Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Armen Yesoyan (born October 29, 1980) is the Acting Director of "Environmental Project Implementation Unit" State Agency of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milenakira (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have an article in the Armenian Wikipedia? If not, user:Milenakira, maybe you should write one there if you think he’s notable enough. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Shyu Patrick Shyu

The article doxxes a YouTuber "TechLead," who is a fictional satirical YouTuber persona, not to be confused with the individual. The article is primarily a negative hit piece. The YouTuber "TechLead" is a fictional character who makes exaagerated claims based not on fact to gain attention. It is libel to take unbased claims from a fictional character and to then attribute them to a doxxed individual. Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube, rather than assuming everything they see on social media is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techleadhd (talk • contribs)

• There is no "doxxing" since reliable sources already identify this character by his real name. I see this article is now at AfD, so may be deleted. As a general observation, it's amazing how many times people complain when called out on their unpleasant behaviour, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Patrick Shyu identifies himself as TechLead on his personal websites offering training courses: [1] [2] [3]. Note that the bio on each page links to the YouTube channel in question without mentioning anything about satire, and the YouTube page links to Shyu's business pages without any mention of satire either. I don't think the "fictional character" explanation holds weight, personally. White 720 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Clickbait videos on YouTube should not be presumed to be fact, especially when published under a pseudonym. I think Wikipedia should draw a line here, instead of publishing articles based on clickbait. "TechLead" is a fictional character who intentionally presents controversial viewpoints for attention & discussion - not to be confused with any individual person. Also, the article seems to only cherrypick negative points - I don't see the purpose of this, as it is clearly not biographical or unbiased in nature, but rather serves as a hitpiece to defame/harm a YouTuber's real name & reputation. YouTubers have a lot of haters by the nature of the industry, but Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. When there are real factual news publications (such as Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.,) and not gossip publications (like Business Insider) that publish fact-checked articles about a YouTuber, then a non-biased biographical entry may be merited that properly summarizes both the pros & cons of an individual. It's stunning that even though the YouTuber "TechLead" amassed popularity to over 1 million subscribers by delivering value, the Wikipedia entry is almost entirely negative remarks on a 2-3 controversial videos out of the 300+ videos he made - obviously written by haters in an attempt to cause personal harm & harassment. Techleadhd (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then he should discuss that with youtube, we can't ignore the information cause he doesn't like it. Are you the individual? You were also asked at the AfD discussion if you have some relation to the subject of the article, given the similar user name.That is a conflict of interest if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Techleadhd stated on his user talk page that he is associated with the content creator. Exactly how wasn't divulged. But a clear COI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be transparent, I am the person in question and am raising the concern that this article destroys my chances of job employment & future prospects. The YouTube channel is published under a pseudonym as a fictitious persona. This is done in order to disassociate the satire, attention-grabbing clickbait, and controversial topics that I sometimes challenge myself to approach on YouTube from my real identity. I think it would be more accurate to publish this post under the pseudonym "TechLead," rather than attributing a fictional persona with my real name. At the minimum, it should be clarified that this is just an on-stage character and his words do not necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs. I don't believe it is a conflict of interest to correct the misconception that a YouTuber character = real person. This is obvious for anyone who has ever met a YouTuber, as they're quite different people in real life and often "normal" and pretty nice people. I'm astonished to see someone who didn't get the satire (which is understandable as it can be subtle) but to then publish a Wikipedia article about that under my real name. Techleadhd (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is so concerning for you, why do you make it clear that Techlead and Shyu are the same person on various webpages, e.g. here? I am thinking we are dealing with a troll here. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page you're referring to is a training program, where I break out of character and refer to myself by my real name. The content is also entirely different and educational, compared to the satire & clickbait on YouTube. It is like saying "Heath Ledger is 'The Joker' and in this program will teach you how to become an actor." Let me summarize my points:

• There is a difference between author and fictional character. Most YouTube videos are authored & acted by the same person due to budget constraints. I play the fictional character "TechLead," acting as a highly exaggerated version of myself, hence the pseudonym. On rare occasion, I will break out of character but it is simply inaccurate to think that these 2 are the same people, and to claim for example that "Heath Ledger said he wanted to bomb a hospital." TechLead is a show about a stereotypical arrogant "tech bro" character, where every line is scripted. It is subtle like a reality show but generally fictional in nature.
• Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. The defamatory claims against 'TechLead' are often made by other clout-chasing YouTubers who will say anything to gain views. It is a world of clickbait. Under the clause of "non-notable person," the article should be removed because most YouTubers are really not notable and only relevant for their 15 minutes of fame.
• The article breaks NPOV (non-biased point of view) clause. It is obviously written by a few "haters" in negative light. This is clear because the article constantly refers to 'Patrick Shyu,' rather than 'TechLead' in an effort to defame. If the article were trying to be useful & informative, it would be titled under the more commonly recognized YouTube channel "TechLead." Further, the article is nearly purely negative yet the channel clearly has demonstrated popularity with over 1 million subscribers. It cherrypicks a few unbased allegations made by other YouTubers & gossip, but with no real factual sources. The article is clearly non-neutral and serves no other purpose than to harass & defame.

YouTubers are pretty nice & kind people in real life, not over-the-top characters as portrayed on-camera. They typically don't respond to 'hate' because haters are part of the industry. I believe a line is crossed when that hate shows up on Wikipedia and breaks the fictional character reaching into real identities, as that can cause reputational harm. Techleadhd (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "reputational harm" does tend to occur if you post multiple misogynistic comments on Twitter for the whole world to read. Who knew? Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for. The Wikipedia article never mentions this. The original intent of the tweet was that "women should not be programmers," but this was misinterpreted to think that women were the problem, rather than the programming industry being the problem. In reality, it was a "clickbaity" way to support women by drawing attention to how hostile the programming industry is towards mothers (and fathers too). A reworded tweet "the programming industry doesn't do enough for mothers" wouldn't have gained as much attention. The fictional character name is used for such controversial remarks (and oftentimes with exaagerated prose) to start a discussion, though I would never even approach such a topic under my real name. Historically, authors would often pose controversial ideas expressed through fictional characters, and through that achieve positive change in society. Therefore in reality I actually heavily support women in tech, although this viewpoint is narratively reversed in the "TechLead" character to make a point about how tech does not support mothers enough. Politics aside, I believe Wikipedia to not be the platform to memorialize clickbait. Techleadhd (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that your tweets about women in tech were deleted, but not as clear that you apologized for them. (To the contrary, this news article says that you pushed back against your critics, telling them to "get into Google first" before calling you sexist.) Do you have a self-published or reliable third-party source that contains your apology? Also, is your Twitter account written by you, or is it by the supposed fictional character "TechLead"? White 720 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a general level, I don't believe Wikipedia should be the platform on which to debate YouTubers on the validity of clickbait, and to demand for clickbait to be explained to them or suffer the repercussions of having it associated with their doxxed real names. Obviously, even Wikipedia editors use pseudonyms and understandably many people separate identities online. The Twitter account for TechLead is also made as such, and it should be clear that in many cases it isn't even always a single person behind an account or the script of a video. Many YouTubers use ghost-writers who help with scripts. TechLead is a fictional character operated under an LLC - an exaagerated character made to gain views. While many do not realize, YouTube is more of a business entity and not an individual.

Now regarding your question specifically, that article is from Business Insider, which is not the most reputable reporting. They are also in it for views. If you're seeking another apology, I am happy to issue an official one right here on behalf of the character "TechLead is sorry and retracts all statements." The "get into Google first" phrase was subtle satire, perhaps a poorly made joke whose tone could not be understood through text alone, but it was sarcasm. Twitter is not the most expressive platform. In either case, whether you accept the apology or not on an individual level, I believe Wikipedia should (a) not associate YouTuber characters with real identities and (b) should not be the place to debate whether clickbait is real or not, instead relying on harder facts. Techleadhd (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for," you said. I asked where your apology was, and you offered a retraction without any indication about what you were sorry for, other than for "all statements". Considering that the TechLead character (which I associate with you, whether you like it or not) posted a video last month called "why Kanye West is right", which has been condemned for its antisemitic material and suggestion that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be real, I'm not really ready to accept a generic apology offered in a Wikipedia thread. White 720 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Kanye West is right" video, it was actually an attempt to dispel anti-Semitism by exploring extremist beliefs more deeply rather than simply casting them aside. Why do they believe what they do, and how can we address those at the source? The original working title was a less juicy "Is Kanye West right?" but that wouldn't have gotten views. The video was later removed in any case. I occasionally challenge myself to tackle controversial topics - not all of them come out well but occasionally some do. The material is published under a fictional character, often in an outlandish tone of voice. While you may believe that the content is anti-Semitical (from the clickbaity title), it is actually the opposite in intent. Some of the material simply presents a counterpoint for perspective, and may not reflect my own personal beliefs. I'm not sure if it makes sense for me to sit here and explain each video and the satire underneath... happy to do so if you want though.

Your statement above seems to indicate a non-neutral point of view, as you harbor negative opinions for TechLead and are using Wikipedia as a way to punish by misattributing the fictional character's statements to a real person. Your refusal to accept an apology indicates you rather believe what you want (ie., that TechLead is a horrible person), even though he has clarified these statements. On that note, the other points in the article are mistaken too. For instance, the AlgoPro episode was amicably settled privately and much more complex (only one side was ever told). The Tren Black criticism on the online course was mostly made up, as he never even enrolled in the course. Many points in the article are simply untrue or lack full context. Most YouTubers generally don't respond to haters, who are usually chasing clout.

My suggestion would be if you have an issue with the character, to make a few videos on YouTube criticizing the character 'TechLead.' Doing this on Wikipedia and attacking the doxxed name seems an inappropriate use of the platform. Techleadhd (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest would interfere with that, please suggest revisions and sources on the article's talk page. White 720 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The sourcing for those tweets isn't very strong,

Business Insider isn't always a great source, and on the reliable sources noticeboard here

there are some mixed views on The Quint, with some suggestion that it shouldn't be used for notability. Some of the other sources in that article also seem of questionable reliability, such as Candor and Reclaim the Net.

So I think given the contentiousness of the claims and the weak sourcing, there do seem to be grounds for removing some or all of this content from the article Tristario (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Said (actor) gives exactly one reference, which does not actually state his birth date, while the article includes it from God knows where. The rest of the article also seems to be almost directly translated from the Swedish source, but that's a different issue entirely.Fermiboson (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search through swedish news sources and couldn't find enough I think to justify notability, so this article should probably be deleted. I've added a notability template for now though Tristario (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diff [4] here contains potentially private/sensitive info without source. Request redaction Fermiboson (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct, so I went to WP:Oversight and requested redaction. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have included his father's time on the New Orleans City Council as being his service. You even note in the body of the article that it was his father who served on the council, yet it is in the summary column. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.151.33.254 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added content claiming accusations of "sexual harassment". This is a false claim. Naumov was accused of harassment for sending work emails on weekends and having longer-than-needed research conversations with a co–author, but the word "sexual harassment" is not used by the accuser (who was the provost of the college). Yet, multiple reverts are bringing the defamatory and highly-charged words "sexual harassment" back without providing any references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Naumov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.193.196 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed any information that is cited solely to court documents as a pretty clear violation of

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Such info needs to be found in reliable secondary-sources. Zaereth (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't realise those documents are unnacceptable as refs. - Roxy the dog 10:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what words the accuser uses; what matters is the words

Baltimore Sun. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Sun website is unavailable in my country. They should keep up, as we left the EU. - Roxy the dog 10:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with leaving the EU. It's GDPR which is UK law. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Caroll County Times sourced says that it was alleged Naumov stalked a colleague. I have added this to the article, because this seems to be adequately sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pavel Naumov notable? Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure. His citation record on google scholar [5] looks extremely weak to me, but obviously citation counts vary widely between different fields and I'm not sure whatever Naumov's discipline is a high or low citation field. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computer science tends to be a low-citation discipline, but as a former associate professor, he very likely falls short of

WP:NPROF. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked some more at the page history, and the page started out as being about him as an athlete, and then evolved over time into him being an academic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the academic and the athlete even the same person? The birthdates of the two are completely different. [6]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like someone changed the birth year, by a lot, when it started to be about the academic: [7] and [8]. The changes were made progressively by a series of IPs over a few days. Maybe AfD is in order. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post at WP:AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Questions_regarding_suspected_article_hijacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the page cites this source for his date of birth: [9]. Clearly, it fails verification. From the current version of the page, this is his web page bio: [10]. From an old version of the page, there is, instead, this: [11]. I'm not sure, but it sort of looks like two different people. I tend to think the academic fails

WP:NSPORT. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Given that the athlete was once the National Indoor Champion (Russia), I think that person probably passes

WP:NTRACK. Perhaps the best course of action is to roll the page back to the stub it was before it was changed to the academic, and leave it at that. Certainly, that would make the BLP issues vanish instantly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There would still be mess to cleanup with the wikidata entry [12] and such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I just looked at what the rollback would be ([13]), and it would have to be updated with his first-place finish. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT requires subjects to meet GNG, and to always have at least one SIGCOV source cited in the article, so we shouldn't restore the page to the athlete's biography unless/until GNG is established. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how maintaining this article hijack is tenable either. I think probably the best solution is a history split and have both articles taken to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a web search about the runner. I couldn't find any SIGCOV about him, just stats, and I'm no longer entirely sure that there is any real coverage of a first-place showing. I'm no longer thinking that he passes NTRACK, and maybe that page should also go to AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Did you check the Russian coverage using his cyrillic name? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. (And I'll leave that to other editors.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to his bio at (I assume) the Russian Wikipedia: [14]. The cites there look to be stats pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines as Cullen, Naumov falls under

WP:NPF. What is even weirder is that all the allegations come from him while the school is silent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The school, as a former employer, probably does not comment in public about personnel matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the underlying edit history for the athlete to Pavel Naumov (long-distance runner). Cheers! BD2412 T 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the academic is now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov (logician) the titles have been messed with again and Pavel Naumov is now the title of the athlete article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated the athelete article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the heading title to "legal issues", no opinion on the content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this incident should be in the lead section but I also have no clue on the depth of coverage on this person outside this incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy" does not seem like the sort of position that normally makes a person notable, nor do criminal charges of stealing a suitcase. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for this isn't very good, this seems to be largely covered by unreliable and right wing non-mainstream publications. I just removed some other poorly sourced content from this article, which should not have been in there Tristario (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the sources for this with more reliable sources Tristario (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the position wouldn't pass

WP:NPOL (and Brinton's a career civil servant rather than a political appointee, so NPOL is dubious grounds here anyway). But, the individual appears to also be a high-profile figure who's been given significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. The article subject seems notable to me, though the article generally could be expanded if someone wants to put in the work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Two editors (

This is incorrect. I have zero interest in keeping the "Oxane Taub" name out of the article. I want to include her birth name which was given on her own archived website (she is in prison) and also by SFGate, a reliable source, in 2013. Chornenkaya is just the feminine form of Chornenky. There is nothing at all unusual about this with Russian names. She is a bit player in the story about the attack on Paul Pelosi. The most in depth reporting about her past was written by Sam Whiting of SFGate in 2013. I see no reason to doubt his reporting. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SF Gate article looks like a very good source for this particular information. It's a well-written article and not at all like op/ed or tabloidish material. I understand your argument, Wally, about not wanting it to come from a single source, but the nature of the source, being as it comes from a direct interview with the subject, strongly suggests that giving the name is not any kind of a privacy issue for her, and I see no reason to doubt the source. As for the spelling difference, that could very well be just a difference in naming conventions, like Henry is to Henriette. Or it could be easily explainable as there is often no standard spelling when translating names that come from a language not based on the Greek alphabet, for example, Muammar Gaddafi (Gadhafi? Qaddafi? Khadafi? Qadadhafi? Who knows?) in which case it may just be prudent to list them all. Doesn't look like a BLP violation. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Talk: Gypsy Taub, Nikita Khrushchev had three daughters and their surnames were Khruscheva. Yuri Andropov had two daughters and their surnames were Andropova. Boris Yeltsin had one daughter, and her maiden name was Yeltsina. There is nothing at all unusual or surprising about Russian surnames having masculine and feminine variations. It is commonplace. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, although I don't know much about Russian names, that's fully understandable, sort of like Leif Erikson and his sister Freydis Eriksdottir. Whatever the case, it doesn't look like a BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zaereth, for your response. That makes sense to me. –

talk) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It sounds as if the person wrote the article about herself. Who else would call a received graduate scholarship "among the most prestigious" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorResolutus (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that this article was written by the subject. There are usually telltale signs of an autobiography; ways that people write when talking about themselves that are very difficult to hide unless you really know what to look for. The way they use prepositions and other cues for spatial orientation, for one example. None of that is present here. However, it is possible that the article was written by someone with close ties to the subject, but to know that for sure you really have to compare what we have in the article to what is found in the sources.

That said, the article needs a lot of work. There is some puffery in places, and some bad grammar/poor punctuation in many others. Lots of MOS problems. The "life" section reads like a resume, while the "work" section sounds like it's promoting her book. I notice we only have three sources. Five are all the same one (a university profile), but the other two are book reviews, so I'm not sure about notability, but those two reviews are probably enough to keep it from getting through AFD. Oddly enough, we don't give any of those reviews in the article text, which would actually be interesting for the reader, but instead they are used to promote her book. All in all, I'd say it needs a lot of TLC. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Dixon

Provincial politician in Ontario, Canada. Would appreciate some eyes from anyone willing. I'm trying not to edit-war with someone really committed to trying to frame this politician as controversial. It's my belief that because of BLP's policies, particularly undue weight, that this section should be deleted, but maybe it could work with a re-write. There's a bit of back and forth in the talk section. Previous attempts by myself and others to address tone and accuracy have been undone by the creator of the section. Open to feedback! And I appreciate folks looking into this given that it's not the most exciting biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of humor

Randall "Tex" Cobb was known and acknowedged for a very dry self deprecating sense of humor. This rare sense of humor reflected a distinct intellect and reflected well on his intelligence and awareness of the world within which he lived earning the respect from men he had beaten and been beaten by while boxing.

Examples include the Johnny Carson show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HHcFlwAo and this one at a roast for Larry Holmes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yiaczZWFQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.39.11 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a noticeboard matter. Please go to the article's talk page and make your suggestions there. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a

original research Tristario (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that the one link about BLP issues are in fact BLP issues and should have been reverted. The user likes to add a lot of puffery, it seems. Negative puffery, but still just adjectives meant to puff up the article. However, that's about the only thing that relates to this noticeboard. Most of what you're describing is a "problem" or "disruptive" user, which requires admin intervention in most cases. Where you really need to take this is someplace where all the admins hang out, like

WP:ANI. Zaereth (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a note to say I have never encountered the concept of "negative puffery," but it certainly seems a useful one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's like negative energy. Most people haven't heard of it either, but it's the core principle of inflation theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics. By negative puffery, I mean things like "most controversial figure of the 21st century", "infamous for its corruption", etc. Positive or negative, it's just filler. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:I didn't hear that behavior is in itself not conducive to a collaborative endeavor. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Wikipedia bios of two apparently still living persons highlight allegations of their involvement in a terrorist attack for which they have never been criminally charged. While the Aryan Republican Army does have some notoriety even apart from this, Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir almost certainly would not have individual articles if not for this aspect of it. The Michael Brescia article has existed since 2006, and this seems never to have been raised. DefThree (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this would get more of a response by now. I don't know whether these individuals count as public figures, but either way, they were never even charged let alone convicted in connection with the bombing. Per

WP:BLPCRIME, is it really OK for Wikipedia to highlight such allegations? DefThree (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

Oklahoma City Bombing, although I notice their names aren't even mentioned on the page of the main event (which makes it seem even more questionable that they should have their own dedicated pages). I haven't looked at it much but I agree these articles seem questionable Tristario (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd actually be inclined to merge Brescia to Aryan Republican Army, where he is discussed. It's not clear whether there's anywhere to merge Strassmeier, but I've deleted the section in his article on the OKC bombing as incredibly tenuous scandalmongering Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that merging. I'm not sure what to do with Andreas Strassmeir, he does seem to have some notability, but it's almost entirely in connection with the Oklahoma City Bombing (and his connection and involvement in it seems speculative). I'd probably be inclined to support deleting it per

WP:CRIME unless anyone has any other thoughts Tristario (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a SPA which claims that what a lawyer of a person accused of rape says to his defense should not be on Wikipedia. --Delfield (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA is doing a POV pushing. Please check that page. --Delfield (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1125392621&oldid=1125373731 . It is not written anywhere in the sources that the woman reported "abuse", "coerce" and "threat". What is written is just false. --Delfield (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother is Myra Joyce and her father is David Attenborough.

Her mother is Myra Joyce and her father is David Attenborough. She is married to actor Paul Venables, and lives in Gloucestershire with her husband and four ...

Her father was Martin Joyce

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2180333/Rachel-Joyce-My-darling-stoical-Dad--real-hero-novel-win-Booker.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:7700:E09E:2D69:F25E:C11:DB36 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the vandalism, which was only added on the 29th of November. Thanks for notifying, though you could have easily removed the vandalism yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some active discussions on the talk page that would benefit from broader participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a campus issue and an IP editor is edit warring to add it sourced only to the google doc of a circulating petition. More eyes are needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP range from the article for a week, and tried to explain the issue in a bit more detail on their talk page. I also watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins with the unsourced sentence: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden". We need a source for this claim, so our readers can check our work, but a search hasn't yet produced a good one.

We of course have lots of sources that literally use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar verbiage, but none that feature an unabiguous, straightforward assertion the laptop is known to belong to Biden. In contrast, we do have sources saying the laptop lacks a clear chain of custody and it remains a possibility that the laptop was a copy, not a device owned by Biden.

CBS News recently released a major story in which it characterized the device as "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I have one source that says "almost no one disputes" authenticity, which is pretty damn close to meeting

Can someone find a good source that verifies the currently-unsourced sentence? Alternatively, what would be the most appropriate way to fix the first sentence so that it's Verifiable? Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The easy fix would be to say "involves a laptop computer that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden." which clearly follows all sources. Masem (t) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...purportedly..." kinda reads like "alleged", though. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the RFC, and the whole problem is that editors appeared to be talking WP P&G as "word of God". Yes, in many situations we don't want to cast doubt on fact by our novel inclusion of "alleged", "purported" or whatever, but when the sources themselves are the ones to do that (and we should be looking at those that are more recent than around the time of the original NYPost story), we are not creating the issue. But that RFC seemed to be "won over" by the insistence that "alleged" is a Bad Word we should not be using, rather than actual consideration of the sources. Masem (t) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC on this matter was closed in September 2022, with the decision being that the laptop was owned by H. Biden. A challenge to the decision was made at WP:AN & was turned down. Are we going to respect the RFC decision or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, the RFC was a

list of "inappropriate closures" includes The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. Just on that, yes, we need to discuss this again. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps another challenge of the RFC decision (at WP:AN), would save time. Otherwise, the dispute between editors will be non-stop. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NAC was noted and a much-discussed point in the subsequent request for close review at ANI.

After extensive review from all sorts of admins and experienced editors, the close result of that discussion was that the close of this RFC was not bad enough to warrant overturning. Even if the RFC was not decisive, the subsequent discussions should still have weight.

If new editors bring in new opinions, or significant new sourcing shows up, I think a new RFC may be appropriate. But that doesn't really seem to be the case at current. I think the best course of action is to find some compromise phrasing that doesn't directly violate the spirit of the RFC PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that it was brought up in the ANI. I clearly didn't read the whole thing. Nevermind that then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, please, stop misrepresenting the RfC, which was singularly, explicitly, and exclusively about whether to use the word "alleged" in the first sentence of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open up a new one, then. An RFC that will put an end to the continuing dispute over whether or not H. Biden ever owned the laptop-in-question. Then request that only an administrator can close it. PS - Year ago, I did recommend that only administrators should close RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion about the lead on the talk page, with some proposals. Hopefully some previously uninvolved editors can join us there and offer input. Namely I've proposed a new first sentence that would avoid any controversy regarding the current wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new lede sentence resolves all of my concerns. Great job! Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having lost an RfC, this is forum-shopping.

When reliable sources reported the story in the New York Post, they reported all the information as an allegation. However, as the story went forward, reliable sources began referring to the laptop as Hunter Biden's.

We had an RfC where it was agreed that we should not use the term alleged because it expressed doubt Having lost the RfC, an editor who voted in favor of "alleged" decided to use a synonym for alleged.

While the RfC was a non-administrative close, there's no policy that says an administrative close is any more authoritative. The correct approach would have been to challenge the close rather than ignore the consensus of editors.

The claim that "Hunter Biden's laptop" did not necessarily belong to him is bewildering. In the English language, adding "'s" means that something belongs to the subject. If you prefer, we could change "a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden" to "Hunter Biden's laptop."

In fact there is no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only doubt comes from Hunter Biden who said he was not sure the laptop belonged to him: there "could be a laptop out there that was stolen from" him.

Anyway, there is no BLP issue. The information is reliably sourced, not contested by the subject and is not an allegation of wrong-doing. It is not against the law in the State of Delaware to own a laptop.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And who might you be accusing of forum shopping? OP was not around at the time of the September discussion or RfC. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources presented in the RFC clearly showed the key RSes split on the ownership, though there was far less dismissal about the possibility that the laptop could be Hunter's. As there is no universal agreement among the major sources, presenting it as fact in Wikivoice is inappropriate, but the new wording still captures the fundamental point. And the entire story around that laptop is a BLP matter, in addition to an AP2 matter. Masem (t) 23:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem Andre🚐 01:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, one day folks will realize that private conversations gleaned from a hacked PC of a private citizen, who never held or ran for office, should never have been presented in a newspaper for obvious political reasons, to start with. But then, that’s why the NYPost is a tabloid considered by WP “generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics”. If this citizen did something wrong, then prosecute him. Now, we have Musk claiming an “awesome” discovery that Twitter was a lobbying arm for the Dems, when it appears that they simply were following a Twitter policy of not allowing posting of hacked material – which I really wish people would respect. Otherwise, leave the citizen alone. I’m just glad I’m not related to a politician in these days of gotcha politics. Meanwhile, until there is a trial – or even a charge – let us soften the language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The material was not hacked - Twitter admitted that it was a mistake to suppress the story on those grounds. Hunter is a notable person, just like his brother Beau, Roger Clinton, Don Jr, Ron Jr, Chelsea Clinton, etc. There are many private citizens who become notable and therefore encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked has a fuzzy definition. It was private material of a private citizen published for political reasons by a political rag. Has Hunter been charged with a crime? Is anyone with the wrong surname fair game? Perhaps notable for the NYPost -- but for an encyclopedia? I didn't say delete the article. I said soften the language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hunter Biden is only a public figure because of many years of false allegations, ridiculous conspiracy theories, and smears by partisan opponents, including smears by the conservative morality police who arouse condemnation of his personal behavior. Otherwise he's a dime-a-dozen elite lawschool grad. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, there is no bright line between "private citizen who deserves privacy in their affairs" and "public figure who deserves scrutiny of their affairs". Running for office or not, is neither here nor there. Editorial judgement is required. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We shouldn't take the stance that a public figure is one that deserves scrutiny, only that by being in the public spotlight, their affairs may become subject to scrutiny by reliable sources. Hunter Biden is a person that was a private figure that was suddenly thrust into the public view because of the NYPost article and subsequent followup by the Republicans, but that doesn't make him a public figure, for the purposes of

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That's the BLP caution that needs to be taken as these articles are written on WP. Masem (t) 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree Andre🚐 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is getting kinda confusing. What kinda person is Hunter Biden? Is he somebody that can do no wrong & has done nothing wrong? or has he done questionable things? That seems to be the core of this entire editorial dispute about the guy, on Wikipedia. I've never met the guy, so somebody enlighten me. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We say what RS say. But we have to take care not to accuse him of crimes or unethical behavior that there is no evidence to support. Andre🚐 18:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. Stories about his having used drugs or having left his wife for his late brother's widow, were false. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think he does have a history of drug addiction, but that doesn't come to us from the laptop that I know of.[17] Hunter Biden purchased a gun during a time in which he has now acknowledged he was struggling with drug addiction – an issue now under federal criminal investigation because federal law requires purchasers to attest that they aren’t users of or addicted to illegal drugs, CNN has reported. Federal prosecutors are weighing possible charges related tax violations and for making a false statement related to the gun purchase, CNN reported. See

WP:BLPCRIME. Andre🚐 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to be sure, we weren't presenting him as a saint. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunter Biden article clearly discusses the pending tax issue and the drug issues. So I don't even know why you think he's being presented as clean. Still, the Hunter Biden laptop hasn't led to any new or credible evidence of illegal or unethical activity. Andre🚐 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The H.Biden laptop's talkpage, is becoming a huge mess. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a (short, civil, nothing daunting) discussion with @Jack Sebastian at Talk:Watts family murders#Watts' mistress' mention about including the full name of the lover. His argument is that she has been covered multiple times in RS over the years since the murders, which is true. In May People covered the release of a police interview she'd done several years ago and mentioned her name. (I'll let him comment if he thinks I've misstated his points.)

My concern is that she's not a public figure and most of the coverage (maybe all recent coverage?) has been involuntary. She's not doing interviews, she may have changed her name to avoid attention. The inclusion of her name IMO doesn't add anything for the reader, and I feel like it has the potential for doing harm to this living person. She's literally known only for a single event she wasn't actually even involved in. She was just the apparent motive, and knowing her name doesn't change that for the reader, so I don't see any benefit to including the name, vs. the huge potential for damage if we do include.

At any rate, we could use another set of eyes. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the person isn't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, then naming them is absolutely pointless for the average reader. A name without a face is meaningless filler. It'd be just as meaningless if we called her Jane Doe, so unless there is an aricle to go look up there is no real value in including the name. This really goes for anybody, be it friends, family members, spouses, children, parents, coworkers, etc. Nobody knows these people, and the average reader just doesn't give a rat's ass. In these cases, a generic descriptor will work just fine.

In the case where naming the person has the potential to cause harm, we should definitely not name them. There is no reason to, but a good reason not to. Those friends and family members have a right to their privacy, and there is no overriding public need to know this name, then we should not name them. This is especially true for children, who cannot even consent. We shouldn't name victims of crimes, which would just victimize them more, and by the same token we shouldn't name someone's mistress or love affair unless the name is somehow vital for the reader to understand the story, and more than 99% of the time it's not. The argument that we should simply because it's found in reliable sources doesn't hold water. Just because we can doesn't explain why we should. We don't give all info provided by any source. We summarize the sources, which means cutting out all the unnecessary filler and whittling it down to the nitty gritty, and if there is no compelling reason to name someone then we should leave it out and use generic descriptors instead. Zaereth (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would only consider including the name like that if it helps in the flow of prose, rather than excessive pronouns or generic titles. If you only need to mention the person once or twice, avoid the name at all costs. Basically in agreement with Zaereth's view. Masem (t) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was largely on the fence here, and am very glad that User:Valereee had sought to widen the circle on the discussion here. My concern is that, apart from an interview given to the Denver Post back in 2018, she has remained private. While that interview has been viewed as a PR spin, to try and cancel out the media's portrayal of her as some trampy mistress who set her boyfriend on a course towards murder, not a peep has been heard from her since. During the trial, Watts offered her up as the real murderer, which made her notable as more than just the girlfriend of a killer, but posited her as the killer herself. Of course, that was all legal, plan-b bs, but it is an other point of apparent notability.

She appears to be actively avoiding media scrutiny, and is - as Valereee stated, seeking to change her name to put her connection to this monstrous crime and, by several accounts, went into witness protection after the trial. And it needs to be stated that she doesn't appear to be trying to make bank off her 5-minutes of fame/notoriety (which imo would cancel out any concerns about naming her), which supports the argument of her relative non-notability.

I personally don't want to perpetuate any sort of media hounding of Ms. Kessenger, but we have to consider how we handle any BLP-related matters of this sort. We have to apply the same litmus for inclusion to her that we apply to everyone else peripherally related to a violent crime, right? I am glad for some guidance on this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically we would want to actively avoid naming non-notable people who are peripherally related to a violent crime unless there is some good reason (that is, improves the reader's understanding of the subject) to do so. As Masem Zaereth points out above, calling her "Jane Doe" would provide exactly the same additional reader understanding of the event, so not a good reason to name her. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would vehemently oppose the use of 'Jane Doe' as a pseudonym for Ms. Kessenger, as the immediate connotation is usually that of either an unsub or an unidentified victim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting we actually use Jane Doe. (For one thing, we'd only do that if RS used it, and they'd only do it because that's how she was identified in court documents.) We're just pointing out that using her name provides no additional understanding for the reader than using Jane Doe would. It's just a way to illustrate why we don't think including her name is useful to the reader. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be reasonable to mention her existence without naming her? That the person in question had a romantic interest on whom they tried to pin the crime may be a reasonable part of the narrative, but it doesn't mean we're forced to publish her personal information, including her name, if she is otherwise not someone notable enough to mention further. --Jayron32 14:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Her existence is mentioned. Valereee (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was - and reinforced by an interview that she herself gave.

For me, the entire matter pivots on that interview she gave to the Denver Post. She gave it to offer her thoughts on the murders and to try and distance herself from any involvement or wrongdoing. She involved herself in the process. I'd mentioned elsewhere that - for example - media allows for the exclusion of the children of American presidents...so long as they avoid the media. This is the difference between the differing levels of media coverage of Obama's children and trump's children, or Jimmy Carter's brother. Had Ms. Kessenger not been proposed as a potential suspect/co-suspect by the Watts defense lawyers, had she not given a self-serving interview, inserting herself into the circus, this would be a very simple matter. I get that we have something of a moral responsibility to protect people's privacy, but does our obligation to do so if the person sheds her own privacy, only to regret it later? The fact that she did so is reliably-sourced. She appears to have been the motive for the (unwitting and unknowing) murder itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I agree with basically everything you say, and still think this is not a BLP violation for all those reasons. But at the same time, I still come back to valereee's threshold question of what is gained by including the name? As far as I can see, nothing at all. Combine that with the possibility of harm, and it becomes an easy decision for me. Were there some real utility in the article, I think you would have a compelling case, but I am not seeing that--though, as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have been the motive for the (unwitting and unknowing) murder itself. But how does her name add anything to that fact? Valereee (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to play "gotcha" with people, as though by giving the one interview, she suddenly forfeits all rights to being respected. We should not go out of our way to identify otherwise private people (even if their name is known through public sources); quite the opposite, we should go out-of-our way to let private people have their privacy if they are not otherwise notable and where their name serves no additional informational purpose other than mere identification. Playing the "she gave one interview one time, and so now she's fair game" is unseemly, and also besides the point. --Jayron32 16:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Jayron - the intent of my posted arguments aren't an attempt at 'gotcha'; the issue is that she opened the door to that media attention, just like Eric Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Richard Jewell and Linda Tripp. This isn't punitive; its encyclopedic. My issue isn't this issue; it's the dozen or so other situations that will emerge.

I'd also point out that the edit-warring at the article by User:Valeree needs to stop immediately; it is corrosive to collaborative editing and presumptive of the discussion outcome. Calling the inclusion a BLPvio when virtually everyone here has stated otherwise is disingenuous. We need to use the system in place to resolve the problem; Valeree's actions are only serving to muddy the discussion waters and quite possibly earn them a block for tendentious editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, can you point to another editor who thinks the name should be included? The ONUS, as has been mentioned, is on you to establish consensus for inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmuzid, I wasn't the one who added the name. And the arguments I've seen here seem to suggest that both positions make valid points; I will again point out that there is a - a significant RS that mentions her by name, and she contributed to that pile of RS, and b - it was stated from the beginning that whatever choice is made will send ripples through BLP articles; I want to ensure that we are all on the same page, as we will all undoubtedly end up running into these sorts of issues again. - 17:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Jack Sebastian (talk)

Jack, I am certainly one of those editors who thinks there are valid points on both sides here; that does not, however, equate to ambivalence on inclusion. It looks to me like a clear emerging consensus that the name not be included. Moreover, even though I agree with you that this is not a BLP violation, multiple good faith editors disagree with us on that. I think given that and

WP:ONUS, removal for at least the short term is warranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Once they give an interview under their own name (not anonymously) with informed consent the presumption of privacy goes out the window. I'd lean towards not including on due weight grounds (most sources don't seem to name them) but the privacy issue is open and shut. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the undue weight argument, but she's not mentioned but once. If we choose to remove a person's name who was peripherally involved in a violent crime, but later gave an interview about her involvement, and later decided to shed her own name-changed identity to write to her former boyfriend (aka, the convicted murderer), how do we evaluate her privacy then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. People give interviews because if they don't, social media speculates about their possible involvement. I'd argue a single interveiw can be purely defensive and not a toggle switch that makes them a public figure. The second interview...yeah, that's probably inviting attention. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you should feel free to offer a reliable source as to her motives for giving a paid exclusive interview with the Denver Post. If you jump into the waters of public opinion, you are going to get wet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you keep inserting things above previous responses. They should be inserted after previous responses. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The notion that speaking to a reporter once about a horrific crime means that the presumption of privacy goes out the window is ludicrous here on Wikipedia. There is no reason to mention that name, many reasons not to, and I agree with Valereee that doing so is a BLP violation. Speculating about a block for tendentious editing is way out of line. The name is not going to remain in that article. I advise Jack Sebastian to drop the stick and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an extreme example (perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) but whatever rule we have has to apply universally. Interviews given with informed consent to the press or academia under your own name make you fair game. If someone didn't want to seek publicity they could give them anonymously, give them semi-anonymously, give them off the record, or not give them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  HEB, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of what an interview means when not giving one on the record means the media is still camped on your front door and twitter is still speculating that you may have been an accomplice. We're expecting someone to balance "if I give an interview, at least my story will be out there, but my name will forever and ever be included in the WP rticle about this hideous crime." Valereee (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The media is going to camp out and twitter is going to speculate regardless, defensive PR is still PR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, meh. I don't think we should be naming people caught up in something like this for the simple reason they gave a single interview. That feels punitive. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  99% of cases in this class are not "something like this." If we want to discuss making violent crime an exception we can but this particular example is not representative of the larger issue. Also again we are in agreement on whether or not to include the person's name in the article, we just disagree on why. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yeah. If this were about Polly Parker's album release and someone was mentioning her non-notable friend Josie Jones as someone she had collaborated with, and Josie had done an interview about it to clarify that she didn't actually have a role, I wouldn't be concerned. This is a hideous crime, and this woman was for the perpetrator the apparent motive. I almost can't imagine something more nightmarish than to be in this situation. Valereee (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, there's an element of "willfulness" that is missing from this, for me. Now, I don't believe anyone forced the person in question to participate in the interview, but there is no doubt she was being sought out and was thrust into the spotlight not of her own accord. As with most things, I don't think we can apply a hard and fast rule here, and I trust the wisdom of consensus to judge on a case-by-case basis. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is where our role as compassionate people crafting a dispassionate encyclopedia becomes so difficult. Some say that is the hardest part of editing and a balance that is struck in the heart rather than in policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with Cullen. We shouldn't publish the name of a private individual who was tangentially connected to a notable incident, both as a matter of policy (

  WP:BLPNAME) and as a matter of human decency; by naming her, the Wikipedia article is likely to be one of the first results for anyone searching her name, and remain so for a long time after the incident fades into memory. The whole point of BLP is to prevent that kind of harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  +1, I won't repeat them but I agree with all of Cullen and HJ's comments above. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would opinions vary greatly if the subject of this discussion chose to shed that anonymity by writing to the former boyfriend - aka the convicted multiple murderer? Our policy to protect people's anonymity only should apply to those who don't selectively utilize it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It might change my opinion if I thought the name added anything to the article. But as far as I can tell, it does not. Therefore no change here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mine. Why add useless information to an article? I mean, I can find a source that says capacitors were used on the space shuttles. Does that warrant mention in the capacitor article? Of course not, because they're used on everything and we don't have room to list everything, nor is that the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge, and the very nature of summarizing means cutting out all the trivia and non-helpful stuff out, and giving the main points as quickly and efficiently as possible. What good reason is there that this should be in the article, and why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out, I have practically zero interest in the article or the former Ms. Kessenger. What I am concerned about is that when we have multiple RS mentions of a person, do we opt to give them anonymity when they are not directly involved in the event? Is it a matter of triviality or notability? I am asking because - as I have repeatedly stated - this is going to come up. A lot. And knowing where we fall on this issue is kinda important. And I'd point out that we are considering mentioning her name when she remains in the news, apparently choosing to discard that anonymity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an RfC is needed about whether giving an interview turns a non-notable person into a public figure for purposes of being mentioned by name in articles about subjects where they were peripherally involved, you could start one. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the Daily Mail to support a statement about a living person does not help your case, that's just not respectful of this noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail says one of Chris Watts' fellow inmates said so? No. But even if the NYT were reporting it, how does her name add to the reader's understanding of the subject? And how does her writing to him somehow shed her anonymity? That just feels punitive to me. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How, precisely, are punishing her for her choice to discard her anonymity?

And it bears mentioning again that I am cool with whatever you guys choose to decide, but you have to spell out how it fits a certain policy/guideline for inclusion or exclusion. I have no dog in this fight, except for a better understanding how to apply the decisions we collectively make here to other BLP articles? Where is the line for providing privacy to someone who alternately uses it as a shield before discarding it at their convenience? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned as the lover in an article about a man who killed his entire family because he wanted to be with his lover is a negative outcome. Doing it because she gave a single interview to me feels like she is being punished for giving that interview.

If you think more clarity is needed, start an RfC, per my comment above. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I think this is where we're talking past one another a bit. For some people here, this is a straight BLP issue, and fair enough. That's a clear enough policy. But for me, and it seems like some others, we're talking more about editorial discretion. There are certainly things that would fit guidelines and policies and yet not improve an article. The question for me here is a balancing test between possible harm to the person in question and benefit to the article. Since I see nothing on the latter side, the judgment call is an easy one for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their name is unnecessary in understanding the situation and the person is pretty much a low profile individual. So keep it out per

WP: NPF. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783 Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.116.74 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman Valereee (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any vandalism or "abuse of power". The only material removed was cited to the

edit warred with them, and then ran here and falsely accused them of vandalism. Not a good look for you. --Jayron32 14:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Paul Charles Farrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure whether this newly-minted BLP passes

Yeah, I went and nominated it for AFD. No way they are notable, and the entire article appears to be some sort of

WP:COATRACK anyways. --Jayron32 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]