Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    Welcome – report issues regarding
    biographies of living persons
    here.

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste

    defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff
    showing the problem.


    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Alexander_Greba

    Alexander Greba The biography section of this article does not provide any sources; With the exception of the length of the subjects prison sentence. The linguistic characteristics suggest that the origin of the article is not a person who understands the English language. The talk page sates that part of the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia page but it is not reasonable for contemporary translation software to lack proficiency to such a severe degree. The information provided sounds as though it was either; made up, or learnt from gossip. The entire biography needs to be deleted or rewritten.

    Heiner Rindermann

    I'm concerned that material on

    WP:BLP. Given the contentious nature of the material, I would like it to be deleted pending discussion on the talk page, but am reluctant to re-revert until I am more familiar with the source material. Extra eyes on the article would be appreciated. Nangaf (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Just to be clear, many of the sources specifically refer to Rindermann, e.g. [1] [2] which is completely acceptable to include in a BLP. It looks like some of the sources that don't mention Rindermann were added to explain the fringe nature of Mankind Quarterly, so I am indifferent on removing those. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, your response was constructive. To be clear, I am not questioning the fact that Rindermann has contributed to Mankind Quarterly, Intelligence, or the UCL conference. I am also not questioning the fact that intelligence research has historical links to eugenics. What I think is unjustified is taking the context of eugenic research from the 19th century up until the 1960s, applying that context anachronistically to current research questions in psychology, and then labelling researchers who conduct such research as motivated by racism. I think it is at least *plausible* that this is what the media allegations against the ISIR conference attendees do. Wikipedia bios should, I believe, take pains to avoid endorsing such potentially damaging accusations. There is a Wikipedia article on MQ already, and I am perfectly happy for discussions of whether or not contributors to the journal are racist to take place on that page. I just don't think it's appropriate for a biography because it gives the appearance of a smear by association.
    On the other hand, if you could show me a reference that showed Rindermann had directly endorsed racist or eugenic points of view, then such commentary might be justified and provide appropriate context.
    Given the potential reputational damage to Rindermann of accusations of racism, I think the removal of the text and addition of quality tags to the article to be a necessary and urgent measure, and I would appreciate if no further reversions would be made until this discussion can be resolved with some degree of consensus. I accept that my original edit may have removed too much, but when I saw that it had been reverted wholesale, I was sufficiently troubled to bring my concerns to this noticeboard.
    I found the German language Wikipedia article to contain more information on Rindermann's life and career, and suggest that we perhaps look there to see if some of that material should be included. Some of his public statements do seem genuinely controversial. But I don't think being on the editorial board of contributing to MQ and Intelligence, in and of itself, is evidence of eugenic, racist, neo-Nazi, or pseudoscientific beliefs.
    On the contrary, I believe that saying so would be potentially defamatory, and not just to Rindermann. Nangaf (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that this discussion was initiated by canvassing from a topic-banned LTA. See e.g. this for context. I have no doubt that Nangaf was unfamiliar with this context, but now you know. I'll be happy to provide more details if anyone wants them. There is no need to waste additional community time on this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that I was unaware of this context, but I am not some shallow dupe, and I believe that the article can be improved. Nangaf (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well his article does not say that he promotes eugenics or racism, it says he serves on the board of a journal which does. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Intelligence is a mainstream academic journal, so that statement is simply false. The claim that MQ promotes eugenics and racism is not an uncontested fact, so I would challenge the way that this is presented as a consensus view. In fact, I would claim that it is at least *plausible* that to accuse Rindermann of contributing to a racist journal is precisely the kind of anachronism that I mentioned previously. (Amazingly enough, academic journals can change their editorial policies over the course of 75 years.) Again, you don't have to admit that accusation is wrong: you just have to admit that it isn't an established fact.
    For context, the current text of the article reads:

    Rindermann serves on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and has been a contributor to Mankind Quarterly, which is commonly described as a white supremacist journal and purveyor of scientific racism. He has also helped to organize conferences for the International Society for Intelligence Research. Rindermann attended the 2018 London Conference on Intelligence, and was one of 15 attendees to collaborate on a letter defending the conference following media reports of its ties to white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and racist pseudoscience. The letter was published in Intelligence in 2018.

    To my mind, that reads like a whole lot of innuendo -- "commonly described as" are weasel words, suggesting a consensus that may or not exist -- and endorses the media claims of racism. No sources are provided to show that Rindermann explicitly endorses racist views, so we should not be calling him a racist. And if we think he keeps racist company, we should identify those people by name so that readers can make up their own minds about them. (James Thompson seems like a candidate.) Nangaf (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was talking about Mankind Quarterly, not Intelligence. He has contributed to MQ (not on the board). The article does not label Intelligence a racist journal, it labels MQ. I don't see the big issue here. Nobody is "calling him a racist", it says he has contributed to a racist journal. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for dealing with one issue at a time. I'm glad we agree that Intelligence is not racist! MQ may or may not have contained racist content at one time, I don't know much about it because anthropology is not my field. If it's anything like the psychological literature, then eugenic content was probably last published in the 1960s, and questions of whether or not the journal "is racist" relate to editorial decisions made by people long since dead. I guess the question I want to raise is whether MQ is "commonly described" as racist, or not, has any place in this biography. I suppose it might, if he made frequent, or particularly notable contributions: do we have evidence to support that? Nangaf (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really up to us to evaluate this. Wikipedia just reflects what the
    WP:RS/reliable sources say. Sometimes individual editors think the truth of the matter is more nuanced than what the sources say, but that is kind of irrelevant at the end of the day. In the past I was guilty of trying to remove critique from the odd BLP figure, but I learned a few lessons over time, especially after I faced a temporary block for edit warring. Ultimately, if it's reported in an RS it can usually be included on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's not true. We can evaluate whether comments are
    WP:BLP -- there are limits on what we can write about living people. And in this case, it is impossible to justify. Rindermann has published exactly one article in MQ, as a middle author. This is not an especially salient fact in his biography. And the additional commentary on MQ, with multiple sources, just makes the article more imbalanced. It really looks like the only reason MQ is mentioned at all is to get in some mention of racism. It looks like a smear, and it's dishonest, because it creates the false impression that Rindermann's one paper in MQ is representative of his academic output. Nangaf (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I do understand that there is a counter-argument, that I am saying he "only f*cked one goat" with apologies to Paul Macartney i.e. that any publication in MQ is per se such an important fact that it colours his entire career. I reject that view. It is an unimportant publication. Nangaf (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Nangaf is correct. Of the six sources that the article gives for connecting Rindermann to Mankind Quarterly, the first includes only one sentence saying that Rindermann published in that journal. The second source mentions Rindermann and separately mentions Mankind Quarterly, in different parts of the paper, but does not discuss any relation between them. The other four sources do not mention Rindermann at all. The only one of the six sources that mentions Rindermann having published a paper there is the first source, and that source includes none of the additional details about it being a "white supremacist" journal. There is no individual source that relates Rindermann to white supremacism or neo-Nazism. Combining separate sources to create such a derogatory association about a living person is a case of original synthesis and a likely violation of BLP policy. Mr Butterbur (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that was my suspicion. Based on this, I am going to try to edit the article to remove the presumed synthesis pending further discussion. If it is immediately reverted, as I suspect it will be, then I will escalate the case to dispute resolution. Nangaf (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, GeneralRelative reverted my edits without discussion so I have escalated the case to WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Heiner_Rindermann. Nangaf (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm staying out of the merits of the case, but it has already been removed from DRN and ANI, and I've made it clear at those venues that this is the proper venue to discuss the merits and to determine if the sources are making the claims that are in the included text. I would ask others jump in and determine this, as this is a real BLP issue, and the claims being made are very strong; strong enough that verification here is required. Dennis Brown - 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like the sources have been checked and confirmed a number of times, as discussed on the article talk page. I would direct you in particular to Elmidae's comment, in addition to those by Zenomonoz. My assessment is essentially the same as theirs. Obviously not everything that's verifiable belongs in article space, but verifiability doesn't seem to be at issue here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now it is at BLPN, which is objective enough and I trust for oversight of the edits, since they are making a very strong claim. If the sources are 100% on point, then surely a few objective editor here will agree. Currently, two editors disagree with you, so it would seem to be reasonable to ask others to take a look and opine, and that is what I am asking of others now. Dennis Brown - 06:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims above for retaining this defamatory material which people agree is speculative appear to reduce to "as long as there's a reference for someone claiming this it should stay". That's not how living person articles are handled. I agree these claims being made are very strong and likely actionable in countries like the UK. As nothing supports the target of the article supporting any of these views, they should be removed. The link to a similar case above and the result (removal of derogatory and speculative claims) also influenced me.
    Tim bates (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really the issue, Tim. The first question is: Do the sources support the claim? Next is: If they do, then is this WP:undue or does it add perspective missing without it. Being actionable in another country isn't really a consideration, and it isn't defamatory if it is verifiably factual. We aren't here to make people look bad, nor to whitewash their articles, nor to concern ourselves with the laws of all 195 countries on the planet. We often publish ugly facts, but only under the steps I've given. Dennis Brown - 02:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of a mixed bag here i think, with the WP content pretty close to the sources but awkwardly worded.
    • There are good sources describing Mankind Quarterly, so much so that
      WP:ASSERT
      is probably more appropriate than "commonly described as". Should maybe update the citations to the best sources for this such as Saini and maybe put into an extended footnote instead of the ugly OVERCITE.
    • There are news sources calling attention to his contributions to Mankind Quarterly, so should be fine. I'd think it would be better for the reader to say what he has published there, and i think with some pretty shady looking coauthors, but that might be considered OR.
    • On the journal Intelligence, the run on sentence kind of implies we are equating the reputation of the two publications and criticizing Rindermann for being on the editorial board. I think the sources are doing the opposite, they are criticizing Intelligence for having Rindermann on the board.
    • There is much news coverage of the UCL conference. The best source here is probably The Times. Most sources attribute the characterization as "secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links" to Ben van der Merwe's reporting in London Student. New Statesman published his follow-up article.
    • I can't actually find a source calling attention to the Intelligence letter defending the conference. The Times has: David Becker and Heiner Rindermann, from the Chemnitz University of Technology in Germany, presented a paper on why some nations are “brighter than others”. Maybe better to follow that and just say he attended and and what he spoke on rather than leading from the letter.
    • helped to organize conferences for ISIR is pretty weak sourcing in my opinion, and the construction doesn't really make it clear to the reader why it matters.
    • Jackson & Winston could be better utilized.
    • Surprised i'm not finding more reviews of Cognitive Capitalism, just Winston again so far.
    I don't agree that the WP content is really making any "very strong claims". What i take from the passage is that he has published in a journal with a horrid reputation. This is well supported and should be called out in the content. He attended and signed on to a letter defending a conference, the conference was harshly criticized which was widely reported. To the extent the wording might imply more to the incautious reader the wording should be improved. But i think what the WP content actually says is well within the bounds set by the sources. fiveby(zero) 12:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with everything you write here, but "commonly described as" are weasel words, and should be eliminated whichever way the consensus here falls. Either assert as fact that MQ is a racist journal that publishes pseudoscience -- and justify why that is
    WP:DUE
    and appropriate in the BLP of someone who has published in that journal precisely once -- or don't mention it at all.
    If there is consensus that Rindermann's single publication in MQ is worthy of mention, perhaps the bio needs a separate section for Controversies. It does not seem appropriate to mention this minor publication in a career summary unless we are asserting as fact that Rindermann is a career eugenicist and a racist, and that this one publication is typical or emblematic of that.
    I also agree that the article should not conflate MQ with Intelligence. Being on the editorial board of Intelligence can be considered an academic achievement, a career milestone for a psychologist in this field.
    I believe that the UCL conference, or rather conferences, were organized by James Thompson who has co-authored some publications with Rindermann. (I am not 100% sure which of the conferences Rindermann attended, but possibly all of them.) Thompson doesn't have his own Wikipedia page and is presumably not a notable academic in his own right. Rindermann's co-authors on the letter to Intelligence include people like Richard Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg who have without doubt come under scrutiny regarding the Race and Intelligence controversy.
    The fact that Rindermann has chosen to publish with people like this offers grounds for similar scrutiny, in my opinion, but I do think we should be scrupulous about selecting sources that specifically link Rindermann to the controversy. (Emphasis added to pick out separate suggestions.) Nangaf (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One article in MQ? Sorry if you brought that up earlier in the discussion and i missed it. I took Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. from New Statesman and checked and found Pallesen has co-authored several papers with Woodley, Kirkegaard and others who have published in Mankind Quarterly or who appeared at LCI, including Heiner Rindermann and Noah Carl. from The Guardian, then was distracted by looking at coauthors in other publications. Shows i am not being a very careful reader here. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the MQ content and tried to clarify what the conference citations are being used to support. Think the article needs to make better use of Winston and looking through de:Heiner Rindermann and another look for more reviews when i get a chance. fiveby(zero) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I am certainly in agreement with those edits.
    I do think we have to consider the New Statesman and the Guardian with a slightly critical eye because are both left-of-centre publications, and the Guardian in particular frequently editorializes in its science coverage. I would not expect them to publish outright falsehoods, but I would expect them to be hostile to the LCI attendees and it is possible that these sources might be cherry-picking facts about Rindermann that cast him in a bad light. The Times Higher Education is an excellent source for anything related to UK universities, but the Bothwell piece doesn't mention Rindermann.
    The description of the LCI seems to adopt the polemical vocabulary of the media reports. A more neutral description, that sticks to the factual basis of the reports, might be something like "at which papers on race and intelligence and eugenics were presented".
    A few other thoughts:
    • Jackson and Winston seems to me to be a useful reference.[3] It refers to Rindermann as an "hereditarian", meaning in this context that he publishes on group differences in IQ, and considers the group differences to be at least partly genetic in origin. This directly links Rindermann to the race and intelligence controversy, and justifies the Race and intelligence controversy category on the article.
    • This article cites Rindermann (2013) as an example of "(problematic) race-related research". This seems like evidence that his work is not necessarily accepted as authoritative by some of his peers in the research community.
    • Rindermann seems like the sort of person likely to have received money from the Pioneer Fund, but quick search didn't turn anything up.
    • I agree that the German language article is quite illuminating. Unfortunately it seems to be based entirely on primary sources. I suspect German language secondary sources do exist, but I haven't been able to find any yet. Nangaf (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrei Cherny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    We turn to you for help. We posted this request on the Talk page three weeks ago with no response. Andrei Cherny is in an active campaign for Congress and editor BBQboffin continues to insert and delete information and delete edits that are attempts to bring this article in line with the BLP policy.

    1) The first paragraph states "The company is under investigation for allegedly inflating the impact of its carbon offsets." Nowhere in the sources is there any such allegation stated. Nor has there been any such allegation made.

    2) Furthermore, this sentence does not belong in the opening paragraph of Cherny's bio because it violates the Balance section of the BLP policy. Cherny has served as a White House aide, Navy Officer, Arizona's Assistant Attorney General, author of two books, wrote Barack Obama's 2008 campaign policy plan Change We Can Believe In, drafted the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, etc. None of those are in the opening paragraph. Defer to you on whether they should be. But why an investigation of a company he left two years ago in the opening paragraph? Whenever this change is made, editor BBQBoffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) puts it back.

    3) Cherny did not leave when the SPAC deal fell through. The merger was called off in August 2023 and he left in October 2022 https://news.spacconference.com/2023/08/23/interprivate-iii-financial-partners-calls-off-aspiration-deal/. Articles at the time said it was "amid a delay" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/aspiration-ceo-cherny-stepping-down-as-spac-merger-faces-a-delay but there has never been any statement tying his departure to anything involving the SPAC deal other than that he left at the same time as the delay

    4) It is categorically false that Aspiration promised "to help them offset their greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees." There is no source for that statement.

    5) The history shows that edits were made to the article by Cliffh123 at 00:35, 13 February 2024 that more correctly explained the company's carbon credit business and provided an example of a deal with Meta/Facebook. This shows the company did not just "aim" to sell carbon credits. Those edits were taken down by editor, BBQboffin.

    6) The information added on the investigation of Aspiration does not include the fact that this is "part of a larger effort to scrutinize the industry" https://kjzz.org/content/1868800/report-financial-regulators-probe-arizona-congressional-candidates-former-company. This omission makes it misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHERNYFACTS (talkcontribs) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:DUE on a BLP, but I would like to get some other editors' opinions on it. I'm uninvolved in either side of this debate, but obviously, CHERNYFACTS has disclosed they have a COI. On the other hand, the editor who added the passages in question does seem to have a strong opinion as well. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    On the other other hand, Fred Zepelin had a content dispute with BBQboffin at ]
    I noticed that you omitted the result of the
    WP:AGF and apologize for casting aspersions upon my intent in this discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That I "was pushing POV" was not the result of the Blake Masters discussion.[4]. The only thing the editors involved agreed on, Fred, was that your personal attacks against me should stop.[5].
    For the Cherny page I added some content based on the laundry list CHERNYFACTS had posted on the article talk page[6] such as his publications and detail from the "company minimum wage" Fortune editorial he authored, but it was tough sledding as Fred reverted that last one here[7] and templated me[8].
    I had also had a talk page discussion with @Cliffh123 (whose edit history I see now is exclusively about Cherny) about the article improvements, while he complained about the “election attack” of a “rival campaign” and had a similar laundry list.[9] I thought it was appropriately NPOV for me to revert his repeated attempts to delete an RS, but also to include Cherny's quoted response to the probe.[10]
    Regarding COATRACK, I see Cherney’s notability deriving dually from his CEO business career (10 lines), and his political career (16 lines). As the business material is well-sourced (Bloomberg, Fortune, WSJ, etc.) and some of the political is currently sourced by a school newspaper and a campaign ad, I think we should expand the business part and better source the political part. BBQboffingrill me 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The current summary of Lord Darzi's resignation from the Labour party is biased and potentially denies proven antisemitism. Labour's own Deputy Chair of the Labour party Tom Watson took a similar view, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour to have been responsible for "unlawful" acts of harassment and discrimination during Jeremy Corbyn's four-and a-half years as party leader. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.219.131.128 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What point are you making regarding BLP policies? AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this isn’t the right venue for IP’s comment (and the way it was worded was initially confusing) but consider it  Done; it’s a trivial adjustment. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Section 'Linking to Ethan Stowell' not found

    An article about porn performer Emily Willis was deleted in December 2022 after a discussion at

    WP:TMZ
    states: "When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person". The article ended up being fully protected.

    BD2412 was able to add the TMZ report because they are an admin. When I challenged the addition on their talk page they opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. That discussion may be drawing to a close as a new source has been found that is not just referencing the TMZ report. What that discussion has not addressed is whether or not this belongs in the biography of a living person.

    Assuming that reliable sources exist, should the reported overdose be included in Willis' article? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The above account is not accurate. As the edit history plainly shows, when I added the reported content, I used two sources, one of which was Complex, which has no such admonition. At no time did I use TMZ as "the only source for a piece of information".
    With respect to the content itself, it has now been reported that the article subject has remained in a coma for over a month following her initial admission to the hospital. This is no fleeting event. BD2412 T 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources seem to be giving more coverage to that than any other aspects of her life or career, so I don't see any reason to exclude it. I also haven't seen you make any argument as to why it should be excluded. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Willis had very little coverage in reliable sources to begin with. At this point, I am aware of exactly one reliable source (Toronto Sun) and one porn industry source (AVN) mentionng the overdose. The other sources are just reporting that TMZ said Willis overdosed. (But that's all been said in the reliable sources discussion). Given that, it's an issue of weight. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's more and better sourcing than what's available for pretty much any other aspect of the BLP subject's coverage. If sources are giving more space to this incident, there's your due weight. We weigh things based on the available coverage in sources. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The big question should be whether Emily Willis should even have an article if she's minimally covered in RS, suggesting that she does not pass
    WP:BIO. Her having an article only invites people slapping any news items reported by shit sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Incidentally, BD2414 has just informed me that they are "Suspicious of your motives with respect to the suppression of information in this article". I have no personal or professional connection to Emily Willis. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Utterly irrelevant to this discussion. BD2412 T 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    should the reported overdose be included in Willis' article? I suggest starting an

    RfC on the article's talk page. Some1 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @Some1: I would note that I had previously initiated a still-ongoing discussion on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emily Willis overdose sources, since the objection originally appeared to be over the sources rather than the content. BD2412 T 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Coverage stemmed from TMZ, which is a marginally reliable source. It grew into being reported (albeit churning) both by tabloids as well reliable sources, such as Complex. It eventually became independently reported by AVN (a g reliable porn-industry source) and Toronto Sun (which is a tabloid, but is designated a reliable source by quite a few editors for news reporting and is also operated directly alongside a few

    WP:DUE, I think the overdose and hospitalization is worthy of inclusion. It is clearly not a minority view, it is a fact and one that is widely reported. TLAtlak 05:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I don't think we should speculate on the overdose: one TMZ source says she overdosed, the more recent one says that the preliminary toxicology report came back negative and basically concludes that it's unclear what the cause is. As far as I can tell the only other outlets to have run the overdose story explicitly attribute it to TMZ. I've made a suggestion in the RSN thread of a couple of sentences which I think we can include, but I really think it's better to just avoid the overdose angle at all at this point. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I agree with your suggestion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TMZ is tabloid trash, Toronto Sun is also tabloid trash compared to the much more legitimate Toronto Star, and those other listed sites like indy100 are clickbait sites. Any overdose speculation is

    WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Extraordinary claims about a living person should only be sourced to multiple HQRS. No combination of the sources mentioned above meets that distinction, especially when considering the provenance of the info (sources only citing TMZ for that info are not independent from TMZ in that regard). TMZ and Toronto Sun should not be used in BLPs in general IMO. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the sources currently in the article discussing her recent hospitalization like Complex are fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

    Editor Oz346 has stated serious allegations against author C. A. Chandraprema in the article

    WP:BLPCRIME violation. Cossde (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    There are credible reports that Chandraprema has been involved in war crimes: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/proposed-sri-lankan-envoy-to-geneva-c-a-chandraprema-was-a-member-of-prra-death-squad/
    He cannot be used as a RS in Sri Lankan ethnic conflict related pages as you are attempting to do without further verification. Oz346 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you cited states "Chandraprema was arrested in Sri Lanka in 2000 in connection with the 1989 assasinations of two human rights lawyers – Charita Lankapura and Kanchana Abhayapala. A senior ex policeman in custody had named Chandraprema as the alleged assassin in an affidavit which is publicly available online. However Chandraprema was released after the Attorney General decided there was no legal grounds to proceed." Furthermore, Chandraprema appointment to the UN had been accepted by the UN [11]. This falls under
    WP:BLPCRIME and a violation of WP:Biographies of living persons. Cossde (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There are more credible sources which indicate the same:
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/03/sri-lankas-un-efforts-stave-justice-war-crimes Oz346 (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this person was a government official, as suggested here, then he's automatically a public figure, so BLPCRIME wouldn't apply. Even so, we can't go around saying affirmatively that he is criminal unless he was convicted, even in edit summaries or talk pages. This is why RSs are always careful to use words like "alleged" when talking about such things, and we need to be just as careful too. That said, I have no idea what this dispute is about because the person you speak of is not mentioned anywhere in the article except the references. If the dispute is whether or not he can be considered a reliable source, you may want to try
    WP:RSN instead. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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


    Similar content has been removed from other articles, including based on BLP policy objections:

    Similar content was also added to .

    The question for this noticeboard is should the disputed content be removed per

    WP:BLPUNDEL and consensus be obtained before the disputed content is restored in any article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    As an update, the disputed content has been removed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Odetari birth date, single dates, and years active dispute

    There has been some edit warring between me and another user, Bigeditingideas, over a few things over at the article for Odetari, namely his birth date, the year he began making music, and the release dates of some of his singles.

    The source for the birth date (January 1, 2000) is a tweet from an account named hooliganchristi wishing Odetari a happy birthday on January 1, 2023, to which he replied, "Luv u bro happy new year". This appears to be the only source for the birth date, and even as a self-published source, it seems weak. Nowhere in the exchange does he confirm that it is his birthday, and with this being the only source for it, it seems smarter to err on the side of caution.

    The source for him having started in 2016 and not 2018 is a SoundCloud account with the name "Odetari BEATS", which started posting songs in 2016. Thus far, that account has not been mentioned by any reliable sources, so it falls under original research. The Billboard article currently being used as a source for this provides the earliest year for when he began making music, other than its stating that he started producing trap beats ten years prior to its writing.

    Lastly, Bigeditingideas has changed the release dates of some singles in the body text, specifically for Odetari's songs "I <3 Latinas" and "Good Loyal Thots", repeatedly removing "I <3 Latinas" from the body text as his debut single and replacing it with "Good Loyal Thots". This one is slightly tricky, since Apple Music does list "Good Loyal Thots" as his first single from March 2023 and "I <3 Latinas" later, whereas the aforementioned Billboard article states that "I <3 Latinas" came out in March and was his first song, while "Good Loyal Thots" was released in April. It seems wise to stick to what the RS in this case is saying as opposed to a DSP, though. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The
    WP:DOB is easy, clearly not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Rose Dugdale

    Rose Dugdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Is a quote from an author saying "Rose Dugdale did not kill anyone directly, but she was indirectly responsible for the deaths of a lot of people" compliant with

    WP:BLP? She has been convicted of several things, but this goes significantly beyond those convictions. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Hugh Stephenson (journalist)

    There are some factual errors in the entry for me which might be corrected thus:

    1. He worked for The Times from 1968 to 1981 and was editor of the New Statesman from 1982 to 1986. 2. [Early life] Stephenson was born in Shimla, India, the son of Sir Hugh Stephenson, who worked for the Indian Civil Service until Indian independence in 1947 and subsequently joined the Foreign Office.

       Hugh Stephenson was educated at Winchester College, where he became joint head boy.  [Winchester has two head boys, one a scholar and one not.]
    

    3. [Career] Stephenson joined the Foreign Office in 1964 and left it to work for The Times in 1968, where he became editor of its business section from 1972 to 1981.

    HUGH STEPHRNSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.2.179 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivibear

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

    This article does not have a neutral tone and uses very poor sources. I know not if it rises to the level of marking for deletion under negublp, as I am completely new.

    This article is mostly written as if it is talking about the accusations of plagiarism and not accusing her of plagiarism itself, but there are several instances where it is clear the author is anti-Vivibear.

    Most notably, the "Plagiarism Controversy" section includes plenty of details about specific accusations with the cited sources being forum or blog posts. Even when this article cites a news publication, the cited article also appears to be reporting on the forum and blog posts, taking them as true.

    There appears to be no suitable previous version to revert to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeJWJ (talkcontribs)

    I made a few edits to fix the most obvious issues, but I don't read Chinese and don't have the expertise to really go over this article – I agree though that a lot of the sourcing looks highly dubious and the tone strikes me as trying to prove Vivibear's misbehaviour rather than neutrally document what the sources say Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Demarest

    There are some libelous things in Arthur Demarest's wiki page and strange unsourced and irrelevant hearsay--claiming he's "king of the jungle" and "coercing artists" as well as discussing settled lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:25DC:20:3D49:AA37:D02E:8F38 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just some vandalism that was overlooked. It's been removed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An anonymous user has repeatedly been seeking to edit the subject's personal life section variously unsourced, or with a series of twitter posts that link the subject to an organisation open to all who support its aims. The sources do not seem to unambiguously support the anonymous editor's wording either in respect of his sexuality or his supposed openness about it. I have suggested the use of alternative wording to accurately reflect the sources, and/or to discuss the matter on a talk page but the anonymous editor has instead responded aggressively.

    I have no idea about the subject's personal life - the anonymous editor may - but I'm not seeing reliable and unambiguous sources to support the anonymous editor's chosen text about a living person. Ed1964 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @
    WP:AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Tali Golergant

    I am Tali Golergant's friend, writing to you on behalf of her mother. I request that you will delete the information "Limpertsberg" from her bio because of security reasons. There is no need to know the neighborhood she lives in. And for GDPR reasons: https://gdpr-info.eu/ I would also request that this information will be deleted from the page's history.

    Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by שרון אהרימנוס (talkcontribs) 18:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @שרון אהרימנוס I removed it from the article text per your request. On the other thing, see Wikipedia:Oversight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you and thank you again. 2001:7E8:C2CC:8E00:8F0:BB0F:8F98:F695 (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Restored the info because that was not what the article said, which is that she used to live in Limpertsberg but now resides in New York. New York is a huge city, not a neighborhood. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Academic criticism removed

    Greetings, @RadioactiveBoulevardier removed [14] academic criticism of John Mearsheimer, including references to two journal articles, on the grounds of BLP violations - Talk:John Mearsheimer#Insertion of disputed material . Is this removal correct? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn’t characterize the criticism as "academic". As can be seen, instead of engaging with the subject’s work on substantive grounds, it entailed a personal attack (completely ignoring his analytical framework, as I noted in my TP efn) and was inserted in such a way as to violate the core of BLP guidelines. The original version I removed also contained an inappropriate wikivoice statement.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing nothing about the situation except what I'm seeing in the diff, that text does look like a BLP problem. Even attributed, we shouldn't be applying contentious labels to a living person without overwhelming agreement among sources that the label is accurate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shooting of Chris Kaba

    Can we have more eyes on

    WP:BLPCRIME and the the naming of a non-convicted and non-public figure who has been accused of murder. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    There is also a separate problem of unsourced allegations of criminality. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberal Party of Canada

    An IP editor added a post yesterday calling for the violent death of Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1212949445 . I appreciate that @331dot: reverted the edit, but I think that the diff should be hidden, which I've seen done with other egregious edits about a living person? (I also think the IP editor should be blocked, but I don't know how that works.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP should be reported to
    WP:ANI. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I blocked the IP and revision-deleted that nonsense. The IP posted some other complaints but they are standard junk and best ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I saw the other stuff, but it's just political commentary, so I agree it should stay. Appreciate the quick action. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brent McIntosh

    Hi, I am requesting your help with some minor edits to this article, noting that I work with Brent McIntosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Citi. We posted this request on the Talk page about a month ago with no response yet.

    1) We noticed the information about his job title at Citi is outdated. His current title is Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary. This is reflected in his biography on Citi’s corporate website and also in this Bloomberg profile.

    2) The mention of his previous membership with the Council on Foreign Relations is inaccurate. He is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I’m including here the membership roster of the Council as well as another source that references his current membership. A logical edit here would be to move the Council reference to serve as the first sentence of that paragraph: “McIntosh is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, …”.

    I appreciate your time and consideration of these suggestions. LowneyJen (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @LowneyJen: Both fixed (the CoFR was in fact listed twice; I have removed the incorrect duplicate). Thank you for bringing this to our attention here. Please see also WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing Thank you for your help! LowneyJen (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Dinan

    A concern has been raised on behalf of the article subject about the section of the article which lists his car collection:

    WP:BLP, for these reasons? Geoff | Who, me? 16:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    According to the FAQ section of that website, it is "entirely user-driven, so our database can be edited anytime". Why should we consider this a reliable source at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point. Removed section per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content. Thanks! Geoff | Who, me? 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SELFPUB and family members

    Posted this at WT:BLP and didn't get an answer so trying here: I have a question on point 2 of BLPSELFPUB as it relates to family. If all the other points of SELFPUB are met, is it appropriate to use a self-published source by an article subject to provide the names and birthdates of their non-notable minor children? Or are they considered third parties? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, non-notable people are considered private individuals who haven't given their consent. Underage children especially, because they do not even have the ability to give informed consent. Who knows, they may grow up and find they don't want their private info published on Wikipedia, and we have no right to take their rights away. See
    WP:BLPPRIVACY. In general, this is not facebook and we don't name non-notable friends or family. To most people the names are meaningless anyway if there's no article to link to, so generic descriptors work just fine. Zaereth (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Agree with Zaereth. I saw a case where a mother's social media post was used as a source her underage son (article subject) was autistic, and that struck me as a very bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Zaereth and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. "The couple have two children" is fine if properly referenced. On the other hand, "The couple have two children, Mildred and Ralph, and a French Bulldog, Zeke" makes me cringe and I remove that level of detail. This does not apply to highly famous people with massive media coverage abetted by the family. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweet Baby Inc.

    Could someone please hide this? Trade (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehdi Ashraphijuo

    Mehdi Ashraphijuo does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on available evidence. The article claims the subject is a mathematician, financial risk manager, academic, and writer, citing their personal website hosted at Columbia University. However, reliance on a personal website alone may not establish notability, as many universities, including Colombia University (see https://www.cuit.columbia.edu/web-publishing), allow students to create such pages without content moderation.

    Furthermore, the article mentions that Mehdi Ashraphijuo holds the position of executive director (Vice President) at Goldman Sachs. While this is accurate based on their LinkedIn page, the role of VP is not typically considered notable within the banking and financial industry, as it constitutes a significant portion of the workforce at Goldman Sachs and other similar institutions.

    Additionally, a review of the subject's Google Scholar page reveals approximately 120 citations, with only 5 citations in the past three years. This suggests limited academic impact or recognition.

    Considering these factors, I suggest reevaluation of the subject's notability and potential removal of the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WormOfWiki (talkcontribs) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, as there are absolutely zero secondary sources used in the article. Unfortunately, that is a bit outside this board's purview. I would recommend taking this to our notability noticeboard, which, while we used to have one with that name, today those discussion are held at WP:Articles for deletion. You can nominate it there and see where the ball lands. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alvin Malnik

    The article on this subject seems to fail the Wikipedia notability in that there is isn't significant coverage of the individual; there are many in the citations that *seem* to gesture to this but are completely random. The person seems to just be a real estate developer and restaurateur. I request a review of the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggyshorty (talkcontribs) 13:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give the same advice as the section directly above. Notability is not something that falls under the jurisdiction of BLP policy in most cases. The place where cases like this are usually handled is
    WP:AFD. Nominate it for deletion and editors there will review the notability and delete if necessary, keep if not, and often improve if possible. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Jack Antonoff

    My name is Chloe Pace and I work for Jack Antonoff. I'd like to raise a couple BLP concerns for impartial editors to consider:

    1. The "Personal life" section says: "As of December 2019, he resides in the Brooklyn Heights apartment he shared with Dunham, containing his home music studio." While this technically does not state his address explicitly per
      WP:BLPPRIVACY
      , it's enough to make it easy for readers to ascertain his address and doesn't bring much value to readers. My request would be to just say he lives in New York, or something similar.
    2. The current page has a paragraph dedicated to a quote about being "desparate" for children: "In June 2014, Antonoff said he was "desperate" for kids, explaining: "It just seems like the most fun thing in the world. I've never met people who have kids who haven't looked me in the eye and been like, "It's the greatest thing that's ever happened."... I think it's biological. I'm 30. I'm not that young, right? I'm not, like, 24 or 22. I'm no longer in the phase of my life where I talk about everything as in the future. Like, I'm in the future.[6]"
    MOS:QUOTE
    says "too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words." It seems odd for Wikipedia to dedicate such a big portion of the page to such a personal quote from 10 years ago.

    Thank you for your time considering my requests. BaseballLover334 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @
    WP:PROPORTION
    , so I removed it. We'll see what happens.
    I have to say, I think your message was very well made, and afaict you didn't use AI to write it either (or perhaps just very good AI). From my POV, you're worth your salary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rachel Steinschneider

    After researching this,I believe

    Rahel Shtainshnaider
    should be changed to Rachel Steinschneider. Most of the 3rd party online sources are incorrect and also need to be changed. I'm going by her linkedin and instagram. Anyone have a problem with this? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated accordingly. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Guess Who

    I am fairly new to wikipedia and would like to point out that I do know someone that the above article is about. I want to ensure that I am following the policies and am finding it a bit overwhelming because there are a lot of different ones. Therefore, I thought it might be easier to ask for some help here to address my concerns. I did recently post some suggestions on the talk page for review.

    Overall, I have noticed a lot of the sourcing is opinion pieces/ interviews without alternate views being presented. In addition, there also seems to be a fair amount of persuasive language being used. I also think that considering the current lawsuit, paid editors shouldn't be making substantial edits to the article and yet they have.

    Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritedSea (talkcontribs) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SpiritedSea, I fail to see how this dispute is a BLP issue. The content in question is well-referenced and your concerns are convincingly refuted at Talk: The Guess Who. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Propaganda.

    The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

    I have recently read a biography which although not incorrect in general, is biased and untruthful in that so much information has been excluded. Should we disclaim biography's written without fact checking or third party review as propaganda? in particular when those have a political or business interest? 2603:7080:6B03:2899:0:0:0:11CA (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Its impossible to address such a vague scenario. Can you link us to the article you're referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    debashish chatterjee

    His colleagues have said that he maintains good rapport with the Chairman of the Board of IIM, while he has implemented strict security check for junior colleagues to meet him. Professors need to keep their bags and phone away, as a pre-condition to enter to his office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsocial (talkcontribs) 07:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read
    WP:BLP? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    sean omalley biography

    it says he has a daughter but it has been confirmed the child isnt his. please correct page 73.37.229.140 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See
    WP:BLP and bring an excellent source for this. Not Reddit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also I removed a related item based on
    WP:BLPGOSSIP grounds.[16] I really question the reliability of these niche MMA sources if they are going to be focusing on that type of crap. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't know if it's still a problem, but there have been problems before where editors familiar with the area have insisted that Sherdog (and maybe one or two other questionable sources?) is the best source especially for anything about a fight but also IIRC for basic biodata (like height) despite community consensus being against that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It didn't help that a anyone in the area pushing back seemed to have equal problems e.g. socking making the whole thing an awful mess. Perhaps things have calmed down, I don't recall a recent ANI thread, or maybe just no one is paying attention any more. BTW, someone can have a daughter even if "the child isnt his" assuming you just mean it's not his biological child. So even if for some reason there's a public paternity test, this does not tell us whether he has a daughter or not. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sherdog database itself should not be seen as controversial, but I am not clear on how reliable their news reporting is nor whether their reporting panders to sensationalism. I just know that a lot of niche sites, whether gaming, wrestling, comic book, or mma, tends to pander to the clicks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would appreciate additional eyes on this BLP. Take a look, please at the

    WP:BLP. According to what I have read elsewhere, she is widely respected in the music industry to this day, and is described as having influenced other artists like Luther Vandross. I can return to this conversation tomorrow. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The citation was misplaced but the critic is acknowledging past criticism of Flack's work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether the criticism of Flack in our article is fairly representative of the opinions out there. But I don't t find it surprising that breaking with the norms of a genre is not always viewed as a positive thing. A famous example might be Kenny G#Criticism who is controversial enough that I think we still have to indefinitely semi-protect his article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, to be clear, I'm not saying what Flack did is similar to what Kenny G does. Just that I don't see it automatically follows she did things different from what people normally do in the genre or people expect from the genre so that's a good thing. Being different doesn't mean it's groundbreaking or revolutionary, and people might easily think the stuff the person did different is negative or crap rather than positive or good. What matters to our article is whether those opinions are common enough that they should be mentioned, and whether we are fairly representing other significant opinions. For example, our Kenny G article seems to do an okay job of this from my understanding of his reception. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I put it on the bottom of the reception section to make the section chronological. Thriley (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that is appropriate since Jason King is reviewing past criticism of her career as a historical review and those two other paragraphs reinforces his comments. Checking the sources, he himself views her contributions as being positive and ahead of its time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]