do in these cases where policy doesn't have a black-and-white answer. Take it to the talk page and come to a consensus. But, and this is the biggest piece of advice I can give you, do find a reason why it should be included. You keep avoiding that in all this bludgeoning, but that would end this discussion faster that you could say "Bob's your uncle". (PS: I know this discussion isn't about Bob or your uncle.) Like I said, I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-explanatory, it is farcical. "Not inherited" does not apply to spousal and child listings in infoboxes. Zaathras (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For further background, this issue is actually not a fresh one.

It first came up shortly after The New York Times broke the Santos-falsehoods story almost two and a half months ago, setting off a torrent of coverage which has slowed down but not stopped ... almost every day brings something new worth adding. That first article did not mention the marriage.

Within three days her name had been reported in The Daily Beast. RSPS says there is no consensus as to whether it is a reliable source and advises particular care in using it for BLP information, so we decided (perhaps since that article makes use of the marriage to cast doubt on Santos's gayness, which some editors found offensive and old-fashioned) not to use any DB articles as sources for Santos information. Even within that DB story, you have to read some distance down to get to her name (available in public records).

It could be foreseen that the marriage would likely become part of the article eventually. It transpired that Santos and the woman were legally married from 2012 to 2019. Yet during that period Santos lived with a couple of different men, and his family, and moved out of state for a year; never, it seems, with his wife. The divorce only became final in 2019, the week before Santos announced his first (unsuccessful) run for Congress. He never mentioned it in his campaign biography nor any interviews.

So it's easy to argue on the face of things that it was all a Green Card marriage so the woman, a Brazilian national, could (as it has since been reported that she did) gain U.S. permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship. The Times{{'}s continuing coverage first touched on this in a mid-January article where it notes that several of his campaign staffers, on learning of the marriage for the first time in a "vulnerability study" (an in-house oppo report), considered this possibility. I didn't think that was strong enough to justify adding to the article at the time, and it wasn't. A month later, the Times finally devoted an entire article to the marriage, since it had been made the subject of a formal ethics complaint to Congress making that allegation.

By the end of the year her name had been added to the article and infobox. Carguychris removed it on New Year's Eve and explained why on the talk page. Another editor restored it; EEng took care of that two days later.

Carguychris again removed it later in January, and again a week or so ago, per the same consensus. Samp4ngeles incorrectly attributes all the reverts of his addition solely to me, however I only got involved recently and as the diffs show I'm merely one of three editors who have made the reverts.

This has led to more recent discussion on the talk page, in which Sam has basically made and remade what most people familiar with BLP will recognize as the irrelevant argument that since we include the names of present and former spouses in all other articles about members of the U.S. Congress, we must include it here.

He has also insisted that there is "widespread" coverage of the Santos story that names his former wife ... I very much dispute that the number of articles that do use her name can be characterized that way. He has regularly quoted from the text of BLP, as indeed he again does above, to suggest it at least permits, or even mandates, the inclusion of her name. But in my experience, and I have been editing since before we had BLP, BLP is read primarily as setting criteria for exclusion of a person or information unique to them, i.e. we only include something we are unsure of if we cannot find a good BLP reason to exclude it.

I find his main misunderstanding to be that since we must write about the marriage, we must of necessity name the woman.

To save some readers' time, here are my many arguments to Sam from the article talk page (not all of which he has responded to there) to bullet points:

• Per BLPPRIVACY and the oft-noted presumption in its favor: we include things like full names when "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." Given that the former Mrs. Santos has declined to speak to any media outlet that has covered this story, I think it can be reasonably inferred that she very much does object to her name being made public on a widely-read website. And as I have argued above and at length on the talk page, I do not think the "widespread" threshold has been crossed.
• BLPPRIVACY also says "Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified" Res ipsa loquitur.
• Sam also cites, often very selectively, from BLPNAME. I find the fuller context much more dispositive of this issue:

  When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated ... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

  The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

  I have not yet seen any good argument against this in this context.
• In the aforementioned Times article, linked above, discussing Santos's marriage, his wife's name is never used. After Sam rejected my argument that the paper's editors and reporters, who can be reasonably assumed to have journalistic-ethics standards in this area that overlap with BLP to some degree even though they were developed independently, made that decision for very BLP-esque reasons by saying that, basically, the Times isn't the boss of us, I pointed out also that the article proves it is entirely possible to write about the Santos' marriage without having to use her name, so why should that be such a problem for us? Again, apparently, it's because we're an encyclopedia and we have articles about other members of Congress that enumerate their marital histories.
• As a former spouse of a member of Congress, Santos's ex should benefit from an even greater presumption of privacy than she might be accorded if they were still married.
• The article is under not just one but two contentious-topic restrictions: BLP, of course, and post-1992 politics of the United States and related people. Therefore we must take particular care with editing according to policy, which means here we construe BLP broadly.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why we need to name her. She's not notable (as notability isn't inherited) and they're no longer married. She appears to be avoiding the media and at least some media are respecting that—which speaks volumes to me. Even if they were still married and she wasn't avoiding the public eye, I'd suggest mentioning her first name only. I don't understand why it's necessary to include full names of related people just because some sources give them. Anyways, that was a tangent—the right thing to do here is to leave her name out. Woodroar (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC 2x) I'm also in agreement that there seems to be no need to name her. The controversy over the marriage combined with the fact that Santos's notablity seems to be mostly or complete after the marriage ended combined with the fact the marriage was apparently largely kept out of the public eye for its entirety and even during the beginnings of the subject's notability all gives more reason to exclude her name. I'd note that despite the claim above that it's basic biographical information that must be included if verifable, WP:BLPNAME is quite clear that in fact such names "may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". While the situation with spouses or former spouses is different from minor children where this tends to raise most concerns (as BLP also says), this is definitely far from the first time we've discussed whether to include the name of a current or former partner or spouse for reasons unrelated to sourcing concerns. I'd further note people also say the same thing about minor children and birthdates anyway, that it's basic biographical information that must be included if reliably sourced but this is not what policy says nor what BLPN discussions have agreed with whenever it has come up. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A good solution -- Firstly, WP:NBIO has nothing to do with spouse's names. Let's try something else here: WP:BLPNAME. Please read this excerpt very carefully: "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." This means two things:

  1. If a family member is not a notable public figure, their name must be removed if not properly sourced. Is her name properly sourced? If yes, then this policy doesn't apply. If no, then this policy does apply.

  2. If a name is reliably sourced (must be reliably sourced), it still can be removed. If there is consensus that the spouse's name is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject, it can be removed. If it is relevant to the reader's understanding, it may not be removed.

In conclusion, there are two steps when trying to determine if George Santos' wife's name should be included in his article. Step 1: you must first know if her name is reliably sourced. If not reliably sourced, remove it. If reliably sourced, move on to Step 2. Step 2: editors must determine if her name is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.. If her name is relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject, keep it. If her name is not relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject, remove it. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent analysis. One potential issue is that the term "complete understanding of the subject" is poorly defined. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion's the same no matter how "complete understanding" is defined, because including the name adds not a scintilla to the reader's understanding. This discussion is a waste of time. No argument at all has been offered to explain how the reader would benefit from including it. EEng 06:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng Don't names inherently help provide a complete understanding of a subject such as Santos? If not, should we start removing the names of pretty much any spouse of a politician or figure in Washington who is not WP:N in their own right? For example:

• Kevin McCarthy's wife, Judy Wages
• Steve Scalise's spouse, Jennifer Letulle
• Hakeem Jeffries' wife, Kennisandra Arciniegas
• John Roberts' spouse, Jane Sullivan
• Marjorie Taylor Greene's ex-husband, Perry Greene

and perhaps most relevant to Santos:

• Ilhan Omar's husband Tim Mynett or ex-husbands Ahmed Nur Said Elmi or Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi

I'm sure this helps illustrate for you why the question above is not a waste of time. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The names of any of those people who have not signaled a willingness to shed their privacy, do not have public or professional lives reported independently, don't campaign or cut ribbons or appear in official portraits with their officeholder spouses, and so on and so forth, should indeed be removed from those articles, absent some good reason. I'm sure this helps illustrate for you why the question above is a waste of time.

Some of your edit summaries imply that an article should be this way or that because (you say) "it's standard", and that continues to be your argument here. Different topics have different needs, and while you can draw analogies to other topics and their articles, the mere fact that other articles do or don't contain certain content is a very weak argument. EEng 17:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just making this stuff up? WP:BLPPRIVACY doesn't mention anything whatsoever about anyone a subject signalling a willingness to "shed their privacy". The standard is wide distribution of the name in RS. Wikipedia does, in fact, have standards in the form of policies/guidelines. This topic seeks an answer to question of what "widely disseminated" in WP:BLPPRIVACY means. The lack of a definition of wide dissemination, and statements like yours above that do not adhere to the policy, show the need for specificity. And if you go back and read what I have written, you will see that the main argument is not that other politicians' biographies have things a certain way, but that many RS have discussed Uadla Santos Vieira, which appears to meet the WP:BLPPRIVACY standard. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not just making stuff up. You need to read the entirety of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. You're now arguing with multiple highly experienced editors about this, and beginning to look pretty silly doing it. EEng 21:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what in that link, or in any policy or guideline for that matter, says anyone needs to signal a willingness to shed their privacy? You're making this up.

The standard is wide dissemination in RS, but neither you nor any other highly experienced editor has ventured to define wide dissemination. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again ... you are moving the goalposts. When BLP is interpreted or construed a way that seems logical and in keeping with its (ahem) original intent, you demand literal, explicit text. But when an expansive reading supports your point of view, it's just fine.

I would think that the language about "the presumption of privacy" is enough to support the notion that people who seem to care about maintaining theirs should be accorded it in our articles. What part of this are you not understanding? Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, "the" standard isn't that, because there's no one, simple standard. Judgment is needed. Develop some. And to answer your question: Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. EEng 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always 1 A.M., somewhere on Wikipedia ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, this whole time, you were just trying to settle the question of whether we should include George Santos's ex-wife's name in the article about him. So now the issue is an insufficient (for you) standard of privacy? Then there's WT:BLP to propose a change in wording.

Anyhow, I decided to look over the list of spouses you gave:

• Jane Sullivan: She is the subject of this National Law Journal article. That does not recount an event significant enough to confer notability on her, but does suggest she does not mind being connected to her husband publicly.
• Judy Wages: Mentioned in McCarthy's House biography. Also, they're still married and she's had children with him.
• Jennifer Letulle: Their wedding announcement is still in an online newspaper archive (something that distinguishes him from Santos, for whom the only record of his wedding is the public record), and they're still married and have children together.
• Kennisandra Arciniegas. Name is published in online profiles; they're still married and they have children.
• Perry Greene. OK, he's an ex-spouse now. But he was frequently identified as her husband when she ran for office (to the surprise of many who knew her well), and accounts of her career take note that the two were more than just spouses—they were business partners as well from 2002 on when her father transferred his construction company to them, so Perry could run it (quite well, apparently) while Marjorie got $100K/year in her low-show job as nominal CFO. I do not argue that his name has not been widely reported.
• Ilhan Omar's previous husbands: Hirsi is probably a close parallel to Santos's ex-wife, given how below the radar the first marriage and divorce were as they were purely religious with no civil recognition. But, they had three children together, remarried and redivorced legally as well as religiously. The marriage to Elmi also invited scrutiny as to whether she was technically a bigamist for part of that time. His name became public as part of a formal investigation into those issues and her possible misuse of campaign funds. Yes, this is similar to Santos, but no formal investigation that would implicate her has yet been launched. (Also, using their names here makes them easier to distinguish. Santos, by contrast, has had only one wife)

Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these are all worth discussing in WT:BLP with respect to BLPPRIVACY, but so-called willingness to shed privacy (as indicated by EEng) seems to underpin most of your justifications but isn't mentioned in BLPPRIVACY. Wide dissemination in RS is, however, and by that measure RS on Uadla Vieira are more widely disseminated than most of these. I agree that Hirsi is the closest comparison. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fucking Tapdancing Christ, will you stop referencing BLPPRIVACY like it's the only relevant guideline? You've been told over and over to read Presumption of privacy, wherein islinked Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. Now start talking less and listening more, and you might learn something. EEng 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given what you have just said, I must share with all participants in this thread the edit you made crediting "the opinions of other editors on [this thread] at Ilhan Omar.

First, as noted there, your edit is actually inconsistent with what I wrote just a short scroll above, which was twofold: first, while both husbands were, initially, low-profile in the same way Santos's wife is (especially Elmi, since their union produced no children), the timeline of the marriages became at least in part the subject of an official investigation into whether Omar was ... biandrous? Is that how we would say it? And secondly, since there were two husbands, it is easier from an editorial perspective to use both their names so that readers can understand which one is being discussed. That makes it a case where using their names does, IMO, add significant context. Whereas adding Santos's wife's name does not (And yet again, I note that you have not responded to, much less acknowledged, my challenge over on the talk page to share at least one example of how the Santos article suffers from the exclusion of his ex-wife's name).

In short, you either didn't read what I wrote and reiterated, or you did and chose to misrepresent it.

More broadly, beyond the issues above, your edit is troubling. I noted without reading the diff, on the Omar talk page, that it seemed POINT-y. Once I went to revert it and actually read it, I realized my judgement was premature.

It is undeniably POINT-y. It is not only that, it is juvenile ("In 2009, Omar married someone else") and unbecoming a Wikipedian. Your editing, particularly on this question, had been getting borderline tendentious; with this edit I daresay it has gone well over that line.

I cannot take any action against you as an admin since I am involved. But I cannot imagine that if you continue doing things like this, that tendentiousness will be impossible not to see as disruptive, and other admins who look at such behavior will have no reservation about sanctions.

So, I am taking it upon myself to warn you over this one. It is getting to be a little past high time that you dropped the stick and backed off. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY doesn't mention anything whatsoever about anyone a subject signalling a willingness to "shed their privacy". Sure it does, right in the second sentence: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." Whether or not a person has published their details—or is avoiding media coverage entirely—is absolutely a factor in how we write about them. Woodroar (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. EEng 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Nil Einne. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. EEng 17:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all, just wanted to add two comments to this discussion. First, I think listing maybe just a first name on a former spouse may be a good compromise in this specific scenario. Second, I think the accusations of a green card marriage and how these accusations could affect his ex-wife might implicate WP:BLPCRIME For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured and I haven't seen that mentioned yet. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if there any examples of other articles using just a first name. The Santos article essentially employs that approach with Santos's current partner/spouse, Matt/Matheus. It's perhaps worth noting that RS have written about Uadla Santo Vieira more extensively than they have about Matt/Matheus, despite his higher public profile.

  The BLPCRIME angle is useful. The is a balance of whether it's of more value for the article to suggest that a crime has been committed (or if it should), versus having basic biographical details. Samp4ngeles (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't know immigration law so I can't say for sure if the article in its current form suggests she committed a crime. But the fact we aren't certain here makes me want to be cautious on using a full name since she clearly isn't a public figure (even if she is notable in other aspects). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Compromising" on a first name makes no sense. Either we include the name, for good reason, or we don't, for good reason. EEng 21:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that compromising makes no sense. Wikipedia guidelines specifically encourage it: WP:DGF encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise... @Samp4ngeles is right that WP:BLPNAME would normally allow for the inclusion of her name in the article given the sources provided. A lot of editors have raised WP:BLPPRIVACY, but normally the sourcing provided would meet that standard and we'd list a spouse's name (although I think @Zaereth was right to say this case seems to violate the spirit of that policy). However, there are still policies that caution us and encourage a lot of discretion here. I mentioned WP:BLPCRIME above. Listing only a first name makes sense because it provides context to an article we'd usually include in an article (we can list a marriage and divorce in the infobox for example), but prevents things like potential reputational harm to his ex-wife in line with WP:NPF. I know WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIVACY don't say this explicitly but, in line with the spirit of the rule, it feels important to point out that if we list her full name then Santos's page may be one of the first things that comes up when someone searches for her online. I'd encourage @Samp4ngeles and other editors to consider the potential impact on her from the listing of her name on an article (because I think the spirit of the rules encourages us to) and all of the policies cited in this discussion and determine how we should handle discussing her because she's going to be mentioned in some way on the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Compromise makes sense for, I don't know, should we list all of an author's works, or none? -- Let's compromise by listing some. What you're proposing is like cutting the baby in half. EEng 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The key phrase you used is "going to be" I do believe it's possible that we will have to mention her name at some point in the future, whenever the marriage gets seriously investigated.

  But not now. If you're not making a threat to edit disruptively (and given the quality of your editing otherwise, I really want to believe that you did not mean it that way), then you are invoking CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm quite sure T.P.F. is merely predicting that the wife's going to need to be mentioned in the article sooner or later and (given that prediction) suggests that we think now about how that reference will be made. EEng 03:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I implied, that's very much what I hope. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant that she is going to be mentioned in some form in the article, either by a name or as more generic "woman" or "former wife." With the investigation likely upcoming we have to refer to her somehow. @Daniel Case I guess I could have added a "we have to" before I said "determine how we should handle discussing her" to be more clear I was trying to encourage collaboration and not threatening disruptive editing. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good. When she does have to be mentioned I'm OK with the firstname lastname format we've been using. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We done? EEng 05:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; I unsubscribed from this section a couple of days back, and Samp4ngeles hasn't returned to the Santos article in a while. This section can and should be closed as a clear consensus against using her name in the present circumstances (meaning, as long as she keeps her silence about the marriage or is not named as a target of a formal investigation into it or some other sort of public proceeding concerning it). Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per People Magazine, Heather Dubrow stated on social media her 12 year old child is transgender, previously known as Collette. Not sure how this should be handled given WP:BLPSELFPUB #2 so seeking input. S0091 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be handled by confining the content of Dubrow's biography to the actual subject matter: Dubrow herself, not a non-notable minor. As far as I can see there is no real reason why the biography even needs to name her children, never mind discuss them in any detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Andy says - I don't see why we are naming any of her children in the article. Her husband is notable, so mentioning his name is fine, but it would be sufficient to say that they have four children and leave it at that. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I went ahead and removed the non-notable kids' names (diff). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLPNAME discourages the non notable child from being mentioned Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Gordon Meek is a former ABC news producer that recently got charged with child sexual abuse. His article looked like this before a fairly new editor added this content. My issue is with how much weight the editor has put on the charges. Also they are using the affidavit as the main source (up to 20 times) for writing out the very detailed crimes. I brought up my concerns on the talk page, but don't think many editors have it on their watchlist. More eyes on this is appreciated, because maybe I am misunderstanding WP:BLPPRIMARY. Mike Allen 22:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think those additions are definitely problematic. WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear you should not use public documents to support assertions about a living person. And, he hasn't been convicted, which per WP:BLPCRIME means we should be very careful about how we're writing about this. It also seems like far too much detail, especially considering the lack of a conviction Tristario (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained on the talk page, everything sourced to the affidavit is also sourced in mainstream media news; there has been strange pushback of "You can't say that because it's only in the affidavit and Daily Mail and publications that are considered suspect!", but it's obviously a prominent media story - the facts in the Daily Mail are obviously right out of the affidavit, the same facts are also in Fox News, ABC News, Rolling Stone, Daily Beast and elsewhere - the article is heavily sourced - and I have put just as much effort into collecting non-arrest related news about him, his major news stories, his places of employment, his family history, etc. The only claim that is only in a Court Filing (the reason for his divorce) and the Daily Mail without any other Third Party sources I've hidden in html so it's not viewable until I find a third source other than the Virginia Court itself and the Daily Mail. Yes he's a prominent journalist, yes he stands accused (on pretty damning evidence) of at least 8 years of child sex offences....the article is approximately 50% about the arrest, 50% about his career and family - the previous version just had a single throwaway sentence about the 8 years of child sex abuse and an FBI raid dubbed "The biggest news story of the year" by Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck and other prominent third party journalists. I have offered (and asked an admin about) whether I should include the Affidavit beside a 3P citation to buttress it, or not mention the affidavit at all, I've invited the person complaining here to replace the affidavit as source and put in the media source himself instead but he's elected instead to come try to get the information entirely removed despite obviously the same details being in all the major media outlets. LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously if prominent third-party journalists like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck think it's the biggest news story of the year, why then we should be reporting it fer shur! EEng 19:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in reliable sources then just source it to reliable sources then. Otherwise, if it's just cited to a public document, it should be immediately removed. You should read WP:BLP, you need to be very careful when writing about living people, and especially so when it comes to contentious content and allegations of crime.

We are also meant to write biographies of living people conservatively, and wikipedia is not an indisciminate collection of information. I don't think that's currently being done in this article. Tristario (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much detail. The sources that LauraIngallsEvenWilder added are inappropriate. It's not an issue of being true or verified; it's a matter of what type of sources are WP:DUE. That is what type of detail are being covered by high quality sources rather than OXYGEN, the Daily Beast or Rolling Stone. (see WP:RSP) There is a complete WP:BLPBALANCE concern here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only the details reported by high quality RS should be used; not ones that only come from the affidavit or DOJ press releases. I would just remove those citations outright to prevent confusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa...over half that article is about the prosecution, in a lot of detail He's not convicted. WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most independent RS about him is about the raid and prosecution. Otherwise, his life and works as a writer and producer have not been subject to much extensive RS review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of deals related to the arrest can still be cut down. There's lines in that that read POVish (like the line from Tucker Carlson, or the pleas at his bail hearing). Masem (t) 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a lot of self-sourcing and a major editor has just been block for a legal threat and COI at WP:ANI#Appeal of Wikipedia Image deletion which has a lot of detail about the article. The first two sentences of the lead are "Matthew Daniels is an American academic and human rights scholar.^[1] In the late 1990s through the 2000s, Daniels campaigned against the proposed recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States, which he viewed as a threat to the traditional family." It would be useful to see some independent reliable sources in this article backing up the human rights claims. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 14:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that is evidenced by footnote 70 is not accurate (I've read the 'interview' linked to in footnote 70) and, to my reading, is potentially libelous. Jeffrey Sachs does not 'evade' repeated questioning about the subject he is quoted as saying 'The scale of issues is very serious in this discussion on both sides.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.133.255 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source, this Axios piece, says that Sachs "evaded questions about China's genocide against Uyghurs during an interview last month". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This report involves the article about Dan Wagner, a prominent member of the British internet world. Both Talk:Dan Wagner#Request Edits April 2022 and Talk:Dan Wagner#RfC for Dan Wagner Updates were closed due to opposition by User: Scope creep, who incorrectly informed editors the matters had previously been decided, Editors engaged in a discussion with him to show him this was not the case. Talk:Dan Wagner#Controversial closing of rfc Scope creep has now had a chance to closely review the three requests, one at a time, and has left comments on two of the three that these are valid requests, not previously discussed on Talk. See the three individual requests and responses in Talk:Dan Wagner#Controversial closing of rfc. These requests concern adding that Wagner was the CEO of two publicly-traded companies. It’s a rather important part of his biography.

Scope creep has not left a note about the third request, but it has been several weeks since they were given the opportunity to satisfy themselves that the request had not previously been decided and that it isn’t Promo. Perhaps they didn’t bother to leave a comment because it simply involves adding well-cited sentences to replace a sentence that currently has no citation.

As this matter has now been dragging on for 11 months, and it involves rather elaborate discussions across three different sections on Talk, I was wondering if an editor[s] here would review and implement the three now unopposed edits, if they are also satisfied?

As you might surmise by my use of the request edit process, I have a disclosed conflict of interest as a paid editor. Therefore, I am not going to make direct edits to the article myself. I could go through the request edit process again, but it does not seem typical to use this process to ask an editor to review three previous contentious Talk sections to explain why the same denied requests from 11 months ago are being reposted. The BLP noticeboard seems to me a more appropriate forum. I hope that is OK. Thanks. W12SW77 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick scan through the talk page, and found it all to be just as confusing as this post here. There is a lot of talk about whether consensus was previously achieved or not, but all that does is obscure whatever it is that this is all about. I'm guessing that the problem is that you want to add stuff like this: "In 2017, Wagner founded mobile commerce platform Rezolve. Under Wagner, Rezolve developed a tool that allowed smartphone users to scan items in print and TV ads and purchase them, or request more information. The Financial Times noted Rezolve’s function was similar to PowaTag, but Wagner told Business Insider he didn't use IP that didn’t belong to him. In 2021, Wagner took Rezolve public in a merger with Armada Acquisition Corporation, a financial technology SPAC, in a $2 billion deal."

Now there are several problems with that, with the most glaring being the promotional tone. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a company's products, and this totally reads like an ad. It's very unencyclopedic in both tone, content, and formality. For example, encyclopedias are so formal that we don't use contractions. As Scope Creep said, it would probably be acceptable if you whittle out all the fluff and just list the basic facts, but, written like that, you will never gain consensus for its inclusion, and I'm guessing your other requests have similar problems.

That said, this is not the proper place to bring issues of this nature. This board is specifically to deal with BLP policy and violations, which is more geared toward protecting the rights of the people we write about. The proper way to deal with these situations is to discuss it on the talk page, and discuss, discuss, discuss. You shoot yourself in the foot by getting sidetracked onto all these irrelevant tangents, such as whether or not consensus was previously achieved. Consensus is not written in stone, and it can always change, so those points are moot and just obscuring what it is you really want (which I'm still unsure of). If discussions don't work, you can always ask for a third opinion, or do another RFC. If that doesn't work, then you can try WP:DRN for mediation, and if all else fails you can take it to arbitration as a last resort. But I recommend exhausting all other options before getting to ARBCOM, because that has a funny way of backfiring right in your face. But first, you have to have clear, coherent, and cogent discussions on the talk page so that outsiders (like me) will be able to read them and clearly understand what the dispute is all about, and that hasn't been done yet. There is too much to distract from the real issues there for an outsider to make sense of. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got a ping. What was the third edit request content. I can't see it. That last seemed ok, it was free of promo. scope_creep^Talk 21:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Campos-Duffy was not from Wausau, Wisconsin; She was not born there nor was she educated there, nor did she have a career there. She lived in Wausau later in life with her husband. Please transfer this biography to her city of birth or childhood or career. Gloria Kannenberg

Source: Wikipedia article on Rachel Campos-Duffy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C3:9712:CF00:A9B5:5C0B:89A5:4A81 (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Rachel Campos-Duffy makes it clear where she was born etc so I don't see a problem there. If you're referring to Wausau, Wisconsin#Notable people, I have no comment on whether she belongs but there's no requirement that a person is born there to be listed. (Although that list is frankly a mess as lists often are since it lacks any sources.) The requirements are sort of explained at WP:SOURCELIST. As for the career claim, that doesn't seem accurate. From what I can tell, she still lives there now during what is arguably the most significant part of the career. [3] [4] [5] I assume the show she is co-hosting isn't filmed in Wausau or anywhere nearby so she is commuting long distance but this isn't that different from her husband Sean Duffy who would still reasonably be described as being from Wausau and not D.C. from 2013 during his congressional career. As shown by my sources at least one Wausau paper seems to agree that Rachel Campos-Duffy was from Wausau in 2021. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in the article about Tim Parker does not follow the actual text of the source provided, creating an NPOV issue. I have listed the exact changes needed to address this on the article’s Talk page, along with sourcing to support these assertions Riffsvill (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just sourced to a primary source, so that sentence should be removed outright (it could be included again with a secondary source and appropriate wording). And second, that section is primarily about Post Office Ltd, not Parker, so I think it should be moved to the career section (and could possibly be reduced in size) unless content can be added about how that scandal more directly relates to Parker Tristario (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Talk:April Mullen tab of the person's biography, there are unfounded and inflammatory claims against the subject of the article April Mullen which have no reputable source. They should be taken down immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcp182 (talk • contribs)

I've removed it from the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

What else does this draft page need to be published?

draft - Joel Naukkarinen (Finnish rower)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Joel_Naukkarinen&oldid=prev&diff=1142344306

Please let me know what can be improved and how it can be published.

Thank you! Khadiganour (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really what this noticeboard is for, so your best bet is to continue through the creation process and take the advice of those who are reviewing the draft. That said, I will however give you a few small pieces of advice. First, it doesn't read much like an encyclopedia article but more like a simple timeline of events. For comparison, check out some other articles on athletes, like Don Meredith, for example. Do you notice the differences, like how things are written out in paragraphs and it's not just a simple timeline? That's how an encyclopedia article should be written, and it's much easier for the reader to follow that way. Then, you may want to trim down some of the WP:PUFFERY. By that, I mean statements like, "Naukkarinen is Finland's most successful indoor rower." Reader's don't like to be told what they should think, so it's best to avoid such puffery. Instead of telling me he is the most successful, it's far better to just show me.

That leads to references. My goodness, you have way, way too many references for that one line! Too many citations raise a big red-flag for WP:SYNTHESIS. Nobody should need that many references for a single sentence, and it makes people wonder if those citations all support the sentence, or just a single word from each. One citation is usually enough. Maybe two or three for lines that are likely to be challenged, but any more is unnecessary at best.

Much of the article has that same problem. Way too many citations for some things and absolutely none for others. Finally, and this pertains to WP:BLP policy, you should really avoid naming people who are not notable enough to have their own articles. Try to respect the rights of people who are not public figures. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to share all the tips and feedback. It's very much appreciated. It is the most solid feedback I've had for this draft. Thank you. Thank you. Khadiganour (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be kind enough to remove Wikipedia page about me. Sepala Ekanayaka Some people for the intentions of getting European citizenship have spread a fake story about Welikada.I have complained to the CID ad well. Please remove this page an unknown person has created. Thanks Sepala Ekanayaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydsol (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that the article be deleted at WP:Articles for deletion. Click on that link and carefully follow the instructions on the page. I'll say this, though, I predict that it will probably pass AFD and not be deleted, but you are welcome to give it a try.

When it comes to the stuff about the prison massacre, that may be a different story. You can bring that up on the article's talk page. I see several problems with that. First, the source is an opinion/editorial column, and you can tell because the author freely admits to speculating. Those are usually not considered reliable sources. Second, the article doesn't really say what the source does. It doesn't confirm anything, nor does it pretend to. It simply says that some people who may or may not be reliable witnesses said they saw you do it, and others said that they didn't believe it, and since the prison was more interested in covering up the facts, no one really knows. That gives you some pretty good arguments for removing it entirely from the article, or at least telling both sides of the story. Zaereth (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources attribute the allegations to a book, Sri Lanka: The Arrogance Of Power: Myths, Decadence & Murder [6]. One source was actually just an excerpt of that book. The problem is that the author of that book, Rajan Hoole, was also one of the founders of University Teachers for Human Rights, which published the book. This may not pass WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question appears to be actually titled Sepala Ekanayake though is see that Ekanayaka is used in some of the provided sources. I have no comment on the contents of the article at this time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Machon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Annie Machon mentions her as a 9/11 truther, and refers to an article from The New Statesman, written by Brendan O'Neill in 2006, which in my opinion, is selectively quoting, as further down the source article O'Neill himself mentions Machon was 'uncomfortable' with some of Shayler's opinions regarding this topic.

The WP:BLP policy mentions: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources."

I feel that Machon being labelled as a '9/11 truther' based only on a single (heavily opinionised) article from 2006 (17 years ago!), as if that is the defining characteristic of her work, is contentious. After her MI5 period, she became a media commentator, author, and international public speaker. I also don't feel like she is 'commonly described' as a '9/11 truther' in reliable sources, which the WP:BLP policy seems to require.

The 9/11 mention might also violate WP:NPOV as encyclopaedia articles require a neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphotick (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states

In a 2006 interview with New Statesman magazine, Machon and Shayler both discussed their roles in the 9/11 truth movement, and she was quoted as saying, "The Pentagon's anti-missile defence system would definitely have picked up and dealt with a commercial airliner. We can only assume that whatever hit the Pentagon was sending a friendly signal. A missile fired by a US military plane would have sent a friendly signal."

These are Machon's own words. If you can come up with a later source where she disavows that view, you can add it. Otherwise, I think the single mention of her involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement (without actually calling her a Truther) is fair and balanced. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This specific New Statesman article is WP:RSOPINION. Also see [7]. Is there stronger coverage out there to justify the label "vocal member of the 9/11 truth movement" in the lead? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't call her a member of the Truth Movement anywhere, vocal or otherwise. It talks about her involvement in the Truth Movement (once, not in the lead) and quotes her own words as reported in a WP:RS. It is not the author of the piece's opinion; it is Machon's own words being quoted. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this line that the OP removed.[8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, that's a good point, and probably the main issue I have with the source. Reading the New Statesman article it comes across as opinionised, and WP:RSOPINION.

Also, I've just added (with a source to an article by the Daily Mail) that in January 2007 (not too long after the New Statesman article was published), she and David Shayler split up, and in that article it's mentioned that they split apart and after that: "She said she supported some but not all of his views on that subject but quickly added that the missile theory was something "David has been researching"."

So to me it seems the missile theory was something David was researching, and that she didn't agree with all his views on the subject. Aphotick (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source so I have removed your addition. The rest of what you say is original research. She mentioned the missile theory, in her own words, in the NS article. Are you saying she didn't really believe it and was only parroting what Shayler told her to say? Again, that is original research. What is quoted, directly from her, is not the magazine's opinion; it's hers. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article it's definitely the case that Shayler was way more extreme in his views on this. Also why did you place that sentence of 'vocal 9/11 truther' placed back in the lede? Other than this NS opinion piece, was she a 'vocal 9/11 truther'? I don't think we can claim that. What if we have it like it was before, with it removed from the lede paragraph, but keep it in further down? You mentioned yourself: 'Otherwise, I think the single mention of her involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement (without actually calling her a Truther) is fair and balanced.' So let's keep it then at a single mention? Now there's 2 and that seems excessive. Aphotick (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I didn't realise I was readding it when I removed the DM reference. I have removed it again. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Can happen to all of us. Thanks. Aphotick (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Asmongold whether publishing the subject's first & last name is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. There a small numbers of reliable sources that publish his name, but there is contention of whether this qualifies as public information. Your input would be appreciated. Skipple ☎ 04:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Skipple: I've moved this thread from WT:BLP to WP:BLPN. Levivich (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This revision is pretty problematic. I've insta-reverted it, but it presents both libel and safety concerns. Feoffer (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A biog based largely on his publisher's webpage serving only to promote the subject's book. I can see nothing that makes him notable. I will tag soon. Any comments welcome. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article at WP:AFD. I've done a first pass, but I think there are tabloid, safety, privacy and crime related issues that could do with attention. More eyes on this article would be good.

WP:CANVASS rules almost prevented me from posting this, of course I don't wish to canvass AFD voters, but I think the safety/crime/privacy issues are more important than anyone thinking I'm canvassing. With that in mind, I am consciously trying to be neutral and avoid commentary here on notability. CT55555(talk) 17:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like a collection of sensationalist stories. I'm not sure what approach to take here though, since it seems that's mainly the kind of thing she's received coverage for Tristario (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was struggling with that issue. CT55555(talk) 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the Tucker Carlson talk page related both the article length[9] an a proposal to split the article [10]. I'm concerned that the current article has a lot of poorly written sections and content that could be cut rather than justifying splitting the article into subtopics. I think the assessment of uninvolved editors would be helpful here. Springee (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with the desire to "cut" content is that it has usually involved what appears to be whitewashing, so that option should be viewed with a bit of skepticism. Not that some cutting doesn't need to be done occasionally, but spinning off huge topics that create an undue weight problem is standard procedure.

There are 193,000 bytes of content that can easily be spun off properly, and that would resolve the (bogus, IMHO) complaints about article size. It would then be easier to focus on improving what's left. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to how someone who is just an entertainer on television has their views covered so extensively and treated with such authority in both reliable sources and an encyclopedia. Surely not every vote he has cast in Presidential elections is DUE (nor are they verifiable, secret ballot and all that). Same with views, yes he said it and yeah someone felt the need to cover it but way too much recentism.

For someone with over 20 years on cable news, abortion is the one of the few issues that covers a period beyond Trump presidency. WP:10YEAR is good guidance and the more subjective parts of the article should be looked at for what was a one day newstory vs what has continuous coverage.

So yes, the article should be split but pruning should be a higher priority, so the content can be reviewed as a whole prior to splitting.

Also, what's with last sentence in lead? Either those issues are important enough to be spelled out or they aren't. Burying them behind others with five citations says they aren't.Slywriter (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the last sentence of the lede: perhaps it means there are actually too many false or misleading statements that have been made by Carlson to be spelled out in the lede, and are better expanded upon in the body. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made my comment on the Carlson talk page, but what has been happening on pages like people like Carlson - where the press's opinion of these people is generally negative (so that would include people like Trump, MTG, Boebart, etc.), is that WP editors tend to want to include every negative element that can be reliably sourced to an RS. Instead, we should be focusing on the larger picture, not worry about tiny details that may get a burst of coverage, but the ones that remain part of the perception of the person over a long period of time. The current approach often leads to excessive and unnecessary quoting. This is not at all whitewashing as long as the article still includes these broader views on the person that have been widely shared among sources. Masem (t) 04:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The issue is it's pretty damn close to impossible to correct this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely possible but 1) all editors involved need to be aware that its happened, and 2) that they all agree that trimming back on minor aspects and focusing on the ones widely shared among sources is not whitewashing or attempting to flip such an article, but instead all about working to keep the length appropriate as well as addressing neutrality and tone that apply to all BLP articles. We can 100% write about the amount of criticism that Tucker's gotten regarding his reporting style and he hanging-on to conspiracy theories, etc - maybe just not every single instance. Masem (t) 05:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that starting from the premise that the press's opinion of these people is generally negative is a fairly dangerous thing to say. Our responsibility as an encyclopedia is to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE; obviously, every editor has their own opinions about the topics we edit, but to say that coverage as a whole is "too negative" is to essentially assert your own opinion as fact - even if it's not intentional, it risks running afoul of WP:WGW, because the premise of your approach to the article is that most or all of the sources are biased and must be corrected somehow. When one source is biased, we can attribute and weigh for that bias; when there's a clearly-defined subsection of sources that are biased, we can be careful not to give that section too much weight. But when you assert that essentially all sources on a subject are biased (outside of those few unambiguously aligned with the article's subject), all you're really doing is asserting your own biases. At the end of the day our balance, perspective, and due weight have to come from the sources and not editors' personal opinions that a topic ought to be getting covered differently. --Aquillion (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I couldn't have said it better. You nailed why this thinking leads to subtle political POV whitewashing. It isn't a deliberate thing, but it's happening all the time whenever it's proposed that a lot of content should be cut because an article is supposedly too large. BS. We are "not paper."

Size is not a real issue. This building can expand infinitely. We can spin off excess content into new sub-articles. Follow WP:Preserve.

It is the sources that tell us what, why, and how much to cover a subject. We are to mirror them, biases and all, and we better not neuter or neutralize those biases. We'd better not fuck around and forget that NPOV is primarily about editors editing neutrally, not shaping content into their imagined "ideal article." If the reality painted by RS is crooked as hell, then the article should also be crooked as hell, just as crooked as the reporting from RS. The due balance leans that way, and we should show it by allowing the article to lean that way.

Our only redemption and safeguard from then driving off a cliff is that we only use reliable sources. They keep us in check so we remain a mainstream, not extreme left or right, encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much in agreement on this. I prefer inclusionism over deletionism, and think it's fine and actually preferable to cover topics in-depth, then spin-off new related articles when necessary. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legitimate concern. Compare how Reason covered the recent 6 Jan video releases vs others and how Reason was both critical of Carlson and sources who covered him. [11] Much of the media is clearly partisan. Outrage stories are often quick and easy to produce while getting those clicks that are important to advertisers. We need to avoid carrying that partisan tone and opinion over while holding on to the actual facts. Springee (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, as an editor whose priors (I'm going out on limb here) aligns more with Reason than the other sources you're talking about, naturally you'd feel Reason's coverage is more even-handed; but it's important not to let that sort of bias cloud our thinking. The alternative, which seems more reasonable to me given the weight of sources, is that at least large swaths of the rest of the media largely reported the facts as they stood, whereas Reason (as an outlet avowedly devoted to advocacy itself) put its finger on the scale and added whatever spin or additional weight to irrelevant aspects that it felt was necessary to produce something that aligned better with its goal of advancing its politics. Now, obviously I have my own priors just like you, so it's going to be a lot easier for me to dismiss Reason's coverage as an outlier - but that's why we rely on the preponderance of sources, because nobody (and no source) is completely free of bias. When editors start to say "ah, only Reason knows the truth, the rest of the media landscape is biased" I think that that risks making articles that are inordinately governed by editors' priors rather than what the sources as a whole actually say. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what type of praise or criticism there is of a person from the press, our coverage must remain neutral, impartial, and disinterested, meaning we absolutely cannot take up the mantle that the press sets out about coverage. That doesn't mean we can't present negative information about a person which floods the press (that's meeting UNDUE), and in some cases, in Wikivoice, but the overall tone of the article cannot be demeaning, critical, or otherwise taking a stance in Wikivoice. I hate to keep bringing it up but we have articles of BLP that, when you compare them to our Wikipedia articles, are "worse than Hilter" based on tone and style. The Hilter articles is a strong example of how to incorporate the massive amount of negative information about him while still keeping a neutral, professional tone.

We need editors to think more from the 60,000ft level, and not in the weeds of all the current sources. Look for narrative trends instead of just every item that pops up. Understand the nature and relationship of the media to the people they are covering, and thus focus on topics that are routinely brought up by a diverse array of sources rather than tiny issued raised by one or two reporters. Think about what will be important 10 years down the road, since we're not a newspaper and shouldn't be covering these BLP to that extreme depth just based on news. This does mean that we have to write past the ideological bias that most mainstream sources have presently, even if that's the only tone they ever take with a BLP. Doesn't mean sources are no longer unreliable, simply that we should focus on clear objective facts in Wikivocie (eg "Tucker is a on-air personality at Fox News" vs anything else which needs to be incorporated carefully or with attribution such as saying "Most media sources describe Tucker as a liar", rather than "Tucker is a liar."

Editors that cannot or refuse to look from this 60,000ft are the ones that cause these articles to bloat out. They want to capture every tree, ignoring the forest around them. The inability to look at the bigger picture to do things like trimming instead of splitting here is what is harmful. Masem (t) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, your interpretation of the sources is through the lens of your priors. In practice, whether you recognize it or not, the position you're taking here means that you're framing facts you disagree with as mere praise or criticism, and asserting that coverage is not impartial or disinterested based on nothing, as far as I can tell, beyond personal skepticism of what it's saying. Those are not things we can use to govern article content. I'm all for minimizing the use of labeled opinion pieces, or for leaving out things that have insufficient coverage, but if multiple high-quality sources say eg. "this commentator is a leading voice of the far-right", we have to treat that as the fact that they do, we can't omit it just because Masem disagrees and thinks the entire media is biased. You say you want the impartial 60,000 ft view, but that impartial view requires summarizing the sources as they currently exist - not the sources as you personally wish they existed. That means that when something appears repeatedly, in the article voice and with high intensity, across a wide range of high-quality sources, then yes, it belongs in the article. Maybe your implicit skepticism is correct and ten years down the road they will all change their tune, but WP:CRYSTALBALL means that we have to reflect the sources as they are today, not based on your speculation that they'll all retract the points you disagree with at some point in the future. (And while I wouldn't usually bring up old disputes... since you're essentially asserting that you're an expert at identifying broad bias across the entire media landscape, from sources who you assert will change their tune ten years down the line, I do have to point out that the first article you really brought this skepticism of the sources and confidence that they were all biased to bear on was the one once titled Gamergate controversy, which is conveniently nearing its ten-year anniversary itself. You only need to look at its current title to find out how the sourcing evolved in that case. When making sweeping claims that the entire media landscape is biased, you should keep Cromwell's rule in mind and at least consider the possibility that the bias is yours.) Regarding Hitler, since you praise that article so often: Naturally one of the highest-profile articles in the encyclopedia is going to be more polished, but the Holocaust is highlighted at the end of the first paragraph of the lead, the second paragraph describes him as a totalitarian dictator in the article voice, and the final paragraph unambiguously describes him as having a racist ideology in the article voice. The last two in particular are, to my eyes, the sorts of things you usually try to remove from current articles - is there any current politician who you would support describing as holding a racist ideology in the article voice of the lead? If you think noting the fact that a politician lies unusually often or that someone is a leader of the far-right or whatever is more negative than those (in contexts, of course, where sources support it being an uncontested fact and a significant part of their notability), then I don't know what to tell you. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest factor that we lack direct policy about but really needs it is about recentism. When events regarding a topic are occurring in real time and there is still no clear picture, we should be wary of accepting a near universal viewpoint from the media as wikivoice. We can said "so and so is widely considered a racist" instead of "so and so is a racist", we still cover what is due but with the necessary dispassionate and impartional tone. Taking up the ten year mantle implies that once the event has been covered by the dust of the passage of time, we can then consider the equivalent claims from a large number of sources as fact than opinion. It might not take ten years ... the GG situation is an example that after it tailed off a few years after it started, there was firm widespread agreement it wasn't a movement. Or talking of Holter, we have 8 decades since anything happened with him, coupled with hundreds of academic works that have justified his place in history. But key on his article is the tone...building the kede from objective statements to more subjective ones, rather than starting with the subjective ones. That's a neutral, dispassionate tone that still leaves the reader understanding how "bad" he was.

Thats why articles like Tucker's are a problem because editors have ignored RECENTISM, which isn't policy but has to go hand in hand with NOTNEWS. If anything, we need DUE to reflect that we put more weight on sources and other points of inclusion years down the road than those written during the event.

Also it needs to said that YESPOV ecisrs...we are not beholden to accept what is published by a RS is necessary something we can repeat inwikivoice, and editors have the smarts and capability to know when N Rs piece is engaging in bias that we can't directly repeat. Masem (t) 20:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline for this: WP:Words to watch, and specifically WP:LABEL. You're definitely correct on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, but that's a very broad problem that affects every aspect of the project. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any situation like this, I'm pretty much always in favor of removing all but the most prominent examples and replacing them with a general summary. For this article, take Tucker Carlson#Immigration and race for example. The first paragraph does what it needs to do. It provides the basics on his views, and it provides some of the commentary from reliable sources (I'd trim some of the quotes in favor of additional summarizing of the sources, but that's a separate issue). But then look at the rest of that subsection. There are twelve level four headings, some of which are only a few sentences. Nearly all of that can and should be replaced with a few paragraphs that summarize the gist of these controversies. Maybe separate level four headings could be retained for great replacement and for Islamophobia. This problem exists throughout the article, and I think it can be brought down to a reasonable size just by fixing this. I'd be glad to help fix it myself if there was a mandate to do so without causing an edit war. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Springee, have you raised this specific concern on the article talk page? The discussions you linked are about WP:LENGTH which is normally addressed by splitting into subarticles, and if something is "poorly written" then it should simply be rewritten. Could you list some of the passages you're concerned about and explain why they should be removed entirely? Uninvolved editors will be better able to provide feedback if you can clearly articulate what it is that you're proposing. –dlthewave ☎ 11:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dlthewave, I think you are well aware of the talk page discussion. My concern is the article is stuffed with a laundry list of outrage of the week content and editors have consistently refused to trim things down or put it in a proper summary format. This matter is to get involved eyes on the topic rather than the same editors who feel every bit of content is obviously precious to the topic. I would be happy to try to trim it down but recent reverts have suggested no trimming will be acceptable. Springee (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem here. Before you split an article of any time, you should be pretty damn sure there's no way to condense it down. The reality is we're not paper, yes, but human attention spans aren't superhuman, either, and conciseness is a virtue. A meandering Tucker Carlson article that spends paragraphs on whatever outrageous stuff he talked about last week is not actually helping readers, and beyond that editor discretion about what to spin off is invariably going to lead to POV issues, either in coatracks based on how the subarticle is phrased, or just splitting editor conflicts over content across more articles with less traffic. Focusing on the quality of the article itself is a much better idea. Here's some free suggestions:

• An appearance on Dancing with the Stars doesn't deserve 100 words.
• A handy way of seeing which controversies or actions merit inclusion is to see if the article actually gives any context for why it matters. The paragraph about Carlson republishing an old video of Obama around the election? The article doesn't tell me why that matters. If it can't be justified, it's probably just routine news that doesn't deserve mention.
• If a controversy didn't affect his show directly (say, advertisers pulled out or something got cancelled or similar) I think it makes more sense to mention it in his political views section, and have the media career section be a more general overview of the arc of his career before drilling down to its contents and his views.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good gravy, that is one hard article to read. It reminds me of a draft recently brought to this page for review, Draft:Joel Naukkarinen (somewhere a few sections up). What you have here is an article which is basically a timeline of everything this guy has ever done or said, which is more boring and painful than trying to read the Federal Tax Code. A great example of "more is less". I'll give the same advice here as I did up there. Check out other articles on other people and subjects, like Don Meredith for example. That's how an encyclopedia article should be written, and a great example of "less is more". We don't list everything he's ever done or said. It's just a really good summary of this person's life and career, it's coherent, and flows like a dream. Whatever people are worried about being "whitewashed" from the article, if you look past the individual trees and see the forest, you may notice that whitewashing can be just as easily accomplished by making an article dull, monotonous and unreadable. (See: Obfuscation) All an encyclopedia needs is a summary. Zaereth (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this the right place or if I should be doing this but can someone check the Mitch McConnell talk page. I'm trying to report a topic on there. The topic named "Corruption." I feel that it is violating the Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons. Cwater1 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it properly sourced? Does WP:Public figure cover it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a misguided person. It's gone now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it was from an IP address. I just thought I could report it since the topic didn't seem right. Cwater1 (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong. In the future, such comments that are just disruptive or violate WP:NOTFORUM can often be deleted on sight with an edit summary that explains the reason. If they are obviously disruptive, no edit summary is necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Very odd situation. This morning, I added an edit to the Wikipedia entry for Fearne Cotton.

The article originally stated that she had been in a relationship with a male called Ian Watkins.

I added context - already evidenced in the cited sources - which stated that Ian Watkins was a convicted sex offender (child victims). Allegations in relation to this activity were made in 2008, and the year long relationship in question was 2005-2006.

Therefore in my opinion this addition was accurate, relevant and appropriately sourced.

Almost immediately, the amendment was removed, then over and over again, by different users.

I was advised to create a 'talk' page, which I did, but then another user removed the reference to the relationship entirely, and edit locked the page.

My issues are as follows -

1 - my additions were relevant, factual and of interest. They add insight into the personality and history of a fairly anodyne and bland UK c list celebrity.

2 - the speed in which the edits were removed and the page was locked indicates that the page was being 'monitored', and the subsequent actions taken - removing the entire section - indicate that the edits were made by individuals with a vested interest in removing the content - paid reputarion managers. This calls into question the validity of all edits made by these individuals.

I am at a loss, I wasn't particularly bothered before but now this strikes me as being both unfair and bad practice on a peer maintained site, and therefore request help from confirmed independent parties to resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearethemissile (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this editor has alleged that myself, the two other editors who reverted his/her additions, and the admin who semi-protected the article for BLP violations are guilty of a conflict of interest as we are being paid to manage Fearne Cotton's reputation. Hmmmm 10mmsocket (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should also be pointed out is that this editor put the same content into the article twice as an IP 2a04:4a43:550f:d18c::11fe:6096 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before doing it twice as a newly registered account. I regularly monitor the activity of new users. It's very likely as they have previously edited the article, that one of the other editors has it on their watch list. So it's not unusual behaviour for edits to be spotted by multiple people and reverted. It's the way Wikipedia works, it's not a secret cabal of vested interests being paid to stomp on new users. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wearethemissile Looking at the source you used, it does not support the assertion that Watkins had been convicted before Cotton began dating him. Given the context of the cited article, including that fact about Watkins would imply that Cotton was aware of his activities. I agree with the removal of the text, on the grounds that is inappropriate to mention in that fashion in any biography, but especially the biography of a living person. So, in the context of this BLPN report, I endorse semi-protection by Favonian to prevent insertion of undue material into a BLP.

As to the speed of the removal, not only is the Fearne Cotton article a high-profile, high-traffic article, so many experienced editors have it on their watchlists, but also many experienced editors monitor the activity of new users, as mentioned above. So, I agree with 10mmsocket that the reverts were routine, in order, and not indicative of a conflict of interest. An allegation of COI against another editor is serious and should be avoided unless you have more substantial evidence than that they reverted your edit; baid-faith allegations are treated as personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, thank you. I think that rather than removing the reference to the relationship on its entirety, perhaps a more accurate sentence would be... 'Watkins was later convicted of X.'.

And I retract the implication of a paid Coi, having looked at 10mmsocket's profile, there is no indication of that. Apologies, although the 3 edits rule appears to have been circumvented.

I still believe the addition in relation to Watkins is valid, albeit with a rewrite, which is what I believe guidance advises. Wearethemissile (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket With respect to Wearethemissile and the IP being the same editor, here is where Wearethemissile acknowledged that they made the IP edits. —C.Fred (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guidance in WP:GUILT supports this removal Tristario (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the crux of the dispute is this revert, then I endorse 10mmsocket's actions - material must not be added to an article when it only cites the Daily Mirror. Please read WP:BLPSOURCES very carefully, specifically "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" . The information was removed quickly because it is borderline libellous and opens up Wikipedia to the threat of legal action, which is an absolute no-no - specifically, we don't have any sources that explains why Ian Watkins' relationship with Fearne Cotton is important and significant for a global encyclopedia, nor do we have anything from a mainstream broadsheet source that explains how their relationship was significant for his later criminal convictions. Without these, the content cannot stand. I also endorse Favonian's protection of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Ian Watkins already thoroughly explains the problems he had. If you @Wearethemissile: still think something is missing, you are welcome to add it there (with the relevant sources of course). Adding a note about Ian Watkins' crimes in an article about a person he dated three years before his conviction, and that nothing makes anybody think she was aware of, seems to me to be more of a risk to cast a dubious light on Fearne Cotton rather than a kind of whitewashing. To be clear, I am not implying that this was your intention, but this may be an unintended outcome. --DoebLoggs (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all.

@DoebLoggsIn response to your advice, I opened a talk page to discuss the issue and possible additions to the page. In response, a paragraph was deleted from the original article by @10mmsocket, and then a sarcastic 'whoopee' reply which didn't address any of my points was added to the talk page.

That is what has really rankled. My original edit to the article - which was entirely accurate - introduced an additional point of interest which others might not be aware of. However, thanks to @10mmsocket, Wikipedia no longer carries a current record of that relationship having occurred.

I will find an additional, acceptable source citing their relationship (not daily mirror, which is apparently unacceptable) and resubmit. Wearethemissile (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]