Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Derek Blasberg

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

---

• Derek Blasberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been some edit warring in this article over whether an incident earlier this month where Blasberg had an explosive bowel movement in Gwyneth Paltrow's cottage should be mentioned in the article. I think there's reasonable reason to exclude per WP:GOSSIP, even though the incident has been covered by reliable sources like Variety, but @FeralOink: has been insistent on including it. I thought I would make a post here for wider input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Variety source is a gossip article, which sources the identification to the Daily Mail. I've accordingly removed its other use from the article. The incident appears to fall afoul of BLP sourcing requirements in addition to being trivial gossip content. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I have not been insistent on including the bowel movement portion in the BLP of Derek Blasberg. Let's refer to it as the "incident" for brevity here. As one can see from the first of two discussions on the talk page, on 4 July, I inquired of other editors whether it was appropriate to include. Three editors discussed and the four of us decided that it was; no one objected. An IP editor provided a link to an article appearing in a trade journal (Variety) for the fashion and beauty industry (which meets criteria for WP:RS and WP:NPOV) that was lengthy and entirely devoted to the incident. ELLE magazine and Yahoo! Entertainment reported on the incident too. Further sources for the BLP subject's personal life were suggested by one of the three editors in the incident discussion, see this later subsection of the talk page, also on 6 July, including New York magazine and Women's Wear Daily, legitimate sources for the fashion industry; both provided extensive, specific coverage. I cleaned up the entire article, added updated and encyclopedic content, and sources throughout. I began my work on 9 July and completed it by adding a new section about the incident on July 11.

This morning, 23 July, I noticed that most of my edits, both the incident and my article updates, had been reverted. On 22 July, the IP editor who removed non-incident related content with edit summaries that it was not factual (despite being WP:NPOV and WP:RS sourced); IP editor provided no explanation on the talk page. Willthacheerleader18 made her edits on 16 July, removing 11 July incident content. I restored both today, 23 July, after leaving a message for Will on her talk page, in which I linked to the talk page section with editors concurring on inclusion of the incident. Will made no comments there.

This is hardly edit warring:

• First a discussion on 4 July to 6 July, then edits on 9 July and completed on 11 July;
• removal of incident content by Will on 16 July;
• reverts by IP editor on 22 July of non-incident content;
• restoration by me on 23 July,
• then the following surprises today on 23 July.
• Merely an hour and 30 minutes after my restorations, first Carrite removed the incident content & sources AND 30 minutes later, Yngvadottir removed/ truncated informative sourced content unrelated to the incident.
• I have not made any further changes to the article. It remains as Carrite and Yngvadottir changed it, having reverted me.

Note that a COI, single purpose account, DBassistant (Derek Blasberg assistant?) made numerous contributions to the article in the past, so I was especially alert to IP edits with sus edit summaries.

Also, I was taken aback by edit summaries with this dismissive and unfriendly tone, when Carrite reverted me this morning: Personal life: Removes. Trivia on the one hand, BLP issue on the other. Feral Oink: stop edit warring to preserve this nor of judgements about what is gossip in the fashion and beauty industry, Yngvadottir: Removed earlier ref to Variety gossip column, the main part of which goes back to Daily Mail and social media posts; per BLPSOURCES. Friendship w/ Gwyneth Paltrow has already been reinstated w/ a different source. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF.. Neither broached their changes on the talk page. The Variety article was a lengthy profile and analysis of Blasberg's career, of which the incident was a few paragraphs. It was not a "gossip column", and should not have been summarily removed.--FeralOink (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FeralOink, here's that Variety link again: [1]. Yes, Variety is generally reliable for showbiz news, but that article is totally and openly gossip, and gives full credit to its sources; in particular, it traces the identification to the Daily Mail, which should be avoided when possible. This is a BLP. And as I noted in my edit summary, his being a friend of Paltrow was already in the article, with a different reference (you restored it). So despite being an extended treatment of the article subject, the Variety article that is primarily about the defecation incident is not needed to reference anything in the article, and its use cannot be defended. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the argument here really about whether a biography of a living person should go off at length about how he allegedly took a really bad dump once? In the primary document that appears when his name is searched on the Internet? I mean, this is really just a thing with absolutely zero encyclopedic interest at all, but beyond that, on a very basic common sense level: have we, at long last, no decency? How utterly embarrassing -- for us. jp×g🗯️ 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink (talk · contribs), I am a woman and my pronouns are she/her (Will is short for Wilhelmina). I removed the edits on the Blasberg article, as I explained in my edit description, because it did not seem encyclopedic at best. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

JPxG you are grossly mischaracterizing the incident. The BLP subject did not "take a really bad dump". There were three sentences about the incident in the article, which is not "at length". This is the removed content: "On 6 July 2024, Variety reported that Blasberg had "an unseemly incident in (Paltrow's) guest cottage, involving an intense bowel movement which wrecked the place". Blasberg departed immediately, leaving some cash for Paltrow's housekeeping staff, rather than making any attempt to clean up after himself. The extent of the mishap was not limited to the bed, but rather (as detailed by Yahoo! Entertainment) fouled the walls, ceiling, and floor of the guest room as well." I agree, that the third sentence can be omitted. Also, notice that the article has received over 48,000 page views in the past 30 days so it clearly is of interest to some people. Finally, when one does a Google search on the BLP subject's name, three of the four "Top Stories" reference the incident. That is not due to the Wikipedia BLP as all three pre-date the changes I made on 12 July.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I so very much apologize Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)!!! I'm a woman too. I should have noticed that you were, and especially since you have "cheerleader" in your user name. (Yes, there are male cheerleaders, but still...!) I made several typos in what I wrote above. Yngvadottir is making a subjective judgement on what constitutes a "gossip column". Again, I will reiterate that there is a talk page discussion and that this should have been broached there first, rather than summarily reverting me and bringing it before a Noticeboard. I am particularly aggrieved at the lack of WP:Good faith by the initial Noticeboard entry by Hemiauchenia that characterizes me as "insisting" and then "edit warring"! I was merely restoring content that had been agreed to on the talk page. I even made inquiries myself about whether it was appropriate to include initially, per the talk page.

I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Perhaps that belongs at the sources noticeboard rather than BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Deciding what should be included in an article is a fundamental part of what we do here. Accepting for the sake of argument that nobody disputes the reliability of Variety as a source here, the fact that something is verified by a reliable source does not mean that we have to include it. This is supported by policy: see e.g. WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In particular, our BLP policy says that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and the lead of that policy explicitly mentions exercising editorial judgment.

At any rate, regardless of what policy says: how can including this possibly be a good idea? What encyclopedic virtue does it have? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I will disregard Wikipedia_Wonderful_698-D, GramercyGreats, and 98.248.161.240 on Talk:Derek Blasberg. My initial enquiry there was "This is all over the news although it hasn't made it to Page Six/NY Post... yet. Paltrow told Oprah what Blasberg did at her home. I added two sentences without mentioning the ghastly "incident" but sourced his close friendship with Paltrow using two WP:RS, WP:NPOV references that cover what happened. I have no idea whether something like this belongs in a BLP of a socialite or not." Responses by other editors included "It does." and "The story has been picked up by international outlets including Variety and the Daily Mail. I believe it does belong on the page." Just now, I checked the edit history of those users. They are scant, and in one case, has a disclaimer that they only edit occasionally. I apologize for my error in judgement about trusting the advice of the three editors on the talk page without further investigation. I was naive. I am unaccustomed to editing BLPs about people in the popular media. You were correct to revert me. JPxG, there is NO need to say I "have no decency"! If I had no decency, I wouldn't work on this project.--FeralOink (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Something being "all over the news" does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. I do not see any attempt to provide an argument for the long-term significance or noteworthiness of the content. – notwally (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Y'all gotta be shitting me that this is anything but WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Very much WP:GOSSIP, is not encyclopedic unless if it leads to something else. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realize this now. The article does not include any content about the subject's incident at Paltrow's. Can we close this already? I don't think we need any more editors saying the same thing when it was already agreed upon unanimously by SIX editors to not include anything about the incident.--FeralOink (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Daisy Coleman

• Daisy Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While the biography itself hasn't been a BLP for several years, IP and brand new users are adding unsourced information about the current occupation of her rapist to the article. While obviously this person is hardly a sympathetic figure, these edits are clearly in violation of WP:BLP policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Manu Intiraymi

Could those here familiar with WP:BLP policy perhaps take a look at the Manu Intiraymi biography. I think the issues should be fairly obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given that the 'controversy' sections cites no legitimate sources to speak off, I'll deal with it myself, by deleting it entirely. May need watching though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've put the article up for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manu Intiraymi. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

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

---

Discussion of sources and the refusal to acknowledge an original source found here: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024400. I also provided several other government sources stating the same. I was taught official sources (the government is an official source) is a primary (original) source. There is discussion on talk page stating original sources do not need to be used at Wikipedia. I believe an article should be accurate and unbiased. I feel the editing is biased and inaccurate. I thought Wikipedia aimed for accurate writing. Please have an admin review the article for accuracy and objectivity. I'm a retired print journalist and I have a degree in English. Thanks! Link to WP page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamala_Harris MDaisy (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You haven't exactly explained what your issue is and I'm not going to go through the loong thread you linked to. But I can correct you on a couple of things:

• I noticed that you said in the beginning of that linked thread "original sources trump secondary sources". Well, in Wikipedia...not really. You need to read WP:PRIMARY.
• Admins (acting as admins) can't review articles for accuracy and objectivity. That isn't part of the admin role. That has to be done through WP:CONSENSUS

Both of the above stem fro the facts that we are crowd-sourced and not a peer-reviewed journal. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried pointing this user to WP:RSPRIMARY and discussing why a political attack in a primary document can't be repeated in Wikivoice. Instead, they came here. (BTW I am an admin, just an WP:INVOLVED one.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Mobushgu is correct, both regarding the preference for secondary sources over primary source documents and the fact that a partisan resolution from one house in Congress is not a reliable source for describing a political opponent. As there does not appear to be anything here for BLPN to address, the article's talk page is the more appropriate place to try to find WP:CONSENSUS for proposed content. – notwally (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if MDaisy does not understand this, this is a BLP issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. This looks far more like an ordinary content dispute where one editor is simply not listening. Maybe it would be a ANI issue, but MDaisy hasn't ever even edited the actual article page. – notwally (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Alas, the entire TP is a BLP disaster. And of course, TPs also fall under BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

MDaisy, I know you have your own ideas about research and sources. And I'm sure they work for you in your field. Wikipedia does not do research WP:OR. Therefore, we must depend on secondary sources. This particular case is a good example. The primary source you are referring to as a highly political document that will never pass the full legislature, created only for partisan political purposes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with O3000. MDaisy, you seem to have some misconceptions about how an encyclopedia works. It's nice that you have experience in journalism, but that often can become a handicap for writing an encyclopedia. This is a common problem many writers encounter when coming to Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, meaning that the way we write and research is very different from other forms of media, such as newspapers or academia.

Reliable sources are not all created equal, and, in fact, as far as reliability and quality go, news outlets are at the bottom of the totem pole in the hierarchy of sources; just a step above tabloids. Newspapers write in the present perspective where information changes daily, whereas an encyclopedia is written from a timeless perspective that is meant to last. Newspapers do investigative research using primary sources, but primary sources are very easy to misinterpret (which newspapers do quite often). Encyclopedias do "library research", using what others have already reported on and relying on them to interpret for us. People expect an encyclopedia to be far better than a newspaper, which is what we should strive for.

Newspapers are all about cramming in lots of details. An encyclopedia is a quick reference that provides concise summaries of subjects, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out all the boring details and whittling everything down to the nitty gritty. While a newspaper relies on primary sources for its info, encyclopedias base their info on secondary sources with primary sources being the least desirable. I know it's not what you're used to, but this is not something Wikipedia made up. This has been the standard for encyclopedic writing for 2000 years, since the time of Pliny the Elder.

If credentials matter to you, MDaisy, then I have had both a lot of schooling and first-hand experience in encyclopedic writing going back to before the internet was even invented. We rely on secondary sources not only to interpret the primary sources but also to determine the significance of any particular piece of information (see: WP:Weight and WP:Balance). I hope that helps explain, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Gavin Wood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was unsure re WP:DUE, which is why I initially trimmed it back. [2] But once you start including some, you need to include a bit more - mostly that the post was rapidly taken down and that there was an apology. But if it is deemed undue I'm completely ok with that, and I'm ok with not covering it if the only viable source is buzzfeed news. Crypto isn;t an rea I usually touch in any regard. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Morgan

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

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

A WikiProject people watching this page may be interested in

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

Talk:MrBeast

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

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

Kris Kristofferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tommy Robinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew McManus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imane Khelif

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

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

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

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

Sinfest

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a comic strip that an editor User:Wehpudicabok is intent on repeatedly adding a paragraph[3] of negative opinions about the artist's mental health that is sourced to a single unreliable self-published blog. Talk page discussion I've started at [4] seems to be going nowhere and I'm about to hit my third revert. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Apostol Tnokovski

The page of Apostol Tnokovski should be deleted because:

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

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

Taral Wayne

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

List of intersex Olympians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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