Knowledge (XXG)

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB 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 Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

This article has an inconsistent use of pronouns to describe either the performer or the character being portrayed, depending on the section being read.

The current version of this article has female pronouns in the introductory text and male pronouns in the biography section. It is unclear from initial reading which gendered pronoun should be used, or whether multiple pronouns should apply to this person and used interchangeably.

If this is an example of kayfabe, the article may need to be rewritten to provide greater clarity as the title currently states "performer" but the biography section may be referencing a persona, which can cause confusion.

Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.

This is not a request for deletion, but someone with greater knowledge of this person may need to provide accurate, up-to-date information to prevent repeated edits by overzealous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.83.25 (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 17, 2024 (UTC)

There is a very long and drawn out contentious discussion on this matter, and has been a very slow moving edit war. In the meantime, until there is an RfC I don't see why such material should be restored per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. I'm pretty much willing to take this to WP:ANEW, but wanted to see if we can't get an admin to intervene in the meantime.

• Removal diff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242551121
• Restoration ignoring WP:ONUS -- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242558302

I am unable to find any RfC on this matter where consensus was affirmed, and WP:BLPRESTORE is pretty clear on this matter, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM I find perennial news sources covering what amounts to WP:GOSSIP doesn't quite meet the "high-quality" bar required for BLPs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, its gossip that isn't particularly substantive and does not belong in an encyclopedic biography...

the hoax may be worth its own wikipedia entry maybe, but might not be worth linking into a person's biography Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll go and make an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

BLPRESTORE also says Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Having read the talk page discussion regarding this issue, I think the above applies. It would appear (please correct me if I'm wrong at any point) that the discussion started when the hoax was given its own section in the article. As the discussion went on, there appears there wa a loose consensus to keep the information, culminating in one editor removing the separate section and adding a version of the information to another section instead. A later editor moved this information to a different section, and there is possibly still some debate to be had about which is the right place for it.

If no attempt had been made to address concerns, you're absolutely right and BLPRESTORE would apply. But editors have worked hard to make sure that the material is added in a manner that is WP:DUE, and BLPRESTORE would appear to recognise that. If the material is simply deleted whatever happens, that doesn't give editors a fair crack at adding in in an appropriate manner. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC I just started: Talk:JD_Vance#RFC:_Inclusion_of_couch_hoax Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not wish to be unkind, but the RFC appears to poorly formed. You have split it into survey and discussion sections, but you haven't given clear options for the survey, and your own survey vote is effectively a discussion comment. Discussion started here not even an 30 minutes prior to your creation on the RFC - almost nobody has had a chance to contribute. I wish you'd let it play out a little longer here first, then we might have been able to craft a more robust RFC proposal. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ah... its my first one.

Should I just delete it and let someone else do it? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ah wait... others have started replying to it... well whoops, I dont think i'm allowed to redo or edit now, right? apologies. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at WP:RFC, which says The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the rfc tag. There is probably still an opportunity to do that, especially if you make an edit to the talk page or the edit summary to make clear that the action is being taken so a better structured RFC can replace it. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, removed the tag, and striked out the text. I'll let someone else do it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the content again. We err on the side of excluding contentious material, especially about a BLP, and especially if the material is shown to be a hoax. This isn't "JD Vance in popular culture" or somesuch, where there might be a good argument to include (there might even be justification for a stand-alone article at this point), but rather the main biographical article about the person, with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. Did you read the paragraph you removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you know your statement I quoted is false, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at, but anyone interested can just take a look at the version before I reverted and confirm that it was under a "public reactions" section, a subsection of the VP campaign. It isn't part of "in popular culture" or the like but part of the main biography as though the hoax has anything to do with a public reaction to Vance-as-VP-candidate. It's either a hoax or a reaction to a hoax, not to Vance. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources do seem to present it as largely a reaction to Vance's image (sexually repressed, weird, oversharer), they seem to suggest that the reason it went so viral is that it was really believable even if unveracious... That is it seemed like it could be true, even though its not. The longer I see this go on the more I think that perhaps it really is best handled on a stand-alone page with only a short blurb+link here about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's false, why include it? Springee (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What would be the basis for exluding hoaxes? Notability is entirely independent of the truth, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories gets coverage at John F. Kennedy whether there is any underlying truth to the theories or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because unlike the weird couch thing people are still talking about assassination conspiracy theories 50 years later. If people are still talking about Vance humping a couch in 50 years then I guess we'll have an article about it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have more than enough coverage, you can't make a competent good faith argument to exclude based on a lack of coverage... Which is why an argument is being made to exclude it on the grounds that it is false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion of facts/information is not "notability" but WP:DUE which is a lower bar indeed. "Notability" is a concept which applies to inclusion of an entire article or topic, and answers the question of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion here. DUE governs the stuff y'all include in articles; if a hoax (or any other fact) isn't adequately documented/covered by RS then it's excluded, but that's distinct from the notability of a subject. Any facts are eligible for inclusion, even if they fail to meet a "notability" bar, as long as they don't exceed WP:UNDUE. Got it, Horsey?

With all that being said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT apply here, and it's a freakin' tempest in a teapot, so pls delete. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:A630:BA40:F8C:EF24 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability in the colloquial sense... Which is DUEWEIGHT (and note that on an academic level notability the term of art is just the application of due weight to the topics themselves). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt I fail to see your point though, DUEWEIGHT is no more dependent on the underlying veracity of the topic than N is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is true that LL Cool J has made love with a sofa, so there's truth; merely misattributed I suppose. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:7135:9DE6:EA27:BF8D (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Perhaps instead of fighting over whether this information belongs in a BLP, someone should create that and include it there? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is actually not a bad idea, 2024 United States presidential election could just have it's own "Misinformation" section for now and if needed, split off from there. I'm still opposed to having the hoax linked to Vance's BLP, similarly to the horse semen hoax for Walz, or whatever weird stuff comes up in this election season. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

How is that similar? They appear to have gotten vastly different levels of coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Does Knowledge (XXG) have enough disk space for all the misinfo? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The couch hoax is already covered in Hillbilly Elegy, and WP:Summary Style says only the “most important” parts of Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in the main Vance BLP, so it seems pretty clear that this contentious hoax should not be in the main Vance BLP. (This rumor about Vance is similar to the lurid rumor about Trump and prostitutes in Moscow). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what is contentious about the hoax? Everyone seems to agree that this is a hoax/joke, there is no contention otherwise unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

When there are jokes at someone’s expense, it undermines them, and causes arguments about whether it’s an appropriate way to conduct a presidential election. We’re having an argument about that right now, for example. VP Harris tweeted, “JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women”, to keep this disgusting lie front and center, and to diminish his stature. If Vance starts telling jokes about Harris having sex with inanimate objects, I likewise would oppose inclusion in her BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think we should exclude the whole thing is because you personally think it is "disgusting", you are doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t suggest to put the word “disgusting” into any Knowledge (XXG) article. Anyway, Jake Tapper of CNN says the hoax/lie was “gross” which is synonymous with disgusting. I support continued inclusion of this gross smear in Hillbilly Elegy. But not in the main Vance BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Its going to be covered by BLP in both places. Do you think you can tone down the rhetoric a bit? The level of anger you're bringing to this discussion is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not angry at you. Are you angry at me for being angry at you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You appear angry at the hoax, the hyperbole with which you are speaking doesn't make sense otherwise. Calling it a "disgusting lie" "gross smear" is uncivil, hoax is already strong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree that Jake Tapper was being uncivil, and I also don’t agree that he was angry. He was just stating facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Jake Tapper is not a wikipedia editor to the best of my knowledge... If he was and he said the same sort of stuff he says on TV he would most certainly cross the civility line repeatly in only an hour. Just call it a hoax, no need to go the extra mile into obvious non-objectivity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling a hoax created to defame someone a 'disgusting lie' is uncivil? Uncivil to whom? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, what is contentious about the hoax? Being at someones expense doesn't make it contentious, being used to diminish someone's stature doesn't make it contentious... Only there being an actual contention does that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve answered as best I could. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your answer appears to be that it isn't contentious as wikipedia means the term (multiple sides to the issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested it’s not contentious. I explained the exact opposite above. Some people think it was a gross smear, others think it was interesting and humorous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, just leave it be--no further responses to this needling are necessary. User:Rhododendrites, thank you for the cleanup. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Gladly. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: though it looks like the edit war has picked up again... — Rhododendrites \\ 21:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that, Rhododendrites--User:Kingsmasher678 reverted it without any explanation in the edit summary, and that is why I reverted them. I see now that they left a note on the talk page in that interminable section, but an edit like that needs an edit summary. I really have no dog in this fight; the content is relatively short and it's verified, but editors need to learn to tread lightly. I don't know what that RfC, if that's still what it is, will lead to--I can't see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, forgot an edit summary, tried to do my best to give a reason on the talk page. Still, I think I'm gonna WP:DROPTHESTICK, at least when it comes to actually editing the article, the whole thing has kinda spiraled, as you can see if you look through the talk page. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Kingsmasher678, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Well shucks, it makes the WP:GNOME side of me happy to hear that. I make a point of not screaming at people online, and to admit when I mess up!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant You haven't answered this at all. You appear to find the hoax offensive on some level, which doesn't make it contentious. It would be contentious if RS reported on this in a detrimental way, which isn't the case. There's virtually no disagreement among RS that someone created the hoax, it was debunked, and there was fallout for Vance (mainly in the form of public mockery). Cortador (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There is now an RFC on the talk page about this. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is at Talk:JD Vance#RFC: Include "couch" hoax paragraph. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Die Antwoord is a South African rap group. On the band article, and also on the articles of its two main members, Watkin Tudor Jones and Yolandi Visser, are some claims about criminal allegations various people have made against them. As far as I can see, these allegations have never been tested in court. What is our stance on this sort of thing? John (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Allegations usually require significant reliable coverage to be considered WP:DUE for a BLP, such as major investigations, criminal charges, or consequences. Coverage about these allegations are definitely WP:UNDUE for the groups page unless the impact of the allegations caused problems for the group such as a breakup, cancelled tours, etc. and would require their own independent reliable secondary sources to link such outcomes. After looking at some of these sources and claims, I believe they are unlikely to meet the WP:EXTRAORDINARY threshold for inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've posted at the three article talk pages. I agree with you. Unless a consensus is shown that these items are WP:DUE there I will remove them per WP:BLP. John (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on a quick internet search, I found many reliable news sources that have covered these allegations. I have restored the content to Tutor Jones's page and Visser's page and added additional citations. I also moved the content from the "controversy" sections into their personal life sections. The allegations may also be relevant to the band's page given that many articles appear to discuss these numerous allegations when discussing the band, and the band even released a documentary dealing with the allegations called "Zef: The Story of DIE ANTWOORD" , but someone else can restore that content if they feel it would be appropriate there. – notwally (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out if there is a BLP issue in including the name of the murdered victim in the article. There are many sources for this. At Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident VSankeerthSai1609 wrote "Hello, I will be removing the victim's name in the Knowledge (XXG) page of the article. This is due to allegations and complains raised for alleged non-compliance of Indian laws specifically under my name and also my own consicence. I am a proud Indian national who will not and cannot act against my law. The Supreme court today (9 september) officially asked all private and public social media handles to delete the pictures and names of the victim. While they had been used by many prestigious news and media outlets who have thus deleted it. I have repeatedly said and maintained that the edit pertaining to the name has been edited multiple times after me and each time I have edited the article, I have not touched the name section. As an Indian National and a youth, I don't intend to take such legal and moral risks. If anyone disagrees, please do not revert my edit, but instead opt to other means. I hope the Wiki community will understand. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 7:48 am, Today (UTC+1)" and removed the name. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a new issue, it's come up a lot. When I first became aware of it, I was surprised we were naming the victim, but when I looked at the discussion it was claimed the family had asked for her to be named so I decided to let it be. (It was also claimed it was in a lot of sources, and was widely featured in rallies etc.) However looking at one of the discussions on this, Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident/Archive 1#Discussion on Removing Victim's Name, the family's stance seems to have been disputed. IMO it would help a great deal if this we can get a clear answer on whether the family appears to want her name out there or they don't seem to care either way, or they'd prefer that it's private. This seems much more important IMO that what Indian law requires considering the name seems to be in a lot of extant sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, IMO if we keep the name, it might be worth re-instating the warning box . I can see merit in discussing including the name based on various policies and guidelines, but I'm unconvinced of any merit of all the threads demanding we remove the name due to Indian law. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne yes, if we keep the name we need that. Not sure how to know the family's current feelings. Do these help;? Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Just one point- family does not decide on whether a victim shall be protected by law (before or after) death or not. The law takes over the matter if there is one. The provision "Section 71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" forbids publishing of names of victims of sexual assault whether Alleged or Proven. The law is crystal clear. I am yet to bring myself to accept how inclusion of name of victim of sexual assault will be of value for Knowledge (XXG) and its consumption. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that the removing poster was doing so legally cover his posterior, given his being named in (Redacted); hopefully, his removal will cover him there, and should be separate from consideration of whether we include the name under policy (on which I have no stance at this time.) BTW, the document also states that Knowledge (XXG) is a CIA front organization, although I suspect said document may not be an RS for documenting that fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler Link goes to a downloaded email, can't see it. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the link on the article talk page and also here. IMO the email is clearly outing. Doug, look at number 3. Number 2 also raises BLP concerns IMO, I originally thought that the person writing the email was supporting the claim made. Frankly reading it again, I'm really unsure whether they are or not, but ultimately it doesn't matter. We shouldn't be linking to crazy conspiracy theories which name living individuals except when we need to consider including content on these conspiracy theories. (To be clear, I'm mostly concerned about the other likely low profile people, not the high profile person named there.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually it seems all the details there were just taken from the editor's user page so there's probably no outing. However given the BLP concerns with number 2, I still see no merit to keeping the link to that email. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a RfC. Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim The page is semi-protected to hopefully this means that the levels of disruption won't be gigantic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Elisa Hategan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is full of sketchy sources and irrelevant information about the individual, and the edits have gotten very contentious.

Details about the individual's educational background and private life are irrelevant. She is notable for her time in the Heritage Front, her testifying against figures in the Heritage Front, her failed lawsuit against Elizabeth Moore and Bernie Farber, and perhaps her becoming an educator and speaker. Anything else is aggrandizing and irrelevant detail about a marginal figure.

Beyond irrelevant information, there are many issues with tone and perspective. For example, the following passage is not an objective statement of facts - it is a justification for the individual joining a Nazi group:

"Speaking later to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about her recruitment, she said: "By the time I was 16, I was really angry... I had dropped out of high school and I didn't have any friends and I didn't feel like I belonged. I wasn't quite Canadian, I wasn't Romanian anymore and so I had a lot of the same factors that drive other people to radicalization — and the Heritage Front happened to be there"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've full protected the article for a week because of the edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, make that ecp since those in the dispute aren't ec. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

TrashPandaMan has removed large chunks of this page, which is verified by highly-credible sources that he is now claiming are "poorly-sourced" and "irrelevant" - GlobalNews is among Canada's leading news networks. The StirileProTV is similarly one of Romania's largest news outlets. Transcripts from the House of Commons similarly attest to the information presented in this page. Removal of verified, sourced content goes against Knowledge (XXG) rules which clearly prioritize verifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Belladonna2024 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:VNOT and reconsider your last sentence. You must have consensus through discussion before reinstating any disputed information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It was suggested to me that I start a discussion here to seek guidance on this talkpage post Special:Diff/1243183772. In particular, I'm unsure if information about where he went to highschool, etc. is widely published, and I don't know if this is something that Knowledge (XXG) should be concerned about or not? I asked an admin Special:Diff/1245109546 for guidance and she suggested I bring it to discussion here. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a wholly inappropriate use of someone's private information to win a talk page debate; I should hope that's removed and RevDel'd by an admin. It's not a sincere discussion of a potential source so I think WP:HNE ought to apply, especially considering the context is a discussion surrounding the article subject's explicit request for certain personal details to remain private. GhostOfNoMeme 02:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate and the editor should know better. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I have since deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

More reliable sources are required to confirm the educational background. I request RD'ing some revisions. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has a controversies section that is not actually about the WP:BLP subject Robert Cardillo. They are about issues that staff in his office were involved in. Talk page discussions for both passages:

1. Talk:Robert_Cardillo#Ardrey_passage_in_article,_how_is_this_BLP_compliant?
2. Talk:Robert_Cardillo#Poole_passage_in_article,_how_is_this_BLP_compliant?

The Ardrey section is about someone who is not the article subject, and the one source overtly says on page 5 the BLP subject was neither responsible nor reasonably aware of the technical specifics of what a subordinate did out of policy.

The Poole section isn't about them even on the vaguest sense, and the Poole citation doesn't even say the BLP subjects name whatsoever. Can I please request some eyes there, so I am not misinterpreti BLP here? The controversies section that isn't even about Robert Cardillo is by word count roughly 1/10th of the article talking about other people who aren't our article subject. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely these things are mentioned because he was ultimately responsible for what was going on in his department and therefore it was a reflection on his management, Lard Almighty (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources don't connect these things to Cardillo (one doesn't mention him at all; the other explicitly says that he was not responsible) I agree that they aren't relevant to Cardillo and have removed them. The one about Justin Poole is already mentioned in that article; the other concerns an apparently non-notable person and is based on a primary source and I can see no justification for including it in Knowledge (XXG) at all. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The buck stops with the person in charge. It is not a BLP violation to state that these things happened under his watch. Whether it's sourced well enough or not is a different matter. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely a BLP violation to suggest that a living person is responsible for some misconduct based on a source which says explicitly that they were not responsible for that misconduct. It's also a BLP violation to include negative information about a non-notable living person in an article based solely on a primary source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "whether it's sourced well enough or not is a different matter". But there is a difference between being directly responsible for something and having responsibility for the conduct of others. Cardillo did have overall responsibility for the conduct of those he managed. He was responsible for ensuring that the staff in his office behaved appropriately and disciplining them accordingly if they did not. It appears he failed to do that. But again, to include it in Knowledge (XXG) it needs to referred to in RS. And if it is, there is no BLP violation in saying that there was staff misconduct by people he was responsible for managing. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "whether it's sourced well enough or not is a different matter". It's not a different matter! The fact that contentious material about living persons must be well-sourced is the core principle around which WP:BLP is written! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was if it was well-sourced, it wouldn't matter that he was not directly responsible for what had happened. The proof of that is it this article itself. There is still a controversy section that refers to the actions of someone else who he invited to speak and who allegedly behaved inappropriately. There is no suggestion that he was directly responsible for what allegedly happened, but he was indirectly responsible because the person was there at his request. All of that is well sourced.

So it is not a BLP violation to include things that someone is indirectly responsible for as long as it is well-sourced. As I say, initial comment did not take into account whether or not the material was well-sourced, just whether why it might be included. You took a closer look at the sourcing and determined it was a BLP violation so you deleted it. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lard-Almighty -- I get the sense you might be interested in a discussion of your WP:COMPETENCE at WP:AN... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity Read the above. I am perfectly aware of the need for BLPs to be properly sourced. My initial response was about why someone might have included the section, not about its sourcing. I was making no comment on whether it should be included in this case. But as I say, there is no reason why something that someone is indirectly responsible for can't be included in a BLP as long as the sourcing is adequate. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. After a few edits by myself and others participating here, the Controvery section as seen here in the live version seems to be strictly WP:BLP compliant.

In 2015, Cardillo invited American men's college basketball coach Bobby Knight, a friend of his from their time at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, to deliver an address to the NGA workforce on leadership. Knight visited the agency, and was then accused by four female NGA employees of inappropriate behavior and physical contact. The result was a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and (CID) United States Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation into the matter. The FBI and CID did not bring charges and Federal authorities closed the cases. The incident was a concern that affected agency employee engagement and morale.

Please take another look. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow up question -- is there anything else that would merit removal from the Controversy section in strict WP:BLP compliance? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Interstate 75 Kentucky shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A shooting occurred last Saturday on a US highway. There is currently a search ongoing for a person of interest who has been named a suspect by local authorities. The name of this person has been included in the article in a variety of ways since hours after the shooting. I just wanted to confirm that there isn't currently a WP:BLPCRIME or WP:BLPNAME issue with the article naming the person of interest or with the article discussing other details about the person of interest. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that BLPCRIME is specifically for protecting non-notable people who aren't even accused of a crime from having their name linked to a crime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then we should be good as only the person of interest in named in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what BLPCRIME is intended to prevent. Being a person of interest is being linked to a crime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood your initial meaning. I thought you were referring to others outside to the event but related to the person of interest. (Bleh.) Thank you for correcting me. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish. Based on your comments, I have made some changes to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Sam_Rushworth

I would like to add the following addition to the page of Sam Rushworth. The source is his own facebook post. Could someone confirm whether this would be permitted and reliable?

Whilst working at Durham University, he crossed a University and Colleges Union picket line during strike action by the local branch in July 2023 as part of a national strike over pensions and pay and conditions. He was attending the inauguration of the Chancellor of the University, Fiona Hill and defended his actions on facebook admitting that though he was a member of the pension scheme UCU members were on strike for, he had not joined the strike. In response to a question asking whether he had crossed the picket line, he replied: "while I'm sympathetic to your demands and am in the USS pension scheme myself, I'm not participating in strike action. My role is to support academic staff, hopefully relieve some pressure, and bring income into the university, so striking would be counterproductive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnonP (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sam Rushworth is a Member of Parliament in the UK and his biography does not mention Durham University. Are you talking about another person with the same name? Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Prior to becoming an MP he was the Programme Manager for the Strategic Research Fund at Durham University...

Also agree with Schazjmd below, needs independent sourcing. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the reference to him being the programme manager comes from his own linked-in page so I don't see how this is any different. SnonP (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@SnonP, there is a difference between using self-published information to cite a basic biographical detail and you selecting items from his social media posts to highlight. I hope you can see that difference. (Btw, I can't read that Facebook post so it does not appear to have been publicly shared.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

His bio does if you scroll to the bottom of the Early Career section. Sorry should have been clearer. Still getting used to editing. Apologies SnonP (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If no independent sources have taken notice of this incident, I wouldn't add it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok. That's a shame. He was there by his own admission. I don't think there would be a way of sourcing it independently. There is a letter he sent to members of his party regarding the incident. SnonP (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is another record of him stating publicly that he attended the event. He provides a photograph from inside the event, in case that makes any difference. https://mobile.x.com/SamJRushworth/status/1674406814471864321 SnonP (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure he's attended many events. What makes them significant enough to mention is when independent sources pay attention. Otherwise, it's just you going through his social media and picking out things you want to mention. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that simple. Independent media sources would rarely cover things like this but that says more about the capacity and interests of local news media than whether its significant or not. He claimed during his election campaign that he "stood shoulder to shoulder with my union friends campaigning for security and fair pay for workers" on his website, see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240117010540/https://www.samrushworth.co.uk/ Crossing a picket line at his own workplace is rather contradictory of that. SnonP (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

But that's what separates us from them. Independent media sources publish things that will interest the general public, because that's how they make their money. If we start pulling info like this from his own personal website, then we're doing the job of news reporters rather than encyclopedic researchers. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, meaning what we do is "library research". We judge the significance of any piece of info by the amount of coverage it gets in reliable WP:Secondary sources, such as newspapers or books. We then use that to determine things such as WP:Balance and WP:Due weight. If independent sources have not seen fit to cover it, then that is an indication that there is little public interest in the info and it's best just to leave it out until they do. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, leaving this here mostly as a check on myself--DemocracyInCranes and I have been going back and forth a little bit on Kevin Kruse's plagiarism brouhaha. To be clear, the incident certainly demands coverage in the article, but we differ on whether we need to include lesser-noted follow-ups and analysis. For me it strays into undue, but as ever, I am happy to go with consensus. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

even without the plagiarism today and national review sources, there seems to be enough sourcing its fine to include, right? agree with you the coverage is fine, and generally also agree that versions with or without the disputed follow-ups are close enough i wouldn't care either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The instructions here say "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input." I don't see any attempt by the two of you to discuss this on the Talk page for Kruse's article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, what has changed since the Sep. 2022 RfC in which there was consensus to include that content? I know you didn't agree with the consensus then, but if you still disagree and think that the RfC should be overturned, shouldn't you start a new RfC to reexamine the question? Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This strikes me as a close but distinct question. I absolutely agree that the plagiarism stuff in and of itself needs to be included (which, if I recall correctly, was the subject of that RFC). I am more dubious of the knock-on elements, like the original accuser making more allegations, which seem to have garnered much less notice. As I said above, perfectly happy to be wrong on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with FactOrOpinion above that this should be discussed at Talk:Kevin M. Kruse first. Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A user by the name of Xardwen has repeatedly installed unsourced edits that were removed by multiple seasoned editors. In fact, over the last 4-5 weeks, he seemingly did this nearly every day.

In what appears to be a campaign to undermine the subject of the article "with savage delight" as stated in his edits, he has violated multiple Wiki standards for accuracy and reliability.

He has not only admitted to "crossing the line" knowingly, "at the expense" of the subject, but has done so after multiple warnings. He has made libelous and defamatory remarks against other editors and the subject as detailed in the edit summaries, talk pages, and the AfD page that he started, violating the AGF and No Personal Attacks policies.

Conflict of Interest (COI): "Xardwen" has acknowledged working in the same field as the subject, creating a clear conflict of interest that is fueling their obsessive actions. While they claim to have no personal connection, this is highly unlikely, given their location in the San Francisco area, as was indicated by their own profile information. Editing with the intent to harm a colleague breaches this policy. "Xardwen" is consistently exploiting Knowledge (XXG) to harm the subject's reputation.

Following page protection and corrections made by senior editors, after obsessively only editing this page, "Xardwen" proceeded to make over 400 edits, seemingly aiming to reach the 500-edit threshold to bypass future protections. He reverted the said corrections and continued baseless accusations on the COI noticeboard to forum shop, which were investigated and archived. Despite this, he has continued to make tenditious edits and defamatory statements at length to push his POV.

This user has been informed multiple times not to insert unsourced or poorly sourced information as per Wiki standards, or an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or removal of secondary sources. Simultaneously, he initiated a page deletion request where he repeated allegations and his tenditious edits based on personal opinions.

Coincidentally after admitting to violating Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and adding libelous statements at the expense of the subject of the article, a new account "Hemelina" was created to agree with himself and delete sources and information contained in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxescience (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A vandalism-only account recently edited this page. This edit contains potential BLP violations and should be revdelled. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just responding, this revision delete happened pretty much immediately after this request was posted. In fact, all of this account's edits had to be revision deleted and they have been blocked, TPA removed. Liz 20:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump International Golf Club shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and related articles.

A believed attempted shooting of a political candidate occurred yesterday. The person involved in the incident fled. It is believed that the same person has been taken into custody. Said person has not been charged yet with a crime.

The name of this person has been included in the article in a section detailing his life and as a separate article about the person. A discussion has occurred on the talk page using the name of the suspect which is leaning towards keeping the name in the article under PUBLICFIGURE and with examples to other articles. I want to confirm as with a recent situation that there isn't a BLPCRIME or BLPNAME issue with the article naming the arrested person, with the article discussing other details about the person, or with the standalone article about the arrested person. As a separate question if there is a problem, if this individual is charged, then should they be named? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The standalone article is Ryan Wesley Routh. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved The person involved has been charged and combined with a lack of comments here, it seems safe to conclude that there is no issue in this situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Jodhi May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Issue: The article contains incorrect and libellous information about Jodhi May’s name, violating Knowledge (XXG)’s biographies of living persons policy.

Specific Problems:

The page falsely states her birth name includes “Hakim-Edwards” or “Edwards McLaren,” which is factually incorrect. It includes unsubstantiated claims that her mother changed her name, which are not supported by reliable sources and are directly contradicted by legal documentation.

Action Requested:

Remove Libellous Content: Correct her name to “Jodhi May” as verified by legal documents. Review and Correct Citations: Ensure all claims about her name are based on reliable and verifiable sources. Protect the Page: Implement semi-protection to prevent repeated reintroduction of libellous content.

These corrections are essential to comply with BLP policy and to prevent further dissemination of harmful and false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMWIKI2024 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @KMWIKI2024. While I can't find a full copy, a Google Books peek inside the cited source seems to back neither the current text nor your statement: Rather, it says her birth surname was Edwards. Do you have sources for her surname at birth being May? Also, the article isn't saying that May's mother changed May's name, although the current prose is horribly written and I see why you've read it that way. Once we get to the bottom of the sourcing issue, I or someone else can clean up the prose. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 18:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin @KMWIKI2024: This is precisely why I started discussion at Talk:Jodhi May#Last name sourcing. On the one hand, there is a lack of sourcing of what her birth name is/was and what her current legal name is. On the other hand, WP:BLPPRIMARY cautions against using birth certificates and other legal documents as sources. But I agree the sourcing issue is a mess: based on what's sourced, the article's intro could almost be recast as "Jodhi Edwards, known professionally as Jodhi May..." That's why we (desperately!) need reliable secondary sourcing of her name(s). —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you started that discussion. I'll disagree with one statement you made there, that if there's no source for a name change we need to refer to her by her birth name and then say "known professionally as": Knowledge (XXG) follows common usage, not legal names (especially in the UK, where there's barely a concept of "legal names"; even in the U.S. it's much less clear-cut than you'd think). If no one's using her birth name outside of a bit of biographical trivia, the article shouldn't say that's her current name, regardless of whether it legally is (again, to the extent anything legally is someone's name in the UK).But as to the sourcing, the current source provided is a passing mention in a book about her mother's ex-husband, which I wouldn't consider the highest-quality source, since off-topic claims are usually fact-checked the least. If primary-source documents do contradict that, I think the easiest solution is just not to comment on what her birth surname was or wasn't. A rarely/never-used birth name is not a critically important piece of biographical information; it's nice to list it, if well-sourced and not a privacy issue, but not the end of the world if we can't. That said this assumes that the primary-source documents actually contradict Gorman. So far, we only have one new user's say-so. So I'd like to get more information before registering an opinion on what to do. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 19:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Tamzin and @C.Fred, for your attention to this — it’s much appreciated.

Just to clarify, Jodhi May has always used “Jodhi May” professionally and personally. Her birth certificate and legal documents confirm this. While WP

advises caution with primary documents, these directly contradict the Gorman reference, which seems to be an off-topic mention in a book not focused on Jodhi’s biography.

This can also be verified through multiple film credits and interviews directly with Jodhi, including those with Nick Duerden at The Independent and Aleks Sierz at The Times, rather than relying on a passing mention in a book about her mother’s ex-husband.

Since there’s no evidence that “Edwards” was ever used by her professionally or personally, it would be most accurate and respectful of privacy to state her name as simply “Jodhi May.” This reflects what is accurate, verified, and commonly used without adding any unnecessary complications.

Thanks again for your time, and happy to provide further context if needed. KMWIKI2024 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page, but I agree the last name of "Edwards" should be left out. WP:BLPPRIVACY says - Knowledge (XXG) includes full names that have been widely published by reliable sources - and that isn't the case here, because the last name "Edwards" has not been widely published by reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In the article about Catherine Tait, president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada (Canada’s public broadcaster), a paragraph was added on August 28 at the top of the “Career” section. This paragraph repeats a false but tenacious claim that is spread on social media according to which Tait lives in Brooklyn, in the U.S., instead of Ottawa, Canada. A similar inaccuracy was added to her page on February 5, 2023 (see my explanation at the time on the talk page of the article).

No source is provided to back up his claim. It also seems to me like any mention of her travelling to Brooklyn should be moved further down in the section called “President and CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada” rather than at the top of the Career section. Adding poorly sourced information in a place where it doesn’t belong seems like yet another attempt to damage Tait’s reputation. As you will be able to gather from the history of the page, there is frequent vandalism on Tait’s page. For instance, I reported a similar incident on the BLP Noticeboard in mid-June.

As displayed on my user page and next to my latest edits, I work for the organization that Tait leads. For this reason, I would like to call on uninvolved editors to review the article and determine the most appropriate course of action. Julien.faille (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's something missing here. I mean, to an insider such as yourself perhaps this means something significant, since you describe it as a "tenacious claim", but to the rest of the world it's like, "So? Who cares where a person lives?"

Both our article and the National Post source vaguely imply there is some significance to this info, yet neither explains why this should mean anything to the general reader. It comes off like some kind of "inside joke", where only those on the inside know what the value of this info is. To us outsiders, though, I find myself asking "Why are you telling me this?" There is no indication of importance, let alone tenaciousness.

I will say that the whole thing seems to rely on a report made by Canadaland, which is a podcast and not an actual news agency. The National Post article credits them multiple times, making it clear they're only repeating what Canadaland said, thus absolving themselves of all credit or blame. The only RS review of Canadaland I found on Knowledge (XXG) is this one from the WP:RSN archives, in which most people did not seem too impressed with its reliability. Similarly, reviews on google describe it with terms such as "snarky", "sardonic", and "offbeat", which seems to suggest more of an op/ed-type source than an actual news outlet, whose goal is to critique the media. I wasn't able to read the Canadaland source so I could review it myself because it's behind a paywall, but since they're really the sole source of this info I think it would probably be best to simply delete it rather than move it somewhere else in the article.

But my primary reason for suggesting we delete it is because of my opening comment more than anything else. There is no indication of what the significance of this info is, both to her life and career. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thalapthy Vijay has become the highest paid actor by getting $32.7 million for his last movie with no additional benefits. 2409:40F4:3058:1471:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add that to List of highest-paid film actors, you need a good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Appears as though Marlène Harnois got married and changed her name as evidenced by her social media profiles

https://www.linkedin.com/in/marleneharnois/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIqGUZjOAGflUUCFhG_v38A

https://x.com/MarleneNidecker

Whats the's process for changing it on her article? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

All of these sources are self-published, so per WP:SPNC, you need to evaluate how likely reliable sources are to adopt the new name when reporting on her before considering making changes here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

ok thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

2023 Qatar espionage case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In this article the ranks and names of living person is kept. I removed the reference, it got reverted by now banned editor. I objected to it on article talk page, however, further people opposed my edit, hence I backtracked on it thinking I might be wrong in this matter. But since then things have changed, all individuals have been declared innocent and I have made a new comment on it- New comment.
Reason I am posting on noticeboard- To invite community to assess whether keeping names and ranks of individuals involved in case is in line with wiki's WP:BLP policy. Looking forward to comments in article's talk page, Thanks!! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean we should put their names down but not their government or military ranks? This sounds confusing... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No I did not say "we should put their names down" IMO their ranks were irrelevant to article from get go. But now even their names is irrelevant since source has removed reference to both things. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Does saying- "8 former navy personnel were arrested" reduces the quality and knowledge provided by article? Does it need to be "8 former navy personnel were arrested............ {ranks of each} {names of each}" on the article, hugely violating privacy on individuals? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I still have the same outlook as before - we go by what the majority of sources state, and I still do not see the privacy concerns that you point to by releasing their former military ranks if they are included in the majority of sources. A quick glance at sources shows the names as well as their ranks Jurist,The Statesman,Times of India,Tribune India,India Today.

I welcome other editor involvement as well.

Awshort (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG) is not consolidated collection of what is reported on RS, but an encyclopedic storage of information, stored in a manner which provides information relevant to the user while complying with its existing policies and community discussions. The Hindu article linked in the article to point out names and ranks have removed all such reference on its article. Same would go to other RS had they been less sensational and more rational in reporting of this matter. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why don't we put their ranks but make it clear its a former rank. So "former colonel" instead of just "colonel".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: On 30 August 2022, the former Indian Navy officers, is the current text before the names and rank section which I think was originally added to avoid adding retired before each rank, but I do agree that at a quick glance it appears they are current military instead of former and would read better with your suggestion.

  Awshort (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the entire history of this dispute, but if these people have not been convicted, then I think we should not name them per BLPCRIME. The only exception is if their story has been so widely published that they have achieved celebrity status. We can still tell the entire story without the names. If there's no article on them to link to, the name itself doesn't mean anything to the general reader and certainly doesn't add to their understanding of the event. If they're convicted, and their conviction is reported in reliable sources, then we can add the names. No need to hurry.

When it comes to ranks, there is no rule about keeping those out, so here's where a little common sense and editorial judgment is required. We could write, "A captain, a captain, a captain, a commander, and a sailor were arrested..." but that is incredibly awkward to read, and sounds like the opening of a joke. (Three captains, three commanders, and a sailor walk into a bar...) The questions I would ask myself are, "Is this really the best way to phrase this? Do the ranks provide any context that is --absolutely necessary-- for the reader to be able to understand the story?" If the answer to both is no, then I can see no better reason to leave them out. Brevity is your friend when writing articles. Say more with less. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Regarding BLPCRIME, they had been convicted by a foreign government prior to naming if memory serves correct, and sentenced to death. There was confusion on the charges, but the sentence was there. With the sentencing in place and it being overturnedcommuted to jail sentences

, I think the more appropriate policy subsection regarding name inclusion to look at would be BLPNAME (Are the names widely published? Were the names concealed by the courts?).

Wanted to get that out before heading out the door for the day :-) Cheers!

Awshort (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

: I was incorrect on case being overturned, inserted ref and struck prior text 00:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If a conviction has been vacated or overturned, then it is the same as there never having been a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME should apply and "editors must seriously consider not including material" for non-public figures. I agree with Zaereth's analysis. – notwally (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting that if a sentence has been commuted but the conviction is still on the record (this appears to be the case based on Awshort's edits to their comment above), then my prior comment would not apply. – notwally (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think the figures here are WP:PUBLICFIGURE as they have held "a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority" and further this case, and their names, have been very widely documented in RS. So it is ok to name them with the usual caveats that we don't treat them as guilty.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Vice regent, I don't see any evidence that they would be considered public figures. They appear to be ordinary Navy officers. The description of "low-profile" right under the paragraph you quoted discusses self-promotion and the "public projection of self-worth", which are generally important elements of whether someone is a public figure. – notwally (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • India has armed forces in millions, I wish I had all their insta followed because all are publicfigure, hehe, jokes aside, (I joke sometimes only :/) I would argue the 8 individuals do not qualify as public figure at all. Please have a glance at WP:BLP1E. They are not in media rn and they were not in media prior to their arrest and subsequent acquittal `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Just noting that notability and whether someone is a public figure are not always the same. – notwally (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, but I wanted to point out more relevant portion of BLP instead of WP:LPI to address point raised by vice regent `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

      • "Public figure" is a legal term with a very specific definition, "a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero". Just because a person seeks fame doesn't make them a public figure, they actually have to achieve it. Likewise, just because someone avoids fame doesn't mean they won't achieve it. This definition was written because the laws affiliated with it applies to media outlets, Knowledge (XXG) included. Public figures don't have the same rights or expectation of privacy that a private citizen does. The bar for becoming a public figure is pretty darn high. For example, the vast majority of actors are not public figures, they have to reach that celebrity status to be considered one. All government officials are automatically considered public figures, but this doesn't apply to everyone who is in a position of authority. Being a military officer doesn't automatically make one a public figure.
      • However, if these people have been convicted of a crime, the discussion of whether or not they're public figures is really moot. A conviction means BLPCRIME is satisfied and we can go ahead and name them. BLPCRIME is intended to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Zaereth (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

        The entire case is mired with media sensationalism and truth is lost in between. The charges were never framed properly nor do they were put into prison to suffer for their "spying" in Qatar. "The details surrounding their arrest, sentencing, and commuting remain unclear." As I see it, the article and community in its totality has failed to protect privacy of individuals involved in this matter. This was (coming to BLPN) I think is last place I could come to for help regarding this matter :/ I have already been called a "vandal" so I won't try to over-rule what community decides even if I consider it wrong and unjustifiable decision :/

        • • • last pitch- article does not require names of individuals to be there for article's credibility, 8 individuals are not "public figures" and 8 individuals are innocent not just on papers (not revealed) but on the ground too (8 individuals are in their home country living their "normal life") `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of Al Gore's biography it is listed that he was the 45th vice president despite the fact that he was the 41st alongside Bill Clinton. This is inaccurate information and does not align with the chronological order of previous vice presidencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glarr (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This is better suited for Talk:Al Gore. The reason that is would be (I believe) that he is the 41st president's VP, as certain presidents had more than one either within or when changing terms, displacing his position chronologically. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see List of vice presidents of the United States. There have been a few presidents who had multiple vice presidents, so the numbers don't line up. (Also Clinton was the 42nd president.) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Clinton was the 41st president. His presidency was the 42nd, because Grover Cleveland had two presidencies, but was still only one president. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an idiosyncratic way of counting. The William J. Clinton Presidential Library thinks he was the 42nd president, as does Knowledge (XXG)... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bush Sr. was 41, Clinton 42, Bush Jr. 43, Obama 44, Trump 45, Biden 46, and the next, be it Trump or Harris, will be 47. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Gore was the 45th VP. There have been more VP's than presidents. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I was not sure of the best place to add this, and so please see the new topic I added at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Political nominees in boxes at end of articles. – notwally (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Aussie Malcolm died recently and now that he cannot defend himself the media have reported he was investigated (never charged, police investigate all complaints) some editors believe this is super important information and belongs in the lead and article even though BDP would apply here 115.189.89.30 (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just based on a quick internet search, there appear to be multiple articles published by The New Zealand Herald . Radio New Zealand has also reported on it , and there appear to be numerous articles published by Stuff (company) (most of the sources in the current article version are cited to them) as well as in its affiliated newspaper The Press . These appear to be some of the largest and most well-respected news outlets in New Zealand. There are also articles in smaller newspapers. Given the coverage so far, I think this would satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – notwally (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As discussed on the talk page, this is not tabloid gossip; it has been widely discussed in the mainstream media in New Zealand. The New Zealand Prime Minister has commented on it in the media, advising other victims to speak to police.

The fact they were under investigation by the police for these crimes at the time of death has been well covered in a number of major media outlets in New Zealand. From my reading, WP:BDP does not mean that the fact that an individual was the subject of a police investigation cannot be mentioned just because they recently died, and the investigation was revealed after their death. If he was still alive, this content would still be relevant and valid to include on his page per WP:PUBLICFIGURE (assuming it had been discussed in the media). David Palmer//cloventt 02:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of the BBC music figure Jimmy Savile, who was beloved when alive, but the fact that he was a sexual abuser of children came out only after his death. If properly referenced to multiple reliable sources and neutrally summarized, this type of content belongs in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have additional eyes on the article for Mark Karpelès. Multiple sockpuppets in the past have added promotional material to the article and edited the sections on his criminal history to minimize his actions, and there is an open SPI against the most recent editor making these types of edits. Many of the edits also focus on promoting the article subject's new cryptocurrency businesses. – notwally (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll check that out Sirocco745 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally I've checked the page's history and you are very right to be annoyed at those sockpuppets. Got the article watchlisted now, I'll keep an eye on it. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

New user Very Polite Person insists that they can use a UFO activist, who allegedly saw an UFO in 1979 and then spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs, as a reliable source on a UFO-related BLP. The BLP is Luis Elizondo. They also seem to believe that, because some people agree with Luis Elizondo, his statements have been "confirmed" (and that the UFO activist is a reliable source for that claim). Polygnotus (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Another user MrOllie changed "confirmed" to "supported", got reverted by Very Polite Person and then MrOllie changed it back to "supported". The statements made by Luis Elizondo have not been confirmed. Polygnotus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps some extracts from his book are useful to determine if Luis is telling the truth:

“ ”

It turned out that almost all the people in Will’s studies—military and intelligence officials with remote-viewing abilities and/or UAP encounters and biological effects—had Native American DNA. Specifically, Cherokee blood.

— Luis Elizondo in Imminent

“ ”

My specific interests involved alleged alien implants found in humans. From what I read, often living tissue grew around implants, but such growths never contained anything but the patient’s DNA in them. The growths sometimes sprouted multiple brightly colored hairs or filaments, similar to Morgellons fibers. When researchers scrape away the human tissue, they find objects that resemble a technical device in size and shape but without any circuitry whatsoever. I once handled one of these implants myself, provided to me by a hospital in the Department of Veterans Affairs, where it had been removed from a US military servicemember who had encountered a UAP.

— Luis Elizondo in Imminent

And a quote from the article to see how neutral and evenhanded our UFO activist is:

“ ”

From his post as a senior intelligence officer for the Secretary of Defense, Luis Elizondo knew by 2017 he had two choices: 1) make peace with silence and continue sitting on the Cold War’s deepest secret, or 2) resign from a career he loved in order to fulfill his duty to serve the United States.

— Billy Cox

Polygnotus (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is probably WP:FRIND. Ufologists are not generally reliable for analysing the WP:FRINGE aspects of UFOs (e.g. the little green men stuff), but may be okay for mundane facts. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, exactly. So he is not a reliable source for if the claims have been confirmed or supported. If his story is true that is certainly no mundane fact. Polygnotus (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Content requires reliable sources. I'm not quite sure what the source is or who the "UFO activist" is, but a person being quoted in a newspaper would not make what they said reliable, for example. The newspaper, as the reliable source, would need to state the same information as fact for it to be reliable information. If this is just a question of reliability, WP:RSN may be a better forum to discuss the issue. As for the article content, the "and supported by others" language was too vague. I edited the sentence to make it more direct and less open to ambiguous interpretation. – notwally (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well the UFO activist is a guy who writes for an otherwise normal newspaper. But he has a certain bias when it comes to UFOs because he spent most of his life as an activist. Thanks for your edit, that is a big improvement. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS. I've tried multiple times to get User:Polygnotus to even acknowledge or comment on all that information with no luck. This reporter is a normal veteran senior reporter, who posted to a blog on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for 2~ years out of a decades-long career at the newspaper. I don't know where User:Polygnotus got ..."spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs", but that is literally not true based on the available evidence. As far as how we use this source, I have it broken down in that link literally sentence by sentence and invocation by invocation so everything was transparent for everyone. While the subject Luis Elizondo has WP:FRINGE connections, the article is not about their UFO beliefs. It's an article about the WP:BLP subject, and the entirety of the apparent conflict is related to their early life, education, professional military and Pentagon career from 1975 to 2008~ or so. Their UFO related WP:FRINGE aspects don't even begin until 2017. The source in question is used to provide basic biographical and professional data, and is one of six sources that are used to highlight a persistent conflict that is noted across many WP:RS about one single aspect of his resume. That bit of the resume isn't even WP:FRINGE itself! It's basic rote WP:BLP stuff with no WP:FRINGE considerations. User:Polygnotus seems to be saying this reporter is not a valid source to fill in/support non-WP:FRINGE biographical data on a WP:BLP, essentially, because that reporter said they saw a UFO apparently 40 or 50 years, wrote some articles on the topic, a blog for their newspaper for a few years, and that this is apparently a disqualifying consideration and a "conflict of interest". Again, for emphasis, this needs to be read to have context:

• Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

This is a standard run of the mill reporter at a low bias, high credibility newspaper being used by us for standard vanilla WP:RS and WP:BLP coverage, and nothing to even do with WP:FRINGE stuff. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

a standard run of the mill reporter who happens to have allegedly seen a UFO 45 years ago and then spent decades of his life convincing others that that event actually happened and was not rare. Polygnotus (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This section has now been removed repeatedly against my request: it is NOT the same issue whatsoever as the preceding one. It is about the BLP violations by the user who made the preceding section after I told them I would be bringing this BLP violation by them to this noticeboard.

The Luis Elizondo article is extremely contentious and has seen recurrant article WP:BLP violations over time, that has been reported more than once now to Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and is in the archives here. The most recent event, where a litany of users were inserting negative unsourced commentary into Luis Elizondo and even edit warring to keep it in, which is how I became aware of the article and involved, is here from August 26th, not even a month ago:

• Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked

On the article itself, it seems like a few of us have managed to source finally 100% of content and there is nothing negative unsourced at all now on this WP:BLP, and it's from casual review of the version history the most WP:BLP and WP:NPOV compliant that Lue Elizondo has ever been. For an idea of how bad it was for WP:BLP in the past, the circa 2021-era versions are a bit of a train wreck.

However, while the article is at the moment WP:BLP-compliant, the Talk page is a problem. Per our top-level rule at Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Knowledge (XXG) page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

From going through the talk page histories, a number of users, being blunt, "shit talk" the subject openly and without regard for WP:BLP, and no one ever cleans up or challenges it. I noticed one today (and more, but I figured I had to start somewhere), and decided to say something per WP:BLP. On this edit, User:Polygnotus calls the subject a liar twice:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246487079

I replied to notify the user of my concerns on Talk:Luis Elizondo here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246531439

And on their talk page here, which was deleted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1246532609

User:Polygnotus then came to my talk page here:

• User talk:Very Polite Person#Falsely accusing people

There, Polygnotus refused/disassembled my attempts to sort this out repeatedly, despite my saying I would proceed here to WP:BLPN and dispute resolution if they did not address the WP:BLP concerns, which are equally binding on Talk pages as Articles themselves, per WP:BLP. The user seems at best disinterested in the BLP-related concerns.

The specific BLP violation remains live here at the moment, and given the problematic history of this article, I wanted to get more eyes and awareness on this:

• Talk:Luis Elizondo#Cox, aboutself, ref(/area) 51

In response to all this, the user launched a complaint about BLP-related sourcing on the article here on this noticeboard, further ignoring their WP:BLP violation:

• Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luis Elizondo -- can UFO activists be used as a reliable source on UFO-related BLPs?

What can we do to get Talk:Luis Elizondo policed and enforced for WP:BLP concerns, and deal with this specific scenario? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:POVFORK of the section above. See WP:STICK. Stop falsely accusing people. You do not WP:OWN this article. And your WP:POV is clearly not neutral because you think his statements have been confirmed and use a UFO activist as a source for that... Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG)%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1246543430&oldid=1246543088

Do not remove my section again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not your section. Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere. Do not falsely accuse me again. And as you are aware I am very interested in your BLP violation; you cannot go to BLPN to ask for support when you added a non-neutral non-reliable source on a BLP and got reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT the same issue. My post is about YOUR violations of BLP and by others and a request for help on that page. You do not get to define my complaint about you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah for some reason you refuse to focus on the topic at hand. Weird. Meta-conversations are rather boring, don't you think? Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have responded repeately at length for the non-WP:FRINGE concerns you raised, and you have now at least a dozen (I am not keeping count further) tried to change the subject away from your WP:BLP violation, to the point of trying to remove and obscure my report on you from this page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The only BLP concern I see expressed in this wall of text is that Polygnotus called the article subject a liar on the talk page. While it may not be the best way to make an argument, I don't think that is a BLP violation. While BLP certainly applies to talk page comments, there is obviously more leeway since editors are allowed to express their own opinions to an extent, which is entirely prohibited from mainspace article content. The article subject appears to be a public figure who has made many controversial claims that have been disputed by others including reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said: Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere.. I did it once, and you reverted me, and then other people also merged the sections because they are about the same article. I didn't invent the rules here, people just merge sections about the same topic on this and similar pages. If you do not agree with that you can perhaps try to change that? Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am a pedantic person, and I did not call them a liar. I just pointed out that "It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar" which is the kind of obvious truism moms everywhere and anywhere say to their kids. It is just a fact. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You wrote It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar. immediately after writing And luiselizondo-official.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 so I would get rid of that too. I would consider everything he says "controversial" because I would dispute it all.. In no way can that not be reasonably interpreted as a WP:BLP violation. Doing that on the Article would get any of us a firm warning at best. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restrictions are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article. There are also numerous reliable sources that dispute factual statements made by the article subject. Given that is the case, I don't see how the talk page comment could be construed as beyond reasonable. – notwally (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restriction are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article.

That is incorrect. Per our top-level rule at Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Knowledge (XXG) page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Is our WP:BLP policy incorrect on it's plain wording? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are trying to claim that there is the same strict application of BLP policies when applied to talk pages, then yes, you are wrong. There is obviously more leeway in talk page discussions than on mainspace article content. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Knowledge (XXG) page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
2. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
3. The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
4. The template BLP removal can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.

Does WP:BLP mention "talk pages" in error? I do not follow your reasoning that the plain language of WP:BLP is wrong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving my words a new meaning. It is very helpful. Can you not tell that people do not agree with you? Fun fact: I also called a terrorist an "idiot" one time on a talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would recommend both users stop responding to every comment made by the other and instead allow other editors to comment, which becomes less and less likely the longer this thread becomes an endless tit-for-tat between two editors. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I invite others to read through this and help address rampant WP:BLP concerns on both Luis Elizondo and Talk:Luis Elizondo that seem to be running with some level of tolerance by involved editors for years. I am not going to further reply to Polygnotus here myself, as they seem determined to attempt to (apparently) reframe any complaint about their behavior or WP:BLP concerns into attacks on them--I am not going to indulge their desire for a high-speed volley of responses. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and follow our WP:RULES, not insult WP:BLP subjects on their own talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs)

• Please also see WP:BLUDGEON. – notwally (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The Anton Zeilinger page has over 50 citations of that person's self-published CV. I guess the information is probably ok, but is this counter to policy? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content, such as the lists of awards, is not appropriate to include if only sourced to primary sources or the article subject. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. I removed some of the content, although more work may to be done. – notwally (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You can read my orginal request here. As you can see, including this gives disproportionate attention to a personal event with no lasting significance.W170924 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

In that discussion you were told to contact the Volunteer Responce Team (see WP:Contact us; you want the info-en email address). This is not the VRT. I would suggest you use the VRT instead of constantly drawing attention to the one thing you want excised from the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories:

• Knowledge (XXG) noticeboards
• Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution