Wiki143:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Protection banner".Wiki143:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header User:MiszaBot/config

Bonnie Blue (actress)

Template:Atop I recently got into an argument with Template:Yo a couple of days ago regarding the real name and birthdate of Bonnie Blue (actress) at both User talk:Launchballer and Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress), though purposefully left it a couple of days so I could post here with fresh eyes. Courtesy pings also to Template:Yo.

  • Sangdeboeuf argues that her real name should not be included as no context is lost through its removal. I argue that, per WP:BLPNAME, we only consider that when her name has not been widely published (which it has, in the BBC, SCMP, Telegraph, and many others) or has been concealed (which a) is not necessarily the same as using a stage name as plenty of people have one and are open about their real name and b) shouldn't be a good enough reason to ignore multiple high-quality reliable sources anyway).
  • Sangdeboeuf also argues that to include her full birthday counts as WP:SYNTH, whereas I consider that WP:CALC applies (her 14 May Instagram post saying "my birthday today" is WP:ABOUTSELF). WP:DOB says OR shouldn't be used to extrapolate the date of birth, but CALC is not OR.
  • Much less pressing, but I may as well ask while I'm here; does her single-paragraph Early life section really need its own section given that MOS:OVERSECTION advises against clutter?--Launchballer 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Template:Tq may be open about their real names, but Bonnie Blue hasn't been. Their name Template:Em been intentionally concealed, at least where the public is concerned. How is this not a Template:Tq to follow the advice of Wikipedia policy? Template:Pb Articles should mainly cite sources focused on the subject at hand. The article in The Telegraph isn't primarily about the person known as Bonnie Blue, instead focusing on a gambling website (Stake) that was investigated for using a video of Blue in an advertisement, possibly without their knowledge or consent. Template:Pb The South China Morning Post article contains apparently no original reporting, since it mostly paraphrases other sources including Cosmopolitan along with podcasts and tabloids such as The Daily Mail and The Sun, while also citing various anonymous friends and classmates. As part of their "Style" section, it's a pretty clear example of human interest reporting, which is considered less reliable than straight news. Template:Pb I haven't looked at all the sources linked on the talk page, but the ones cited in the article tend to only mention their legal name in passing, for example BBC News, which states near the end of the article that Template:Tqqi I'm not seeing how the name adds anything significant, and WP:BLPNAME specifically advises against giving too much weight to Template:Tq. Template:Pb Routine calculations should have consensus that they are a Template:Tq. That's a bit vague, but I don't think it justifies combining the day from one source with a year that has itself been calculated from an age given in a different source. Those are two different calculations that border on improper synthesis. Even if the calculation is correct, there are privacy concerns given that neither the subject themselves nor reliable, independent sources have publicized the full DOB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Although your right that a calculated birthdate isn't SYNTH, it also clearly demonstrates that the date isn't widely published as per DOB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • For interested editors: RfC started on the talk page for including her real name in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hr Users have attempted to cite a birth announcement in the Long Eaton Advertiser for a "Tia Emma Billinger" as verification of the subject's full date of birth. However, primary sources such as historical newspaper announcements should be used with caution. I have not seen any published sources verifying that this refers to the same subject, and a single blurb in a local paper doesn't seem to qualify as Template:Tq as required by WP:DOB. To me it's obvious WP:SYNTH to use this source for any claims relating to Bonnie Blue. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)~

I don't have any strong opinion on the inclusion of her full DOB, but just looking at the sources provided on the article and its talk page, it does seem like the Long Eaton Advertiser newspaper clipping from the May 1999 edition is indeed about the subject herself:
It doesn't seem like she has a problem with her birthday being public per her Instagram post, but again, I have no strong opinion on the inclusion of her full DOB. Some1 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Original research is not verification. There's a difference between someone posting their own birthday and their full date of birth. Otherwise, why hasn't the subject herself posted her full DOB like she has done with her legal name "Tia Billinger"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
This is because any individual can calculate anyone’s date of birth, without asking them directly, and this is how mathematics/logic works. Public figures in whatever sphere of industry that they’re in, don’t need to publish their full date of birth for their fans to see/know, because it’s not like they’re under any duress; filling out an application for a job or a passport renewal; or as if they’re under an investigation for formal questioning. In any normal social setting, people can calculate any individual’s date of birth subconsiously, by knowing their birthday and/or current age. Remember to know anyone’s date of birth, all you would need to know from them is how old they are, and when their birthday is. It’s pure common sense. And thankfully, outside of her authentic birth announcement here we already have WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB and/or reliable sources above, for/regarding both when the subject’s birthday is, and what her current age is as of now. — Diademchild☥ 🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí 23:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Not everyone posting their birthday online is in possession of common sense. That's why policies like WP:DOB exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Alright, so as per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB, I think it’s worth reminding interested users/editors on here, that this female subject has already previously confirmed that she is/was indeed born on 14th May, as seen/confirmed via the date of when she published this Instagram post here, which unsurprisingly substantiates or correlates with the birthday (i.e. “of born 14 May” seen) published in/on her birth announcement here. So undoubtedly we already know one part of her legal birthdate being “14 May”, so the question is what calendar year what she born in? Well, if she turned aged 25 in May 2024, as she demurely claimed in this livestreamed podcast here in the 12:47–13:05 minute mark, then are we really/deliberately avoiding/intercepting a routine calculation, to indeed confirm that this authentic birth announcement is correct? Because, honestly even if there aren’t currently any reliable sources explicitly confirming her date of birth (and if we’re being frank, there doesn’t need to be, because this female subject isn’t (that) societally important/respected/valuable), based on any swift routine calculations made, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that she is/was indeed born on 14th May 1999. But yes, I would like for interested editors/users to join in on this discussion, for support in her eventual birthdate (and middle name) inclusion, particularly to keep her article page consistent with the outline of most BLPs. — Diademchild☥ 🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí 22:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Excuse me, what? Template:Tq? This comment alone should disqualify you from editing or commenting on this article. BLP policy applies to all living subjects, full stop. It's even more important to respect the privacy of socially marginalized persons such as sex workers, to avoid exposing them to stalking and/or harassment. There's a big difference between posting your own birthday for fun and publicizing your entire date of birth. We can't infer that Blue is OK with the full date being made public. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, to quote or go by what is uncharacteristically written about her on her article page: Template:Tq, I think it’s relatively fair to say that there’s nothing whatsoever inspirational/respected/valued about such lewd antics. Of course with facts over feelings being apply here/there, even when we are to respect the privacy of “socially-marginalized” persons or to avoid exposing them to stalking and/or harassment. But altogether, that is neither here or there. — Diademchild☥ 🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí 00:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC) User:Diademchild has been topic-banned from all BLP-related pages.Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Since discussions regarding the (in/ex)clusion of her DOB will undoubtedly come up again in the future, I've started an RfC to help settle the matter: Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress)#RfC for Blue's full DOB. Some1 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Template:Abot

Brooke Norton-Cuffy

Template:La - the article says this individual is of Dominican descent. It is sourced to a reliable source, although that suggests that he is of dual nationality. I don't think much spins on that; I know the website, it's just how they show descent. We have an editor (Template:Ping) claiming to be the subject's mother and saying that he is of Dominican and Guyanese descent, but no source has been provided, despite multiple requests, to support this. Further guidance welcome. GiantSnowman 09:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

see above #Brooke Norton-Cuffy page. Nthep (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks - it would have been polite if Template:Ping had notified me that she had posted here already... GiantSnowman 09:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify — I’m not simply claiming to be Brooke’s mother; I’ve already stated that I’m willing to provide evidence to verify this, if required. I’m not sure who else would be motivated to correct these personal inaccuracies if not a close family member.
I’m also new to Wikipedia and wasn’t sure where or how to post initially, so I’ve been doing my best to navigate the system and contribute constructively. I appreciate your patience as I try to address this issue the right way. Crescentsista (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Template:Ping - it appears that Norton-Cuffy has a verified Instagram account, so the easiest solution would be for him to update his profile to say he is of Dominican and Guyanese descent. Then that could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the suggestion — but I’d like to kindly challenge the idea that Brooke should update his Instagram profile to validate information for this article.
Brooke is third-generation British. Both his father and I were born in the UK, and while he has heritage links through his grandparents (my mother, now 86, being one), he does not personally identify with either Guyanese or Dominican heritage. That’s entirely his choice, and it doesn’t make his identity or biography any less valid.
His Instagram, like most people’s, reflects how he chooses to present himself — not necessarily as a source for encyclopedic detail or cultural classification.
I hope we can rely on factual accuracy rather than requiring someone to frame their identity a certain way on social media for the sake of verification.
Thanks again for engaging on this. Crescentsista (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Then your only other alternative is to find a reliable source that supports your assertion. As far as I am concerned, the Personal life section should be removed. A single sentence is not DUE for an entire section, especially when the information is trivial and irrelevant, and would not result in a loss to our readers of having a better understanding of the subject. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
I honestly can’t believe I’m having to explain this again. A “reliable source” — from where, exactly? Brooke has never been asked about his heritage in any professional capacity, so expecting a published source on this is unrealistic.
As I’ve already mentioned, he is third-generation British, and the previous information about his background was factually incorrect. That’s all I was trying to have removed — and thankfully, it now has been.
At this point, I genuinely don’t see how there could be a more direct or reliable source than his own mother when it comes to these personal details. Crescentsista (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologises I don't believe that I had read your message in its entirety. I actually couldn't agree with you more.
Thanks for your contribution. Crescentsista (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Anytime an editor wants to add or change content in an article, the burden is on those to provide a reliable source to verify the addition or changes. And quite frankly, I have no idea where you can find one, but to be clear, we do not use word of mouth from a person's "own mother" as a reliable source, unless your statement has been published in a reliable source. I offered my advice and help to resolve the issue, and that's all I can do. Have a nice day. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway I agree with you and removed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Good call. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for Removal of Incorrect Heritage Information from Brooke Norton-Cuffy’s Wikipedia Entry

Template:Atop

Dear Wikipedia Team, I am writing to formally request the removal of an inaccurate and misleading statement from the Wikipedia article on Brooke Norton-Cuffy, which currently claims that he is "of Dominican descent" — a statement now moved to the "Personal life" section. This claim is based on a source that is factually incorrect. As I’ve previously explained in Talk page discussions, I am Brooke’s mother, and I am fully prepared to provide verification of that relationship if required under Wikipedia’s policies. I believe my position qualifies me as a primary source on personal biographical information, especially when no accurate or published secondary source exists. Here are the key points I would like to emphasise in support of this request: Inaccurate Source: The website cited (e.g., Sport.de) incorrectly states that Brooke has Dominican nationality. This is factually wrong — Brooke has never held Dominican nationality, and I have already contacted the site to request that they remove the Dominican flag associated with his profile. No Dual Nationality: Brooke is third-generation British. Both his father and I were born in the UK, and while his paternal grandparents may have Dominican heritage, Brooke does not identify with that background, nor has he ever represented himself as such in any public or professional capacity. Misleading Information: The phrase "of Dominican descent" implies personal identification with, or cultural or national affiliation to, a heritage Brooke does not claim and has never publicly acknowledged. He has never spoken about this in interviews, nor does it appear on any verified public platform (including his social media). Conflict with Wikipedia Policy: Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy requires strict adherence to verifiable and non-misleading information, especially where personal and potentially sensitive content is concerned. Including an incorrect statement — even in the “Personal life” section — violates this principle. Primary Source Reliability: In the absence of reliable published secondary sources, direct clarification from a verifiable immediate family member should carry weight, particularly when attempting to correct a factual error introduced by a flawed external source. Again, I am happy to submit proof of my relationship to Brooke if requested. Given the above, I respectfully ask that the claim about Dominican descent be removed entirely from the article. At the very least, the entry should not rely on inaccurate or misleading sources and should not present speculative heritage as fact. If this matter cannot be resolved through Talk page consensus, I would appreciate guidance on how to escalate the issue. There must be a higher level of editorial review or appeal process available when Wikipedia content is demonstrably inaccurate and potentially damaging. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am happy to work with editors and administrators to ensure that Brooke’s article is accurate, fair, and policy-compliant. Sincerely, Kim Norton Mother of Brooke Norton-Cuffy Crescentsista (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I commented at Talk:Brooke_Norton-Cuffy#Nationality/decent_or_whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Please don't use a large language model to generate requests or responses like this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Abot


Francesca Gino

Template:Ping accused me of Template:Tq [1] for this edit to the Francesca Gino article. For context, Gino was accused of data fabrication, and after a lengthy investigation, Harvard released an over 1000 page report, finding that the allegations of data fabrication were true and it was improbable that anyone else but Gino was responsible for them, and put her on leave in 2023. A few months ago it belatedly decided it to fire her. I do not view the edit to be a violation of NPOV or BLP, given that assertion that Gino is responsible for the fabrication is extensively supported by evidence and Harvard fired her over it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I've checked the article's talk page, as well as yours and Pechmerle's and I don't see that any discussion has occurred. Have I missed something or is this the first venue you've sought? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Is there a good secondary source to support the idea that the allegations of data fabrication are true? Better than Harvard's own report, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I am not accusing Hemiauchenia personally of anything. I made the change mentioned because there was no source cited for a statement that the data fabrications alleged against Ms. Gino have been proven true. And I have not readily found any secondary RS where it is stated that the allegations have been proven true. As a subsequent edit has noted, Harvard has revoked Gino's tenure but has not publicly stated why it did so. I just want this BLP to remain neutral in tone.~~ Pechmerle (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPF applies here and there needs to be strong secondary sources that confirm that there was fabrication beyond allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Too much detail, in my view, needs to be summarized better. As is, the allegations, investigation, lawsuit and co-authors sections comprise 70% of the article content. Reads more like a newspaper article, rather than an encyclopedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Shane Jacobsen

Until today Shane Jacobsen was a redirect to Shane Jacobson, a well-known and prolific Australian actor. Fairly harmless although most unlikely mis-spelling. The problem is that Shane JacobSEN is a living American actor, mentioned in several articles. My edit has been reverted several times. I'm sure there must be a provision for stubs which serve no real purpose except to obviate misdirection. Doug butler (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issue, the redirect had no incoming links to it, so there are no links to be changed. There's now a hatnote directing readers to the Australian Shane. Not sure what more anyone could want. Nthep (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't see what makes Shane Jacobsen a notable actor, though. The edit was reverted because it was unlikely the stub article would survive a deletion process. Many of the articles I have found about Jacobsen online were in fact misspellings of Jacobson's name. -- Reconrabbit 19:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Karma Loday Bhutia

“Engaging in anti-party activities” is a serious allegation. The only cited source is apparently a SKM party paper, which is a primary, partisan source — not considered independent or neutral by Wikipedia standards. No legal case, public investigation, or independent report has verified that he engaged in such activities. Wikipedia’s own policy on Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) forbids this kind of claim unless proven by reliable, secondary sources. 2402:E280:2215:464:AD04:8524:A8A9:5B26 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I have updated it to say "alleged" since that was what was in the source. Leaving the rest for more experienced editors. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Miller (spokesperson)

Hi editors, I'm Robin and I work for Beutler Ink. I made a request on the Matthew Miller (spokesperson) Talk page that I think addresses a significant neutrality issue in this BLP. Currently, the article focuses solely on criticism Miller received while acting as Department of State spokesperson, but other events and statements that are covered in reliable sources are not discussed at all. I think this creates a WP:PROPORTION issue and makes the article less neutral than it could be. My request would add content related to other policy areas and statements Miller made that also received coverage in reliable sources. Any feedback is appreciated! BINK Robin (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Richard Hanania

In the lead for the article: Between 2008 and the early 2010s, Hanania wrote for alt-right and white supremacist publications under the pseudonym Richard Hoste.[7][9] He acknowledged and disavowed his writing under the pseudonym when it was reported in 2023.[7][6] A number of journalists have said that Hanania continued to make racist statements under his own name.[5][10] At the bottom of the article it goes into more detail. The journalists being referred to are very left-wing opinion writers and I feel that should be noted, such as left-wing writers have said that... The talk page discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Hanania#Left-wing_writers_say_he_%22continues_to_make_racist_statements_under_his_own_name%22 In which I make the case and later another user MIMIR MAGNVS brings the receipts. 77.103.122.213 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Having just read through all of that, “left-wing” should not be added, unless if you find reliable sources calling each of them left-wing. Which seems unlikely. Right now it is original research, as pointed out on that talk page, and is about living people. Definitely cannot be included.
That said, “Journalists and writers have cast doubt on whether Hanania has disavowed racism” should perhaps have “Some” before it, since some clearly don’t agree.
Additionally, this needs to be fixed: In September 2023, Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic: "People can and do change, even those with extreme views like these, but there’s not much evidence that happened here. As the writer Jonathan M. Katz noted in 2023, Hanania wrote, "These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits," in an angry tweet about Alvin Bragg indicting Daniel Penny for the killing of Jordan Neely. It is missing the ending quotation mark, seems to have been confusingly edited away from the original Atlantic quote (“angry tweet” is from there, but much of the rest is changed, and now we seemingly have “angry” in wiki voice). LordDiscord (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Natasha Bertrand

The following unsourced statement appears on the Natasha Bertrand page and appears to be unsubstantiated, biased, political conjecture that is arguably libelous.

"Later turned out the Hunter Biden laptop story was completely true and the the 50 CIA officials story she reported on was a concerted effort to cast doubt on the laptop story to sway an election."

The statement should be sourced (not opinion) or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.16.66 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Already removed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

MrBeast#Death of Tyler Wall

I am concerned that this section of the article MrBeast#Death of Tyler Wall is a BLP vio by implicitly suggesting that MrBeast is responsible for his death. The sources covering his death (which are mostly Indian and Pakistani, with only a handful of non-South Asian sources covering the issue e.g. [2], [3]) as far as I'm aware do not suggest this nor do they frame it as a "controversy", but a tragic occurrence. The man who died was the coach, not the man undergoing the weight loss challenge, so there's less reason to assume MrBeast is to blame. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Not the best source in the world, especially for a BLP, WP:NEWSWEEK says they have seen the death certificate, and reports the manner of death was an accident due to "Mitragynine Toxicity". I agree the wording is problematic in that section - Template:Tq - sourced to Mr. Beasts YouTube video, which does not say that at all. Honestly, I don't even think his death is DUE for inclusion on that page, that's the only mention of him on the entire page, and it appears Wall is a non-notable individual who died unexpectedly through no fault whatsoever of Mr. Beast. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I've removed that and the link to the Squid Games controversy, which isn't supported by any of the sources either; I would agree that probably the entire section could be removed as undue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Jessica Brown Findlay

A user of Wikipedia repeatedly posts a wrong date of birth with an erroneous citation, and keeps reverting other users' attempts to correct this.

Jessica Brown Findlay was born in 1989, not 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.78.40 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link Jessica Brown Findlay Knitsey (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for the date of birth? Knitsey (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Here is a source indicating the later date. (I'm not suggesting which one is correct.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Added: And lest with think this is some recent trimming of her age, here is a mid-2011 article positing her as 21, which is in line with the 1989 date, not 1987. That's the earliest age-pegging reference I find at newspapers.com. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
@NatGertler I am unsure of the reliability of the existing source [4] although I have seen it used in the same way for other articles.
I wonder if it might be worth adding (with an editing note) that birth date is disputed and add the sources you provided? Knitsey (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:DOB would suggest listing both dates. However, I know I've seen discussions questioning the use of such born-this-day lists for this, as there have been signs that the dates are accumulated from insufficient source (including Wikipedia); I don't have the energy at the moment to go dig such conversations up.
More sources supporting the later date: 22 in late 2011, 23 in early 2013, 24 in early 2014... really, I'm not finding any not-a-birthday-list support for the earlier date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I will leave it for a while to see if there is any more input and make an edit at a later point if not. Knitsey (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Original research: Here is a picture of her in The Guardian, dated 1991, in my view, it doesn't look like to me she is a two-year-old toddler in that photo, assuming her dob is 1989. She also implied that in 2006, she was aged 19, which is consistent with a 1987 dob. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Companies House lists "Jessica Rose BROWN-FINDLAY" with "Date of birth September 1987" as a British actor who is a director of a private company called "JBF1987 LTD" [5]. I suspect that this is going to be one of those cases where truth says 1987 but verifiability is stuck at 1989. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
We may well have the sourcing to list both dates and note the disparate sources; we don't have sufficient sourcing to declare 1987 "correct". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Probably the best solution, and one we have used many times before. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The Stage (registration needed, article text searchable on Google) gives her year of birth as 1987, no day or month. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Field of Screams (amusement park)

Due to this recent reporting in a RS, this article is likely to see some disruption. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the edit as it was unreferenced and, I hope this is correct, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to such information. I looked at the link above which was mentioned in the edit summary, when I searched for the allegations. I've also had a look for further referencing and ran into a few problems (I was also interupted by the dog wanting a walk)
The problems I've had are, the original piece has been regurgitated by several local news sources without adding anything to it. As I'm in the UK, quite a few sources in the US are not available to me so I can't check on their contents. It is annoying to say the least when it comes to referencing. Knitsey (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The original investigative reporting is from Spotlight PA which appears to be a reliable source. Knitsey is correct that subsequent reporting by other sources is just regurgitating the original report, adding nothing new. I think if other reliable sources corroborate the allegations with their own reporting, the matter should be mentioned in the article. The specific individual at the center of the allegations should certainly not be mentioned by name at this time, and any mention of the controversy on Wikipedia should not imply guilt. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Hard Concur. I also found the Spotlight PA article and that seems to be the main locus of discussion at this time per my own review. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the relevance of WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. WP:BLP on its own (in particular WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME) covers this more than adequately. But yes, we'd need more than a single source, regurgitated, to justify inclusion of anything on this, and we absolutely must not name individuals based on nothing more than allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

"Conspiracy theorist" is not sourced and not stated anywhere else other than the lead of this article, so it should be removed. I've tried on the talk page first but established editors weirdly refuse to follow guidelines. They also remove my talk page posts for no apparent reason 2A00:FBC:EF1E:67F7:85E7:7A1:8CF7:26C9 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been resolved with the addition of sources and also with the identification of even more sources that may be added to the body at a future date. With thanks to the IP who was very reasonable about this at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Freya Fox

Main image is an AI generated image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.243.34 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It certainly looks suspect. Her hands look odd, for a start, and per a recent RfC [6], consensus is against using AI images for living persons. I see you've already started a discussion on the article talk page, so I suggest people respond there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Kayli Mills

[[:Template:Encodefirst]] (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Might need some more eyes, including on the talk page. Seems like Hoyoverse discourse is happening there. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Lists of primary publications

An issue has come up concerning the page for chemist Eric Scerri, involving a general question of style/content for BLP pages and other biographies. Because it is a general issue, and because that particular page receives relatively little attention, I thought it best to promptly raise the issue here in the hope of attaining a broad consensus from experienced editors. The questions: Should lists of primary research publications (excluding books and review articles) be included in BLPs and other biographies, and if so, what is a reasonable length for such lists?

Here are the specifics. Here I removed a list of 45 primary publications from Eric Scerri, citing WP:RESUME and motivated by the WP policy WP:NOT, the latter of which includes the following: Template:Tq In the natural sciences publication lists are standard components of CVs, but including such lists on Wikipedia pages seemed to me contrary to WP:NOT. My impression at the time was that many, if not most, pages for scientists did not include such extensive, or indeed any, lists of primary publications. Here the entire list was restored by Template:Yo, who justified their edit here by writing that, among other things, WP:RESUME is not policy, that other articles include such lists, and that there is no rule preventing them.

In preparing this discussion, and in part to test my initial impression, I performed a far-from-exhaustive examination of the Wikipedia pages for several scientists. All of them are recipients of a Nobel prize, some of them are still alive, and all of them, with all due respect, are more prominent than Scerri. The number of primary publicatiions listed on their respective articles are noted parenthetically: Marie Curie (0), Ernest Rutherford (12), Enrico Fermi (8), Otto Loewi (0), Alexander Fleming (0), Wolfgang Pauli (0), Linus Pauling (12), Francis Crick (0), Alan Hodgkin (0), Bernard Katz (0), Murray Gell-Mann (0), César Milstein (0), Thomas Cech (0), George Smoot (7), Jennifer Doudna (0), Anne L'Huillier (0). This admittedly incomplete list seems to suggest that WP pages for prominent/notable scientists typically do not include lists of primary publications, and if such a list is present it is nowhere close to 45 items.

I am certain that other pages exist that include long publication lists. But should they? Do many giants of science, including those listed above, require the substantial addition of primary publication lists to their articles, and if so how many of those publications should be listed, and what specific criteria of inclusion should be applied? Is a 45-entry list of primary publications excessive for a notable but not-particularly-famous scientist? Thank you in advance for all comments/suggestions on how best to proceed, not just at Eric Scerri and other BLPs but throughout the project. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The lead of his article indicates he is a writer/author as well as an academic, so I would think MOS:LISTSOFWORKS applies for his publications. I did a quick search through the Wikipedia Library, and it appears he is a well-known author, and his publications have received multiple reviews. Based on his Google Scholar profile, his citation count is 5465, and his h-index is 37. As for how many publications, I'd say his books are fine, but his journal articles, I'm not sure. Pinging David Gerard who might offer his insight. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
If they have a lot of books, I tend to just books. Basically Wikipedia doesn't need the subject's entire academic CV - it's an encyclopedia article. Maybe items that are Wikipedia-notable in their own right? - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Your list of scientists without publications is really just showing that those articles could be fleshed our better.
Obviously, we don't need to list every publication, especially for contemporary scientists who do a lot of publishing, but we should be listing key works and for humanities scholars it's typical to list all books (breaking off the list into a separate article of necessary.) Jahaza (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, Crick's article doesn't break out a list of papers, but it does cite about 15 of his scientific papers in the footnotes. (And has a list of his books.) Jahaza (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Just to reemphasize my original point, I am here addressing lists of primary publications (e.g., journal articles) Template:Tq. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the right policy to consider is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That said, I agree with what seems to be consensus that books (which are generally substantial efforts) are generally worth listing. Journal articles not as much: my opinion is that a list of 3 higher impact papers is generally somewhat worthwhile to include, and that this could be _slightly_ longer in some circumstances. 45 seems over-long in most circumstances, and I think would typically violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
My sense from having encountered many short bio pages for scientists and other academics is that a "Selected publications" list might have 3 or so papers. Generally they're the most-cited, or the most influential by some other metric. Including 45, even if they're culled from an even longer list, is way out of line with standard practice. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Some pertinent considerations may include:

  • WP:NOT does not seem to apply since it refers to the subjects of biographic articles editing their own articles for self-promotion purposes. AFAIK that is not the case here.
  • Late in 2020, Scerri was voted as the second most influential chemist over the preceding decade.
  • He is recognised as a world authority on the periodic table.
  • He has published 169 articles, of which the list of 45 represents his major works.
  • WP:NOT DIRECTORY, as I read it, does not seem to have any applicability in this case.

I concur with Jahazathat, "Your list of scientists without publications is really just showing that those articles could be fleshed our better."

Speaking personally, I find it quite useful to be able to look up a list of the major articles of the subject of a biographical article.

Conflict of interest declaration: Eric Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry and three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri and Philip Stewart (then a chemistry professor at the University of Oxford). --- Sandbh (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

NOT definitely is in no way restricted to subjects editing their own articles. Don't know why you would think that. in fact while subjects editing theit own articles is almost always a bad idea of they really are only doing stuff which other editor would be fine doing that's when their editing is arguably not strictly forbidden.. (Trouble us their COI means ecfn experienced editors often can't see when their editing is not okay let alone inexperienced ones.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sanket Goel

Script error: No such module "Side box".

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.

Hi! Can someone please help me out with this article? It was moved to draftspace an year or so being published because it did not conclusively meet WP:GNG but could meet in the future. I did some research and found more independent sources that could fulfil some of the criteria under WP:NPROF, but I have been blocked from editing due to COI. How can I go about improving the article and getting it re-published? Thanks! Shashy 922 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears you are only blocked from editing the article, not the talk page, so follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit requests, and make your requests on the talk page. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! I made an edit request on the article's talk page. Another thing, while I completely understand that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia and that there is a huge backlog for edit requests, is there anyway I can bring an editor's attention to the request? Thanks! Shashy 922 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
The draft currently appears in WP:NOTCVland because it seems to depend on 1) primary sources (by or related to the subject) as well as 2) passing mention in mainstream sources (not significant coverage of him personally, but of the topic he's involved with). @Russ Woodroofe and @David Eppstein might you lend a little time for input as to WP:NACADEMIC? I'd appreciate input from either of you in evaluating academic metrics here, notwithstanding a mostly WP:PRIMARY citespace (see discussion above re primary sourcing). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Did you perhaps already take a look at User talk:David Eppstein#Help with Draft:Sanket_Goel?
Since being blocked from editing the article directly for refusing to stop their COI edits, Shashy 922 has spent the entire last year and a half trying to work around the block by repeatedly going around to different noticeboards and individual editors asking other editors to be their proxy. Beyond that their contribution history contains only two minor edits to other articles.
I don't think this behavior merits rewarding. It suggests that they are WP:NOTHERE.
As for the question of whether some new academic notability has somehow been achieved that was not evident when we considered the issue three months ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanket Goel, there is a recent response by User:Ldm1954 to a similar request at Special:Diff/1292575056. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I did see User talk:David Eppstein#Help with Draft:Sanket_Goel and that's why I thought it would be helpful to get so much as a "no change" to close this out, but a fuller response with the link from @Ldm1954 included is appreciated. Grateful for your time and feedback, and hoping it moves towards closing this BLPN post. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reem Alsalem

Seeing a lot of activity by SPAs/new or infrequently active users on the Reem Alsalem article both adding and removing content [7], which seems to be related to the subjects contentious views on transgender topics. Would it be possible for BLPN regulars to take a close, neutral look at the article to make sure that is complaint with BLP (I have only limited familiarity with the topic so don't feel qualified to judge) and watchlist to make sure that BLP violations are removed in the future. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Nicky Delmonico

Bringing this here instead of going to the talk page because of the nature of the issue, and the fact that I have no experience with this sort of thing in BLPs, but the subject of the article has edited it to remove the entire personal life section, saying "I want it private". Some of it I can understand, and I would remove as well (an unsourced claim about a marriage, which isn't DUE), but the rest of it is sourced, and even includes the fact that he is the son of another BLP subject, which should pretty obviously be included. However, I am not confident enough in BLP policies and engaging with subjects of BLPs editing things they aren't happy with to do it properly, so thought someone else with more experience would be better suited to take a look and see what should be done. Weirdguyz (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Woops, as I posted this, @InklingF reverted, but a little discussion about the relevant policies and how to go about this sort of thing wouldn't go amiss :) (also, just in case it comes up again, as it might...) Weirdguyz (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=3460406"