Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

There is currently an NPOV discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard.


I would like to report a very serious violation of the Biographies of Living persons policy about Kalki Bhagavan / Kalki_Bhagawan. I argue the page is an attack page and the content on the page is tantamount to repeated specific violations of the policy which I shall now give point by point arguments for.

All points are made as per the latest edit available at the time of writing this description which is

Firstly and most egregious is the summary itself.

"Kalki Bhagawan (born 7 March 1949 as Vijay Kumar Naidu), also known as Sri Bhagavan,[1] is a self-styled Indian godman, cult leader, businessman, and a real estate investor.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A former clerk in the LIC, he claims to be an incarnation of God (the Kalki Avatar). He is the founder of 'Oneness' / 'Ekam' cult and White Lotus Conglomerate.[9]"

To describe somebody as a "godman", is a pejorative. To say something is a cult, is also not neutral. What might be a cult to one might be a spiritual retreat to another. Both of these I argue are "contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision" - because though a large number of articles are mentioned - but each of the sources mentioned 2 through 8 are opinion pieces in magazines. These cannot be substituted for court verdicts or formal results of investigations.

These are not links to news events e.g. the inauguration of a temple premise or anything technical. There is no burden of proof on any of them from a legal institution or a court or any Government institution at the state or city level.

Therefore, I firstly request that the summary be changed in a manner which better reflects the facts on the ground.

Next, the order of information itself is especially egregious. When a person's details are mentioned, even - their/ her /his personal details are mentioned and then the list of things they / she / he did and finally any controversies / critical opinion. Here, this is completely the opposite. Please help correct this. Wikipedia as mentioned is not a newspaper and certainly not an editorial piece or tabloid.

Finally, the sheer volume of negative claims on the Wikipedia article are mind boggling

1) Most of the accusations are from 2019 about Income Tax raids on the premises. However, these are serious accusations, and the formal and final decisions of the courts should be mentioned (especially now that it is 4 years). If the decision of the court is to find the defendants not guilty, then it is certainly a moral imperative to at least mention that. Wikipedia edits are not a higher authority than a court decision made by the law of the land

2) The tone of the article is generally extremely negative against Kalki Bhagavan but is favorable towards any of his critics

- Viswanath Swami is called a social activist, but no further analysis is done on the merit of his claims. in the first paragraph itself the word "alleged" is used. That is argued to be against "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

- "Another writer at the time, Shameem Akhtar, was also critical of what she called the 'Kalki craze" - just because somebody is critical, it is not worthy of putting on a Wikipedia page. Please just stick to facts, court reports.

- "Dakshina Kannada Rationalist association" is called well known but that is not relevant to the claim here. Whether they are well known or not it is the merit of the claim.

3) Most of the headings are directly negative. "Allegations of Fraud and founding of White Lotus Conglomerate" , "Accusations against the organization", "Rebranding the cult - 'Ekam'" and numerous others are based on a premeditated opinion - please just help this article stick to facts.

4) All of the links are to opinion pieces which are argued to be "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" - when so much biased information is present, it is fair to request especially given this is a living person to only stick to the facts. Of the 100 links, please remove all the links which are not reports of actual events from newspapers. If a negative claim is made e.g. a court case report, please follow up with its result - especially after multiple years of the said claim. Or don't mention it. One good idea is to put all the allegations under a single concentrated section and not spill all through the article.

5) Political affiliation, is a matter of opinion and in the Republic of India, confidential to the individual expressed solely by their unanimous right to vote. Please therefore remove that section asspeculative. Reference: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

Finally all information here is frozen in time. "The investigation is in progress" is incorrect, it might have been true at 2019 which the source links, but no follow up has been done.

The reason for this is shooting down of any neutral content edits also, leave alone anything positive.

This is my first time reporting an article on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you would like me to change my style to add more references etc. I am keeping it shorter, given the request at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya the sun (talkcontribs) 15:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but this is quite different from neutrality. Wikipedia neutrally reflects what published reliable sources state. So if something is described a certain way by the majority of reliable sources, the Wikipedia also describes that thing that way. Wikipedia doesn't represent both sides equally, which many mistake as the purpose of the NPOV policy. To do so would be against the policy on WP:FALSEBALANCE. I suggest raising your concerns on the articles talk page, but you will need to show that reliable sources back up any change you desire to make. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they need to show reliable sources for any additions they wish to make. If they wish to have material removed, showing that it lacks reliable sources should be sufficient. Some legitimate sourcing questions are raised above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested and Nat
Yes Nat - that is the crux of my claim. I shall take that up in point 2 below. But before that let me not even talk about the sources but why this is an attack page (arguments follow)
1) I am happy to accept the view that all Wikipedia requires is a neutral point of view of all published sources, not neutrality per se and no original research. All right. Then it is not about whether the person is living or not (possibly higher standards should apply for living persons as there is an impact on their life). Let us not even talk about the factuality of sources (will take up next)
Then take Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler - where there is wide spread agreement and reliable information by multiple modes of information of the loss of human life (regardless of political conviction) caused by them. Even then, the neutral point of view in Wikipedia as evidenced by the articles does not degenerate into name calling, as it should be.
Hitler is not called the "self styled savior of Germany" nor the same for Bin Laden as the "self styled issuer of Fatwa to the United States" and the organizations they led when alive are not referred to as cults - at least not in the first paragraph which shows up in all Google searches on them. This is as it should be and is the essence of factuality, civility and respect which is what is needed in an encyclopedia. Neither of these courtesies are extended to the subject of this article Kalki Bhagavan, even when the allegations are far less severe as per most legal systems in the world and also categorically unproven in courts.
If you can see the difference here, then that is the essence of the argument of why this is an attack page, especially the order of information. The earlier information is what shows up on Search Engines. Allegations and criticisms should be kept impersonal, verified and concentrated and generally after facts are presented neutrally.
Further, note these search engine searches have no impact on the lives of the individuals I mentioned as they have passed away. But they have a tremendous impact on the life of a living public figure which is why I quoted this parallel and the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.
Finally the impact of this attack page (provided you agree that is a reasonable argument) is amplified by LLMs which consume Wikipedia and they have no advantage of human judgement. They will spit out the attack verbiage in unexpected and unexpected damaging ways.
In all the cases above, verifiable real details of the above their personal life are mentioned first with verified facts - positive or negative (even with no original research) . Why not extend the same courtesy to a living citizen of the world with no such damage to human life associated to them?
In the next post I will try to do a point by point rebuttal of sources in terms of whether they constitute a good Wikipedia source for a living person. Aditya the sun (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am trying to come up with a list for point by point, trying to present it as neutrally as I can. It is taking some time as there are 110 cited sources, I will post within a few hours. Aditya the sun (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok here is a point by point analysis of the sources provided.
- there are 42 duplicate links, 20 opinion pieces, 1 blog post lol , approx 10 irrelevant links and several broken links/ which can’t be accessed
- that being said, please note I have tried to be objective and several are proper news reports, and those are fine
My request is
- remove the duplicates - this is not as heavily cited as it seems
- see link 92, Vishwanathan Swamis case was turned down - please allow mention of l such things especially when it is cited
- don’t allow opinion pieces and blog posts as sources for a human life
- please check for relevance , don’t allow irrelevant links
- however any criticisms do mention them in a
maintain civility and respect As much as that extended to Hitler or Osama Bin Laden as argued before
this is a living human being’s Life - and this should be in line with the biography of living persons policy
  1. Nadkarni, Vithal C. (2008). "Oneness to the rescue of a world in peril". The Economic Times.
    • Opinion piece, called out at the start
  2. From humble beginning to Godman Kalki". Retrieved 6 August 2021.
    • Link wrong
  3. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
    • Opinion piece
  4. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece
  5. "The cult of Kalki". Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece
    • Logical fallacy There is a logical fallacy right at the start of the article - it says cults are bad. It then says Kalki Bhagavan is a cult and then therefore it is bad. But no proof or logical arguments are provided as to why it is a cult.
  6. "How Kalki gave me a story, but not an Aishwarya look-alike". Times of India Blog. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • Blog post/ Opinion piece. Is this serious? Why is a blog post allowed as an established source?
  7. "The Kalki Craze Outlook India Magazine". Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece
  8. Shobha, V (November 2019). "The cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece in a magazine
  9. "IT seizes Rs 33 cr from premises of godman Kalki Bhagwan and son". Hindustan Times. 18 October 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
    • This is a news report. Good, only objection I have is the use of the term Godman is never justified in the title.
  10. "The cult of Kalki". Retrieved 28 November 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 5
  11. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  12. "Inside godman Kalki Bhagwan's world: Bollywood celebs, real estate and drugs". The Week. Retrieved 28 November 2020
    • Opinion piece
    • Allegations and hand wavy, tying to Bollywoood and drugs is textbook tying to association
  13. Thorsén, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • This is fine, looks like a university student’s investigative paper but none of the results seemed strange.
    • On page 70 the author did say that such a movement is not strange in India
  14. Kalki, Cult of (November 2019). "Cult of Kalki". Open Magazine. Open Magazine.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  15. "life positive". Religioscope.
    • Broken link
  16. "India: a visit to the Oneness Temple of Amma-Bhagwan". Religioscope. 13 July 2008.
    • Opinion piece
    • do look at at least the last sentence in the last paragraph - “the guide sounded honest”
  17. Founders, OO academy. "OO Academy Founders". OO Academy. OO Academy. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • Not a safe link
  18. OM, WRSP. "WRSP – OM". WRSP. WRSP. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • This looks ok, I don’t have a specific objection
  19. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  20. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 9 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  21. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
    • Opinion piece
  22. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
  23. "Income Tax Department conducts Search on a 'wellness group' in Chennai". 16 October 2019. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
    • No arguments here, government report
  24. DTNext, Publisher (20 December 2019). "907 acres linked to Kalki ashram attached". DT Next. DT Next. Archived from the originalon 11 June 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • News report, reasonable
  25. "900 acres of land owned by godman Kalki attached". Deccan Herald. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • Again a news report, reasonable except for the Godman pejorative
  26. Vijayakumar, Sanjay (19 December 2019). "907 acres of land belonging to Kalki group attached". The Hindu. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • News report, not fully public so cannot comment but seems ok
  27. Dec 21, B. Sivakumar. "Kalki Bhagavan case: 900 acres of benami land attached by I-T | Chennai News – Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • Again a news report, reasonable except for the Godman pejorative
  28. "'Kalki' Bhagwan hospitalised". The Hindu. 1 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • News report, not fully public so cannot comment but seems ok
  29. "India: a visit to the Oneness Temple of Amma-Bhagwan". Religioscope. 13 July 2008. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 16
  30. Preethaji; Krishnaji (6 August 2019). The Four Sacred Secrets: For Love and Prosperity, A Guide to Living in a Beautiful State. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5011-7379-0.
  31. "Publishers Weekly". Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Book review of a book by Kalki Bhagavan’s son. Why is this relevant?
  32. "Society once had religion to give it purpose. Now it has wellness coaches". British GQ. 12 January 2020. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Again an opinion piece
  33. Shobha, V (1 November 2019). "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  34. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
  35. Ardagh, Arjuna. (2010). Ontwaken in eenheid : de kracht van de oneness blessing in de evolutie van ons bewustzijn. Wel, Anna van der. Houten: Zwerk. ISBN 978-90-77478-32-5. OCLC 662568093.
  36. "Oneness Movement – WRSP".
    • Broken link
  37. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece
  38. "Chinese Actress Deletes Her Weibo Post Promoting 'Controversial Indian Spiritual Courses'". News18. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
    • Again there is no way that the deletion of a social media post is relevant to a human being’s 75 year life span. I am finding this irrelevant
  39. "After Taiwanese Actor's Post, China Warns About Indian 'Cults'". The Quint. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
    • This is not a news report, it is an opinion piece
    • One of the problems straight away is a comparison of this with another organization of Ram Rahim. Why is this a valid comparison is not specified.
  40. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
  41. "After marathon Income Tax raid, godman Kalki Bhagwan faces ED heat". Hindustan Times. 24 October 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • News report, ok
  42. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Goteborgs Universitet. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
  43. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal
    • Opinion piece.
  44. Swamy, Rohini (22 October 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan, guru who started as LIC clerk & now has 'undisclosed income' of Rs 500 cr". ThePrint. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
    • Opinion piece, though initially a news report
  45. Newcombe, Suzanne; Harvey, Sarah (15 April 2016). Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-07459-5.
    • Can’t read book but ok
  46. Townsend, R. Lataine (4 January 2012). 2013: Beginning an Era of Hope and Harmony. BalboaPress. ISBN 978-1-4525-4342-0.
    • Can’t read book but ok
  47. Ganguli, Aurijit (30 May 2020). The Shambala Sutras. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64892-982-3.
    • This is about a different Kalki, not relevant
  48. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". Retrieved 2 July2020
    • .Duplicate
  49. "Investigators seize more than $14 million from spiritual guru Kalki Bhagavan – EasternEye". 22 October 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
    • initially a news report but later
    • Opinion piece - again a comparison with unrelated Ram Rahim is provided
  50. Cowan, Douglas E. (2 September 2009). Corrigan, John (ed.). "New Religious Movements". Oxford Handbooks Online: 125–140. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195170214.003.0008. ISBN 978-0195170214.
    • Don’t have access to this, but even this agrees ‘cult ‘ is a pejorative
  51. "Who is Samael Aun Weor?". Retrieved 25 December 2017.
    • 404 page not found
  52. Sikand, Yoginder (2008). Pseudo-messianic movements in contemporary Muslim South Asia. Global Media Publications. p. 100.
    • problem even without having read the book - firstly Kalki Bhagavan is in India and India is not a Muslim country
  53. Juergensmeyer, Mark (2006). Oxford Handbook of Global Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 520. ISBN 978-0-19-513798-9. ISBN (Ten digit): 0195137981.
    • Not available to read but ok
  54. "The Kalki Craze | Outlook India Magazine". Retrieved 7 July2020.
    • Duplicate
  55. Sri Bhagavan Interview hosted by Mitchell Jay Rabin for A Better World TV early in 2005, retrieved 8 April 2020
    • Interview, reasonable
  56. site admin (17 June 2002). "Cult in crisis – RELIGION News – Issue Date: Jun 17, 2002". Retrieved 11 April 2020.
    • Opinion piece.
  57. Nayak, Narendra. "The cult of Kalki by Narendra Nayak". Retrieved 16 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
  58. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • Duplicate
  59. "Who is Kalki Bhagwan Who Once Predicted Death of Organised Religions and Now Faces I-T Heat?". News18. 22 October 2019. Retrieved 6 March 2020.
    • Duplicate
  60. "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • No objections
  61. "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 60
  62. Windrider, Kiara; Sears, Grace (2009). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-57731-724-1.
  63. Windrider, Kiara; Sears, Grace (2009). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-57731-724-1.
    • Duplicate, same as 62
  64. Ardagh, Arjuna (1 April 2009). Awakening into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. Sounds True. ISBN 978-1-59179-864-4.
    • Duplicate
  65. Calleman, Ph.D, Carl (16 July 2015). "The Mayan Calendar & The Transformation of Consciousness". A Better World. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
    • Book, ok
  66. Roth, Ron; Montgomery, Roger (2007). The Sacred Light of Healing: Teachings and Meditations on Divine Oneness. iUniverse. ISBN 978-0-595-44896-8.
    • Book, ok
  67. Nadkarni, Vithal C. (26 January 2008). "Oneness to the rescue of a world in peril". The Economic Times. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
  68. Imranullah, Mohamed (22 November 2019). "'Kalki' Bhagavan's daughter-in-law moves HC against 'look out circular'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 26 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
  69. "Rs 44 cr cash, 90 kg gold, Rs 20 cr worth US dollars seized in I-T raids on properties linked to spiritual guru Kalki Bhagwan". DNA India. 21 October 2019.
    • Duplicate
  70. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 6 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  71. Ardagh, Arjuna (29 October 2009). Awakening Into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. ISBN 978-1-4587-3614-7.
    • Duplicate
  72. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
  73. Convened Insiders, Maverick (6 February 2020). "A controversial babu, a godman, film producers: Meet the faces behind the INR16,000 crore bid for RCom – ET Prime". ET. ET Prime.
    • Again this uses the Godman pejorative, not relevant also
  74. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 4 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
  75. "Nairobi's tallest building planned". Deccan Herald. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 3 May2020.
    • This has no mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  76. "Hilton kicks off second Nairobi high-end hotel". Business Daily. 23 May 2017. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  77. Monks, Kieron (23 June 2017). "Work begins on the tallest skyscraper in Africa". CNN. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  78. "Africa's tallest building aims to be a standout". The Business Times. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2020
    • Not a public link
  79. Wambu, Wainaina. "Nairobi's elegant office space that no one wants". The Standard. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
  80. "Dubai tycoons sought for contempt of court". Kenyan Tribune. 7 February 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
  81. "Dubai tycoons sought for contempt of court". Daily Nation. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  82. "Vacant school about 1 mile west of the former Northridge Mall proposed for 100 affordable apartments". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  83. "Dubai investors inject $200 million into Africa's tallest tower". Retrieved 6 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
  84. "Hotel Deco XV is Deco'd out". 11 October 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  85. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Goteborgs Universitet. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • Duplicate link
  86. "Bangalore franchise kabaddi team launched". Business Standard India. IANS. 16 July 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
  87. Kosmik Music – YouTube
  88. The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan – Open The Magazine
    • Duplicate - same as 8
  89. "Studio-N Channel Locked Out?". 9 July 2018.
    • Only mention of Kalki Bhagavan is that it involves people who are “apparently” belonging to the Kalki religious organization
    • Why is that relevant to this article? Is it relevant to mention a Microsoft member in a biography on Bill Gates?
  90. . Suares, Coreena (16 October 2019). "IT Sleuths search Kalki Bhagavan's properties in Hyderabad". NewsMeter. Retrieved 6 May2020.
  91. June 17, Arun Ram; June 17, Arun Ram; August 6, Arun Ram; Ist, Arun Ram. "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
  92. Correspondent, Legal (3 February 2004). "Plea for CBI probe against godman turned down". The Hindu. [1] "
    • The case was turned down!
  93. "How Kalki gave me a story, but not an Aishwarya look-alike". Times of India Blog. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2020.
    • Duplicate
  94. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
  95. Rangarajan, A. d (22 October 2019). "We have not fled the country, says Kalki Bhagavan, after I-T raids on his premises". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
    • This is a news report, again uses the word Godman unjustifiably
  96. Imranullah, Mohamed (22 November 2019). "'Kalki' Bhagavan's daughter-in-law moves HC against 'look out circular'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    • Not fully public but looks technical enough
  97. Sivakumar, B. (21 December 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan case: 900 acres of benami land attached by I-T". The Times of India. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
  98. Windrider, Kiara (2006). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-930722-70-5.
    • Duplicate, same as 62
  99. Ardagh, Arjuna (29 October 2009). Awakening Into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. ISBN 978-1-4587-3614-7.
    • Duplicate
  100. Reily, Suzel Ana; Dueck, Jonathan M. (16 March 2016). The Oxford Handbook of Music and World Christianities. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-986000-5.
    • There was nothing in the linked page about Kalki Bhagavan
  101. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
    • Duplicate
  102. "Narayanan, Dr. Vasudha, "A 'White Paper' on Kalki Bhagavan, 29 September 2002", University of Florida, Gainesville, Montclair".
  103. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • Duplicate
  104. Ardagh 2008, Chapter 1,2.
    • Duplicate
  105. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
    • Duplicate
  106. site admin (17 June 2002). "Cult in crisis – RELIGION News – Issue Date: Jun 17, 2002". Retrieved 1 March 2020.
    • Duplicate
  107. Swamy, Rohini (22 October 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan, guru who started as LIC clerk & now has 'undisclosed income' of Rs 500 cr". ThePrint. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
    • Duplicate
  108. "Concerns over health status of Kalki Bhagawan". Deccan Chronicle. 30 October 2016. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • This is a news report. At this point, he is referred to as a spiritual Guru.
  109. "Kalki Bhagavan hospitalized". Retrieved 17 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
  110. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
Aditya the sun (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatGertler I have also added a summary of these arguments to the talk page under the heading “reasons why this is an attack page”. My arguments are now ready from my
end to be reviewed. Please take a look! Aditya the sun (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested@NatGertler I also want to call out strong bias in the talk page - I have raised specific objections there where guilt is assumed without merit of the claim. I request you to please see those as well. Aditya the sun (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave the article enough of a look to verify that there were indeed real problems with sourcing... and that there was too much, I hadn't the time nor base knowledge of Indian media to deal with it all. (I did delete one non-verifiable reference, which had been #2, which means that all the numbering the OP gave is now off.) Can someone with more time and willingness take a look at this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have proposed an edit with some of these addressed. I have not removed any information but only tried to make the article more encyclopedic. Please take a look @NatGertler Aditya the sun (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 please see my arguments as to why I made my edit which you undid. I am happy to establish consensus but I have raised serious questions about the bias on the talk page. Even @NatGertler acknowledges here that there are serious sources on the page. I was not trying to do an arbitrary edit but have asked @NatGertler to review them. Please take a look at these arguments.
You can see my arguments in the section "Reasons why this is an attack page". There have been no responses to that, and you can see this is a BLP issue. Aditya the sun (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • serious sourcing issues
Aditya the sun (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be specific this is what I propose as a starting stable version for this page to address:
- issues above (not all of them but it's an improvement I believe)
- mitigating the BLP issues
- mitigating the NPOV issues
as raised already. I have tried to keep all information as is, but have removed pejoratives, accusations which assume intent and matched the biography format of most people on the internet or Wikipedia.
Aditya the sun (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case anyone is reading this, @NatGertler has declined to participate further due to lack of time. Input is welcome and appreciated, and in my opinion - very necessary. Thanks in advance. Aditya the sun (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aaron Saucedo[edit]

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.

I had never heard of Aaron Saucedo until today. The article starts out by saying that Saucedo is "an accused American serial killer". What it should say is that he is accused of being an American serial killer. The first wording implies that he is a serial killer even though the case hasn't gone to trial. Later in the article it says he had a job as a bus driver and while in this job committed "his first murder on August 11, 2015, with a Hi-Point 9mm pistol".

I opened up the page, saw the mugshot in the infobox, read the number of victims, the dates of his killing spree, and believed that this guy was a serial killer. Then I find out that he is only accused of this stuff. This isn't fair to the accused. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have proposed the article for deletion, as it fails WP:PERPETRATOR -- even if he were to be convicted, he was not otherwise a celebrity, nor has any unusual motivation been given. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. For all the multiple murderers in the United States, only a few are actually notable for their crimes. They usually make national news well before conviction (cf. Manson, Bundy, and the Vallow/Daybells). Even if this subject is convicted and then significantly reported in national news, it would still seem difficult to justify an article otherwise entirely based on state-level crime coverage of an otherwise private subject. JFHJr () 23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might this BLP not be moved to a more neutral name space? I'd undo my last reversion if it had the name "Phoenix street shootings." Then, coverage of the event could go on without it being a BLP space wise. Of course, concerns regarding the accused and surviving persons remain for attention. JFHJr () 00:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to have been originally at Maryvale serial shooter. Whether we need an article on that is another question. This doesn't seem to have generated the national coverage of a Son of Sam, nor, seven years after the arrest, has it become a basis for discussing larger topics a la the Murder of Kitty Genovese. But even if we end up with an article there, we should not include a redirect from the suspect's name unless a conviction on a significant portion of the charges is made. But I should note that some of the coverage that is used as reference there are national (such as CNN) or at least non-local (Chicago Tribune carrying AP material.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm hoping for a successful PROD. Otherwise, let's figure out what direction to take this once we know our forum options. JFHJr () 23:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article is now the subject of a deletion discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Jim Anderson (loyalist)[edit]

Jim Anderson (loyalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains an unsourced, and apparently unverifiable, claim of death. Some history will be useful. On 23 May 2019 our article had his name as James (obviously Jim is a common nickname for people named James, so nothing to worry about there). Then on 23 July 2019 his name was changed to "Leonard James Anderson" with a claimed death date of 27 June 2019. That someone of that name from Belfast has died can be unreliably sourced by this death notice or several placed in a Belfast newspaper. However none of them are reliable for a claim of death, and we don't even know it's the same person anyway. Any ideas on how this should be handled? I'm thinking the claimed death needs to be removed, since I cannot find any reliable source that the subject of out article is in fact dead. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You make good case for the death to be removed. Beyond that, the sourcing of the page is just to three sources, all books... and one of those three (Red Hand) is used only for statements that do not directly refer to the subject. I know nothing about the topic and cannot speak to the reliability of the two other books, but it's enough to make me at least ask whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the same impression. JFHJr () 04:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might also ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland if anyone over there knows more and can help. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have documented what the books say at Talk:Jim Anderson (loyalist)#Notification. My belief is that the handful of facts about this person that can be reliably sourced are insufficent to write an article, and can be covered in context at the Ulster Defence Association article. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The article name space should be redirected. AGF for the death date well over a year old/ago, this is probably not the right forum. BLPN is for the living and those recently deceased. 2019 is not recent enough. JFHJr () 03:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the problem originated in 2019 isn't actually that relevant, according to WP:BDP he's considered alive unless we have a reliable source that he's dead which we don't since nobody has said any of the death notices can be used. I have formally proposed a merge on the article's talk page. Kathleen's bike (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geoff Metcalf[edit]

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.

The entire article is practically unsourced, as it has only 3 sources, only one being related to the article remotely. This means the article is held together by no real evidence. Unfortunately, the article has had these issues cited since May 2008 and appears to have lost traction. Asking here to see if anyone is able to find valid sources before I possibly tag for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talkcontribs) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say go for it. I looked but nothing jumped out at me as far as sourcing an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr () 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the 3 "sources" after looking into each one and determining each one was bullshit. My edit summaries in removing each contain finer language and detail. Cheers! JFHJr () 04:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad we came to the same conclusion. Unfortunate to see an article with such extensive detail be entirely without a valid source. Don't feel that bad about deletion now, though. I'm guessing that back in 2008, it was more of a wild west for articles, because I think a modern editor would have a conniption if they saw the sources. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

C. Nicole Mason[edit]

C. Nicole Mason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Posting here because this is an obscure page (stats show only 5 page watchers) and posting on talk probably won't get any attention. As tipped off by an IP edit today, Dr. Mason was supposedly removed from her post as President & CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research in January this year, after allegations of toxic management and very high turnover under her leadership, both as reported by The American Prospect ([1], [2]). The second of The Prospect reports quotes an anonymous source saying she was fired, but also refers to a statement by the organization's Board that the decision for her to depart was mutual. I have not found any other sources for any of this. Websites published since that supposedly happened now refer to her as President & CEO Emeritus (or Emerita in some cases), such as this program for the 2023 Feminist State of the Union event which was held in April. She's also listed this way in a few professional directories but they are undated. She is not listed on the organization's website, and on their news feed their press releases abruptly stopped listing her as author after a release on January 20, 2023 (the next is dated February 7 and doesn't name an author). The organization lists someone else as their Interim CEO, and they have posted a vacancy for the permanent position. The IP who made the edit alleged that the "emeritus" position was created for her after being removed, but that was not supported by the source. Our page on the organization has also not been updated to reflect any of this.

I'm not sure how to reflect this in her bio appropriately, or even if she should have a separate bio in the first place. Suggestions welcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is she notable for? I'm certain that a top 50 award doesn't make all 50 notable. The other significant coverage of the subject is rather negative and problematic, BLP-wise. Usually, she's a commentator about a different subject entirely. In a few sources, she's talking about herself (her own publication), which can't explain her notability. Links to associated organizations show she had her job, but fail to indicate why that fact was encyclopedically significant; it's certainly not an inherently notable line of work. Cheers! JFHJr () 20:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks to me like a perfect example of why we need higher standards for notability for BLP subjects. The article reads like a resume. It even has that sort of promotional "hire me" tone. Most of the sources look like primary ones, but she does have a few articles about her in some reliable sources, and because of that it will be difficult to get it past AFD, because to some any RS coverage is enough to warrant an article. I tend to look at it a little more pragmatically. A bio should be far more than a simple resume, and if we can't find enough sources to give us at the leasr the very basic biographical details, then there's no point in even creating an article. (In my opinion, we should have enough biographical info to make a decent start-class article, as a bare minimum.) I often use this as an example, but it's a good one, so I'll use it again. Casey Anthony was in the news a lot. Had a lot of coverage, to the point where few people hadn't heard of her. Yet, in all of it there really isn't enough on her to make a decent bio, so instead all info about her is described in the article about the event rather than disguising it as a pseudo-biography. To me, that's how I look at this case. But, alas, the threshold for notability is very low and it will be almost impossible to delete this article, so a resume is what we're stuck with. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dominic Ng[edit]

This article has been mentioned before but I'm hoping some more BLP experienced eyes for one particular issue at Talk:Dominic Ng#Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference on whether the subject's participating in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is WP:DUE for the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By way of further explanation, at the moment we have a bunch of editors who may have a CoI or otherwise seem to be new who are opposed, one experienced editor who keeps adding it back unfortunately without explaining why they feel it is DUE (I'm dealing with that elsewhere), and basically me as the only experienced editor engaged in the talk page and I don't really know (which means I'm leaning towards exclude). The article is in a bit of a mess and also very short, making it fairly unclear what is and isn't due beyond their main job. I will also try to seek help from Wikiproject China although that seems fairly inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, @Nil Einne. I've suggested a rewrite on the talk page. INFjorder (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsure if it matters, but do note that this article was raised here 20 days ago: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Dominic_Ng. – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think participation in the conference is probably noteworthy enough for a lede mention (one line), with slightly more below, but not much more. That's because of the nature of membership in the consultative body and the nature of the body as an institution. It's not representative, it has no power (advisory only), but it does reflect national, regional, and local policy. It's just sort of important, nothing to indicate notability, but probably noteworthy enough for a mention or two. JFHJr () 03:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After giving the TLDR talk page a solid once through, I found the discussion around the COI proffer so scintillating that I thought the next best forum might be WP:SPI. So here it is. It looks like WP:MEAT at a minimum. Cheers. JFHJr () 05:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Turns out the subject's paid promoter User:East West AOT was socking (5 accounts). This does not bode well for this article's BLP issues in the future. Depending on page activity and WP:SPI admin action, this might need to go to WP:RPP to require reviewer levels, because paid editors will eagerly while away time to gain autopatrol. JFHJr () 22:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looks like admin already protected. Thanks User:Courcelles. JFHJr () 22:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

The subject is an astronaut who then committed some sort of crime of passion. This is being run as an FA today and so I started some discussion at WP:ERRORS where I suggested that this might be contrary to WP:BLP. This noticeboard handles such issues too and may be better for longer-term discussion as WP:ERRORS doesn't do that. Please advise. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comments there are also of concern. This includes the suggestion that being publicly pilloried on wikipedia would be a deterrent for committing crime. This could urgently do with some admin attention as it seems some very poor judgement is at play here. WCMemail 12:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TFA has now been changed. I have seen no indication of faulty weight in the article, the lead or the TFA blurb-- the argument was one of common decency with respect to mainpage exposure-- so I hope this is resolved now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Please delete this page since it contains inaccurate, misleading, defamatory and biased information on the person the subject of the biography. The following links accurately represent my public image, as a prominent stakeholders in the precision medicine and oncology community. I am an elected member of prestigious medical societies: the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. Additionally, I have many publications that received notable recognition from the scientific and medical community.


Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine Second Edition:

Twitter post of ASCO Connection mention of Second Edition posted by Springer:

Book review of Second Edition by Doody’s Medical Books Reviewer:

Research Features edition of Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine

ASCO Post Book Review of Second Edition:

Cancer Immunotherapies: Solid Tumors and Hematologic Malignancies:

Precision Oncology article (on page 98) Open Access Government (

I am kindly requesting that you delete this biography page or delete the current content and replace with this accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priya.hays (talkcontribs) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion due to WP:BLP1E concerns (see WP:Articles for deletion/Priya Venkatesan). S0091 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Priya.hays: Hello Priya, are you there? The deletion discussion (linked above) could use your input according to comments there. Cheers! JFHJr () 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fariha roisin[edit]

Hello, I am acting on behalf of the living person, Fariha Roisin. I was tasked to write an updated article, so I did, edited it, published it, and it has since been taken down. I need assistance getting my previous, updated version restored.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article in question: Fariha Róisín – robertsky (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content that you added to that article in August was unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit adds contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and is potentially libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalsamDewberry (talkcontribs) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did some cleanup on the article, but it could use more eyes as there is a persistent WP:SPA restoring poorly sourced claims. Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting inputs[edit]

Requesting inputs to review notability @ Talk:Anirudh Devgan#Notability for clearer consensus. Bookku (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eugene Gu[edit]

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.

Eugene Gu is probably best known for his former presence on Twitter, including his part in a lawsuit against Trump blocking him, which was found in his favour. He has been subject to a number of controversies, including allegations of sexual abuse towards a former partner and operating sockpuppet accounts to attack critics. These have been covered in reliable sources, such as this article in The Verge [3] from 2019 (A pro se lawsuit by Gu against The Verge for the article was dismissed this year [4]). In a RfC from 2021, there was found to be a consensus against adding a specific wording mentioning the sexual abuse allegations (see Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2), though I am not sure that the consensus of that RfC was against mentioning the allegations generally or that specific wording. The sexual abuse allegations have not been mentioned in any recent versions of the article. Recently, two infrequently active accounts have been tag-team edit warring to remove any reference to his presence on Twitter citing BLP, including newspaper articles regarding the Trump lawsuit, which I do not understand to be contentious. I suspect that these accounts are operated by the same individual, who may be close to Mr. Gu, and as such I have opened a SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceForeverLife. As I am at the 3RR, I would appreciate outside input on the matter. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

John DeLorean[edit]

Three edits way back in March by an IP user deleted content the editor thought unjustified: [5]; [6]; [7]. In their ESs they made some comments I think could easily be viewed as defamatory—or at least highly unnecessary!— about still-living relatives of DeLorean. I have no knowledge of DeLorean or related topics, but a brief online search does not surface anything along the lines of the editor's comments (to do with family relationships).

I have undone the edits, making some additional changes, but the edits themselves are not a BLP issue, I believe; the summaries themselves may well be. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taylor Swift - editor complaining she's loved by the alt-right so shouldn't be on the front page[edit]

User talk:Doug Weller#Taylor Swift, User talk:Black Kite#The FA reads like an advertisement and this version of User:Chbarts"s talk page.[8]] Doug Weller talk 16:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly, Wikipedia holds no responsibility for the fantasies of the alt-right. Having said that, there may well be legitimate grounds to question the repeated appearance of Ms Swift on the main page, as a part of a broader discussion regarding what might be seen as promotional content there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm currently watching a Swift article in the approved DYK nominations queue that I strongly intend to let sit there for at least several more weeks. I was hoping there might be an opportunity to promote it in two weeks or so given it'd been a while since the next Swift article by then...and then we ended up with a 36-hour Swift TFA, so, hopefully that author can wait three months or so. (I'm currently working on a narrow-topic article series and have given multiple other active prepbuilders instructions to space them the hell out.)
DYK tends to go through subject phases. There are staples (NYC buildings, radio/TV stations, etc), but at any given point we often have an excess of a particular niche that eventually burns through; right now it's songs and American footballers. Often when we have an excess of songs from a particular act it's a popular enough act (as Swift is) to be unremarkable in and of itself, but it can cause issues when they're clustered too close to one another, as has come up at DYK talk during the period after Swift's latest album release. At the moment we're in the unusual situation of an excess of songs from a little-known act, which no one seems to quite know how to deal with -- it stands out even more to have a rapid flow of hooks about a niche musician than a popular one. There are sort of de facto 'slow tracks' and 'fast tracks' at DYK depending on hook quality, image presence, subject matter, etc; it might be interesting to enshrine that clustered nominations on such subjects are slow-tracked.
By the way, if anyone has some nice non-promotional articles for the main page, I am constantly looking for OTD candidates that are pre-18th century (pre-11th especially, BC era a shoo-in), non-Western, or both. OTD tends to be fairly promotionalism-immune -- even the rare product releases we run are by definition old and often not commercially available -- but this presents the alternative problem of trying not to fall backwards into building Today's Battle and Hurricane. Vaticidalprophet 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with User:AndyTheGrump and I think he stated my case extremely well. —chbarts (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chbartsbut your complaint was about support from the alt-right, not frequency. Does this mean you no longer are worried about that? Doug Weller talk 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am worried about both Wikipedia appearing to promote commercial interests and the hint of alt-right nonsense. Swift is just a "perfect storm" of both of those things. —chbarts (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree. There may be a bunch of idiots who like Taylor Swift, but their views are so irrelevant that AFACT, there is zero mention in our article which is an FA so we can assume has decent coverage of anything relevant. Perhaps some of these idiots will be happy when Taylor Swift related content appears on the main page, but in reality what these idiots don't realise is that what quality content on Taylor Swift reflects is that she's almost diametrically opposed to what they stand for. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean its true she shouldn't be on the front page again but that reasoning is just silly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • White nationalists also like polo shirts. They're also popular with golfers. I'm pretty sure Taylor Swift's main demographic is gay guys, teenage girls who sneak a hard lemonade when mom isn't looking, and mom's who drink hard lemonade and wish they were teenagers again. GMGtalk 19:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo sorry, that’s wrong. Here’s an analysis, note that over half of Americans are fans (please let’s avoid criticising any nationality).
    Taylor Swift fandom demographic Doug Weller talk 21:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Doug Weller: Did I criticize a nationality? Also there are fans, and then there are fans. I was specifically thinking of the two guys I know who have tattoos of her lyrics. But the demos seem about right. A huge chunk of her fan base are Democratic, white, suburban, millennials. Anyway, the point being that the focus on the alt right here is a complete non sequitur. The alt right likes Tucker Carlson because he says alt right things. They just like Taylor Swift because she's white, pretty, and famous. GMGtalk 21:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't sweat it GMG. It's obvious you were being humorous. Your analysis of the situation is spot on, I think. It's the kind of rationale I would just ignore, because distracting one's attention from the real issue is the purpose of a non-sequitur. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not much of a Taylor Swift fan myself, but I'm not sure if it's helpful to pigeon hole her fans in inaccurate ways. It's fine to offer reasonable criticism of something when relevant, but it's unhelpful for community building to make inaccurate claims which just annoy everyone. I'd also note that plenty of white, sururban, millennials are neither mums nor gay guys; and they're definitely not teenagers. Finally, I'd note that as much as Trump has unfortunately made alt-right views more acceptable, there are still plenty of mainstream conservatives even in the US who reject neo-Nazism. So even if Taylor Swift fans actually leaned conservative, it doesn't somehow make her alt-right fans more relevant. So I don't actually understand the point either of you are trying to make TBH. AFAICT everyone in this discussion except "chbarts" agrees the fact that some idiot Nazis consider Taylor Swift an Aryan goddess totally irrelevant to anything. And we all agree that they are such a tiny minority of her fan base (without needing to pigeonhole it), combined with a group that doesn't tend to survive well on an encyclopaedia based on reliable secondary sources; that the chances they've had much influence in her articles being written, and making it to the main page is very small. The only question and AFAICT the reason this is even here in the first place, is whether chbarts going around continually bringing up her alt-right fanbase is a BLP issue. IMO it's not since it appears to have some truth covered in reliable secondary sources. And while it may be largely irrelevant to anything on Wikipedia, for someone as notable as Taylor Swift, I don't think it matters much that that someone keeps bringing it up. If they should be blocked, it would IMO mostly be for WP:DROPTHESTICK reasons rather than BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd also note that while it's quite likely many of the people involved in creating Taylor Swift articles are fans, the sort of superfans GMG refers to with tattoos of her lyrics tend to be the sort of people we'd much rather do not get involved in creating articles related to her. Long experience suggests they're often incapable of creating good encyclopaedic content especially assessing sources covering her or her works and obeying WP:NPOV. Since this seems to at least partially related to the FA on Love Story (Taylor Swift song), my assumption is that few super fans were involved at least in doing the work that made it a FA. In fact, I'd go so far to say while it doesn't matter quite as much, my hope would be it's the same number involved as neo-Nazi's i.e. zero. I'd also add that someone's personal views don't always align with a majority of their fanbase. The obvious example would be J. K. Rowling where I think it's fairly well accepted that a significant chunk of her traditional fanbase reject one particular area of her views. I don't think putting J. K. Rowling as TFA can reasonably be said to be promoting her views, but if someone were to make that claim, I don't see that talking about the general views of her fan base is particularly relevant. Ultimately it's irrelevant at least when it comes to FA since if the article is actually an FA it shouldn't be promotional of particular views beyond reflecting what reliable secondary sources say about such views. Hence why it's fine for us to have even Tucker Carlson as TFA if the article ever made if to that. And of course an FA being promotional of what the subject's (or creator of the subject's) general fan base think, should hopefully be a least as unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo I'm sorry, that wasn't aimed at you. It was a response to some nonsense I've experienced elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with the Controversies section in the Martha G. Welch article[edit]

Hi, I’m here at the advice of User:ScottishFinnishRadish to call attention to serious problems with the Martha G. Welch#Attachment therapy controversy section. It includes highly inaccurate and what appear to be intentionally inflammatory statements, as well as flawed and improper original analysis that inaccurately ties Welch to the injury and death of children by other therapists she had no involvement with. I’m an employee of ClarBright, a communications firm which represents Dr. Welch, so I have a conflict of interest. I will only report problems and propose solutions rather than edit the article.

For reference, here is the current version of this section (as of the last edit to the page made on August 12, 2023):

Attachment therapy controversy

Welch was a proponent of a form of the controversial practice of attachment therapy, and originated a variety of it sometimes termed Festhaltetherapie, Holding Time, or Prolonged Parent–Child Embrace.[1] The practice has been proposed as a means of treating autism or preventing problems in the parent/child relationship.[1][2][3] It includes forcing a child to face their mother while seated on her lap, arms restrained by crossing them in front of the child. For larger children, the mother instead lies on top of the child while supporting herself partially with her elbows.[1][4][5] The mother and child are then encouraged to express their emotions to one another while in this position.[1]

While the variety of attachment therapy promoted by Welch has not been associated with the child injuries and deaths that have been associated with similar forms of attachment therapy, it has been subject to controversy.[1][6] One researcher has pointed out that several aspects of the practice would be classified as adverse childhood experiences if done outside a clinical context.[1] These aspects include causing children physical pain and fear of pain, restraint, and causing children to feel as if they have no one to protect them.[1] They have also noted that the genetic basis for autism makes this form of attachment therapy, which aims to cure autism by repairing the mother/child bond, implausible as a treatment for autism.[1] Other critics have noted that attachment therapy practices, including "physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, [and] ventilation of rage" are not recommended and should not be used because they lack proven benefit and risk harming the child.[6]


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Mercer, Jean (December 15, 2016). "Evidence of Potentially Harmful Psychological Treatments for Children and Adolescents". Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 34 (April 2017): 107–125. doi:10.1007/s10560-016-0480-2. S2CID 152259220. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
  2. ^ Sizemore, Bill (6 July 2008). "Controversy trails 'attachment' therapist who runs Chesapeake center". The Virginian-Pilot. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
  3. ^ Kavanaugh, Lee Hill (4 April 1999). "For Kids, Sometimes Hugs Can Be Enough". Knight Ridder Newspapers. The State.
  4. ^ Lee, Mary (9 December 1988). "'Holding Time' Designed to Enhance The Bond Between Mother and Child". Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
  5. ^ Welch, Martha; Northrup, Robert; Welch-Horan, Thomas B.; Ludwig, Robert J.; Austin, Christine L.; Jacobson, Judith S. (2006). "Outcomes of Prolonged Parent–Child Embrace Therapy among 102 children with behavioral disorders". Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 12 (1): 3–12. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2005.09.004. PMID 16401524. Retrieved 4 March 2021.
  6. ^ a b Chaffin, Mark; Hanson, Rochelle; Saunders, Benjamin E.; Nichols, Todd; Barnett, Douglas; Tulane, Zeanah; Berliner, Lucy; Egeland, Byron; Newman, Elana; Lyon, Tom; LeTourneau, Elizabeth; Miller-Perrin, Cindy (2006). "Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems" (PDF). Child Maltreatment. University of Washington. 11 (1): 76–89. doi:10.1177/1077559505283699. PMID 16382093. S2CID 11443880. Retrieved April 18, 2022.
  • Much of the criticism is not about Welch. It conflates Welch’s book Holding Time with the work and practices of others, some of which is extreme and dangerous. This is WP:COATRACKING. This is a bio and should be firmly focused on Welch’s work, not on dangerous spinoff therapies advocated by others.
  • There is WP:OR by this editor to connect Welch to extreme practices that have caused death and injury to children, which this editor acknowledges with OR commentary are not part of Welch’s therapy (“While the variety of attachment therapy promoted by Welch has not been associated with the child injuries and deaths…). Welch, in fact, has [condemned|] these extreme practices.
  • These paragraphs are the sole explanation in this article of Welch’s work on holding therapy - and are an inaccurate characterization of Welch’s work. She does not advocate physically “forcing” or “restraining” children as part of this therapy[9][1][2]
  • These paragraphs are based almost entirely on a single polemical journal article that has received very little independent scholarly attention or support (16 citations) and was published in a relatively obscure journal (as determined by its impact factor.) While there is certainly grounds for Mercer’s viewpoint to receive mention, the amount of weight being given to this obscure source is WP:UNDUE.
  • Mercer’s criticisms of Welch and her work should also be attributed to her by name because it is one author’s critique rather than a medical study or a meta-analysis of the literature. Several of Mercers’ opinions are stated as facts where they are not.
  • Much of the language violates neutral point of view and is inconsistent with the “tone” policy set down in WP:BLPSTYLE.
  • Welch’s condemnation of the extreme methods that this section implies she advocates is not included. See: [10].
  • Several sources do not verify claims. For example, the citations to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Welch et al 2006 paper do not say that a child is forced or restrained during the therapy advocated by Welch. The sources describe a parent embracing a child in a seated position.

I give a sentence by sentence breakdown in more detail below, following my proposed replacement version:

Because of the serious problems noted above, here’s a new version I wrote that I feel would resolve the BLP concerns while maintaining other parts of the section that discuss reasonable critiques rather than launch polemical attacks:

Holding Time and Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace (PPCE)

Welch wrote a 1989 book called Holding Time. [3][4]. Welch’s recommended treatment method in Holding Time involved daily sessions of emotional bonding that were to take place with a child seated on their mother’s lap with the child’s legs wrapped around her waist and their arms tucked under her armpits, and the mother holding the child in this position for up to an hour.[5] Welch claimed that this technique increased communication and emotional connection between parent and child.[3] In 2006, Welch and colleagues introduced a revised version of Holding Time therapy that was called “Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace” (PPCE) therapy.[6]

Welch’s therapy has attracted criticism.[6][7] In 2006, Chaffin et al noted that critics of Welch’s Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace or Holding Time therapies consider the prolonged contact between child and parent to be “coercive or humiliating,” while proponents of the practice argue that it is “gentle or nurturing” instead.[7] Psychologist Jean Mercer wrote a paper that was critical of Welch’s Holding Time and Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace therapies as well as other forms of attachment therapies, but she also noted in that paper that “No reports of physical or psychological injury are known to have been associated with Welch’s ‘holding time’ or PPCE”.[6] Mercer also argued that Welch should be considered the originator of several forms of attachment therapies that involved holding.[6] According to PBS NewsHour in May 2017, “some of Welch’s ideas were… co-opted by other practitioners to promote increasingly physical and coercive techniques”, which Welch said she had “nothing to do with”, does not condone and was “devastated to be associated with”.[3]


  1. ^ Lee, Mary (9 December 1988). "`Holding Time' Designed to Enhance The Bond Between Mother and Child". Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
  2. ^ Welch, Martha; Northrup, Robert; Welch-Horan, Thomas B.; Ludwig, Robert J.; Austin, Christine L.; Jacobson, Judith S. "Outcomes of Prolonged Parent–Child Embrace Therapy among 102 children with behavioral disorders": 3-12. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2005.09.004. Retrieved 4 March 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Brangham, William (31 May 2017). "The science of nurturing and its impact on premature babies". PBS NewsHour. Retrieved 4 March 2021.
  4. ^ Welch, Martha (1988). Holding Time. Century. p. 256. ISBN 0712634568.
  5. ^ Lee, Mary (9 December 1988). "`Holding Time' Designed to Enhance The Bond Between Mother and Child". Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
  6. ^ a b c d Mercer, Jean (December 15, 2016). "Evidence of Potentially Harmful Psychological Treatments for Children and Adolescents". Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 34 (April 2017): 107–125. doi:10.1007/s10560-016-0480-2. S2CID 152259220. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
  7. ^ a b Chaffin, Mark; Hanson, Rochelle; Saunders, Benjamin E.; Nichols, Todd; Barnett, Douglas; Tulane, Zeanah; Berliner, Lucy; Egeland, Byron; Newman, Elana; Lyon, Tom; LeTourneau, Elizabeth; Miller-Perrin, Cindy (2006). "Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems" (PDF). Child Maltreatment. University of Washington. 11 (1): 76–89. doi:10.1177/1077559505283699. PMID 16382093. S2CID 11443880. Retrieved April 18, 2022.

I’ve focused the section so it describes Welch’s work, then accurately describes the academic criticism of it. However, I have removed statements from the existing version that do not specifically involve a criticism of Welch. Again, Welch’s work should not be conflated with the body of attachment therapy, most of which is contrary to Welch’s therapeutic recommendations and which she has condemned.

For those who want an in-depth look at the problems with the current section, below I have highlighted the issues in individual sentences:

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1: This sentence improperly orients the section around criticism of a controversial therapeutic movement called attachment therapy rather than Welch’s specific work, which has been considerably more mainstream. This sentence also contains WP:TMI about various names given to forms of attachment therapies (including those developed by scholars other than Welch).

Paragraph 1, Sentence 2: This sentence is WP:COATRACKING since it is about attachment therapies more broadly, not about Welch or her specific work in this field.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 3: This sentence uses non-neutral language (e.g., “forcing a child”) to present a critic’s POV in the voice of Wikipedia. It is also unsourced and inaccurate. For an accurate description of Welch’s therapeutic recommendations, please see [2006 PAPER].

Paragraph 1, Sentence 4: This sentence cites a Welch et al 2006 paper which implies that Welch advocates a therapy practice involving mothers lying on top of larger children while supporting themselves with their elbows. However, the 2006 Welch et al paper does not propose or even mention this technique.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1: This sentence is original analysis WP:FORUM, WP:COATRACKING and fails WP:Verify. It blackens Welch’s name by obliquely referencing incidents that injured or killed children that have nothing to do with Welch or her work.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 2: This sentence inappropriately presents Jean Mercer’s argument as fact in the voice of Wikipedia with the phrase “has pointed out”, which implies that Mercer’s view is not just an opinion. As was already discussed above, Mercer’s POV should be carefully attributed to her and presented as an argument instead of being dressed up as established and well-accepted medical “fact”.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 4: Here again, this statement should be attributed directly to Mercer, but is being presented more neutrally with a WP:WEASEL use of “They”.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 5: This report does offer criticisms of attachment therapies, but it only discusses Welch in the context of her book Holding Time. At no point in their report do the authors explicitly criticize Welch or her specific work in this field.

Thanks for considering this request. KnollLane55901 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is something of a WP:WALLOFTEXT, but my opinion on these types of issues is usually the same: we shouldn't be isolating controversies at all. They should just be written into the biography as part of her career. If it doesn't fit as part of her career, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with Thebiguglyalien here. You'd do best to try tackling these issues one at a time, because trying to respond to all your points at once will be very difficult, to say the least. I also think it off-balances an article to have anything negative walled off in a section labeled "controversies". First, a controversy is a "large, widespread public debate". It's not a lawsuit, or an argument, or a speeding ticket, or whatever. One person deeming something is controversial does not a controversy make. Second, it's like loading all the heavy stuff on one side of the boat; you'll tip it over. It just throws the whole article off balance, which becomes a serious NPOV issue. Negative info should be worked into the timeline right along side the positive. (Besides, it's far more believable that way and reads better.) A benefit of doing it that way is it's easier to judge weight and balance, and helps to weed out all the fluff, so that's where I would recommend starting. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went through and again removed all the synth/contracting I found and worked a bit into the career section. This was very similar to the content that I removed oh so long ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These problems seem to have been addressed in the most recent version.[11]
I agree that using sources that do not mention the subject is implicit synthesis and hence a violation of BLP. Also, criticism sections should be avoided and instead should be placed in the relevant sections of articles.
However, one sentence in the current text violates WP:WEASEL: "Welch claimed the technique could lower the risk of autism in children, for which she was later criticized." Also, none of the sources used for the sentence are MEDRS compliant.
TFD (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum[edit]

I've found content under Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum#Princess Haya escape which are not supported by the sources used and in this edit and the three that followed I removed content (see edit summaries for why.)

User User:Woufeq reverted these twice and refuses to discuss. Can others here please take a look at the section? I'm new and don't know how to resolve this dispute. FossilWave (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FossilWave, you need to post a neutral discussion thread on the talkpage of the article, citing all the reliable independent sources you can find, and inviting editor discussion. Do not edit war. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Softlavender The dispute is over me wanting to remove unsourced content on a biogaphy. The user the dispute is with, has refused to discuss. I've done what you've suggested, I'm posting here precisely so others can take a look at the section, and I can avoid turning this into an edit war. FossilWave (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FossilWave, to repeat, you need to post a neutral discussion thread on the talkpage of the article, which you have not done. Here are your edits: [12], and here is the talkpage of the article: [13]. Nowhere on that articletalk page have you opened a discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Softlavender I don't understand. How will making a new topic on the talk page help when the person who disputes my edits refuses to discuss? If the idea is to get others to notice the issues, isn't that what this noticeboard is for? FossilWave (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FossilWave, you cannot possibly claim that someone "refuses to discuss" unless you post a neutral discussion thread on the talkpage of the article (and ping that editor to participate), which you have not done. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Softlavender In my first reply, the text "refused to discuss" links to my talk page, perhaps you missed it. In reply to a comment the user left, I explained my case and invited them to discuss where I went wrong. They then replied with "I don't like to discuss anymore." I guess I could have been clearer. You can read the exchange: I hope you can consider my edits and help me in cleaning up the disputed section now that this is clarified. FossilWave (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FossilWave, discussion of article content must always occur on articletalk, never usertalk. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Softlavender I don't see what that will help with. As I pointed out, if the goal is to get the attention of users other than the one reverting my edits, isn't that achieved by my posting here? Isn't the point of this noticeboard to draw attention to issues in biographies? FossilWave (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FossilWave, at this point you are wasting everyone's time (and could be sanctioned for that). A highly experienced editor has explained to you four times exactly what you need to do. You can either continue to ignore that and at best probably achieve nothing or at worst be sanctioned yourself for wasting the community's time, or you can follow policies and guidelines and do that and achieve an outcome that will at least begin to be within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's up to you. I invite you to read WP:DISCUSSFAIL. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FossilWave: Ultimately any case where you're saying someone 'refuses to discuss' and what we see when we visit the talk page is that the editor who 'refuses to discuss' has edited the talk page relatively recently [14] (albeit removing their comments for some reason), and the editor complaining has never touched it, is not a good look for the editor complaining. My assumption is that whenever an editor persistently refuses to open a discussion on the talk page, this is because they don't have a reasonable argument so are afraid to do so. If you wish to disprove my assumption start a discussion on the article talk page. While seeking help on BLPN can be helpful, it shouldn't be considered a substitute for discussing on the talk page especially on an article where it's likely there are a fair few talk pages watchers. Also, as SoftLavender has said you cannot claim someone refuses to discuss if you've made no reasonable attempt at discussion yourself. And the minimum for a reasonable attempt has to be opening a discussion on the article talk page. While leaving a comment on an editor's talk page or on BLPN can be helpful, you really need to start an article talk page discussion and give the editor time to respond before you make any claims about the other editor refusing to discuss. If your certain the other editor will not respond, again there's no reason for you to be afraid of doing it, just do it and prove your belief! Otherwise we have a silly childish game like the classic 'they started it' where one child is blaming the other for starting a fight none of which generally justifies continued fighting; except in this case what we have is two editors waiting for the other discuss instead of just making the effort themselves. One editor has to just buck up and start the bloody discussion or we never get anywhere. Yes this happens a lot and it's always very silly so you can forgive our frustration when someone does it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nil Einne Here are the words of the editor: "... For reminder, I dont want any discussion with you. I am not obliged to do something I dont want to." and "I don't like to discuss anymore. Thanks" These are on my talk page where I have now made two attempts to discuss, explaining my case. I did not mention this up till now but I would especially like you to look at the history of my talk page where you will find their original reply insulted me after which they blanked the section. I linked to these twice in this thread. Perhaps you can now see why I have insisted on help and attempted to avoid unnecessarily engaging with the user again. FossilWave (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I noticed that our article does use a court judgment which is concerning, however for something as high profile as this, I find it very unlikely there is anything significant from the court judgment that our article says that cannot be sourced via some reliable secondary source. So whatever BLP problems exist are likely to be minor ones. For example you seem to be concerned of the the issues of the subject taunting over his ex-wife over her affair with a bodyguard but this seems to be supported by this source [15]. If it's true that none of the current sources beside the judgment mention the bodyguard or taunting thing, this needs to be corrected. But the fact this is likely a case of simply the wrong sources used rather than the content being unsourceable and it's on such a high profile figure, means you're always likely to receive limited interest from BLP regulars. Note also that while technically including inline sources which aren't be used to support anything our article says may be a BLP issue, if these are reliable secondary sources and again given how high profile the subject is, it's a very minor one, so again something likely to receive limit interest from BLPN regulars. (And frankly all of the sources seem to be about the subject's "dispute" with his ex-wife so it seems unlikely any of them are that irrelevant, at best superfluous.) Including sources which aren't reliable is more of an issue, but the only one where this may apply it the Evening Standard. So many reasons why you should concentrate on discussion at the article talk page. If you really can't resolve some dispute via the article talk page, you could try bringing it here after trying to discuss on the article talk page. That is likely to be more productive than jumping here in the first instance. Likewise if it's feared some content while relating to the subject of the article, goes into too much details about other living persons such as his ex-wife or children, that is also something which will likely receive more interest. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nil Einne As I noted in my previous comment, I have tried twice now to discuss with the user. If you have the time, could you take a look at the changes I made in this and this edit I made in the article? The edit summaries explain the issues. FossilWave (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FossilWave: and again, as far as any editor actually reviewing the dispute is concerned, you haven't done jack shit since you've never touched the article talk page. Meanwhile the editor you're complaining about has. And our assumption is going to be you're afraid of going to the article talk page since you know you have no reasonable argument. Why else would you spend all this time arguing over why you don't need to to the most basic requirement to resolve the dispute i.e. actually opening a talk page discussion, instead of just opening one? Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've grown sick of the stupidity of this dispute and have open a discussion Talk:Mohammed bin_Rashid Al Maktoum#Dispute over Princess Haya escape section. As I said there, please discuss your dispute there or somewhere on the talk page, if you want to continue to make changes or the reverts you've been making. If either of you is going to persist in making changes but refuses to discuss those changes somewhere on the article talk page, I'll ask for you to be blocked. And frankly, I don't care which of you it is and what arguments you may have about trying to discuss it elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick Criado[edit]

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.

Content in Patrick Criado not supported by the sources used is repeatedly added in the article by several drive-by IPs [16] [17], [18], [19], [20]. Content is presumably a WP:BLP violation. On the internet I've only found hits linking both names (the article's subject and his purported couple) in es:wikipedia and a wikipedia mirror, let alone in an actual reliable source.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest requesting for page protection since the issue is vandalism. FossilWave (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have gone ahead and requested protection. FossilWave (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Murat Karayılan[edit]

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

Various edit warring over what appears to me to be a poorly sourced claim of death (in addition to other disruptive edits by an IP unrelated to his death). No other sources seem to have picked up what this source says, and unless something is lost in translation they aren't 100% sure whether he's dead anyway, repeatedly describing it only as a claim and not even saying who is actually claiming it. Kathleen's bike (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grace Byers[edit]

A virtual stalker by the name of Carlos Lobos keeps adding false information to her page. This virtual stalker, Carlos Lobos, continuously undermines the credibility of her page by adding fabricated details and spreading misinformation. Despite her efforts to maintain accuracy and authenticity, his persistent actions make it challenging for her to provide reliable content to her audience.  He cited that they were married and had three children; this is false. Carlos Lobos's relentless behavior not only damages her reputation but also poses a threat to her personal life. The false claim of marriage and children is not only misleading but also invades her privacy, causing distress and potential harm. Her family and friends have been diligently monitoring the page, but he keeps updating it with untruths. This is concerning for multiple reasons: 1. He claims they were married and procreated when she was a child. 2. She has a current restraining order issued against the man. 3. He has been notified to stop attempting to contact Grace. There is no credible source, online or otherwise, that can confirm that Grace was married to this cyber attacker.  Please help us remain vigilant or put a stop to furthering the trauma of a cyber stalker. It is crucial to take immediate action in such cases to protect Grace's safety and well-being. 

Is there anything we can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandyzblessed m (talkcontribs) 13:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish has revdel'd the content and blocked the editor. Schazjmd (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also watchlisted the article. I was a bit busy when I was revdelling, but I think I got it all with no collateral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a proposal on the article Talk page to add content to the lead of this article based on a tweet by Keen-Minshull that states:

I’m not a feminist. I am grateful to feminists of the past for the many freedoms I enjoy. But feminism has been taken over by pimps, punters, pro men pretending to be women, pro womb rental, anti child morons. Stop trying to tell me that I should be a feminist….

Additional participation in this discussion is welcome. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify, it is not a single tweet; KJKM has said many times, including on video, that she is "not a feminist". [21][22][23][24][25] The current debate is (if I understand correctly) whether these statements are WP:V and WP:RELY per WP:BLPSELF, and whether the "not a feminist" identification should or should not be added to the article, which currently calls her a "women's rights activist". (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, WP:BLPSPS clearly says we can source this information to Keen-Minshull herself. It's not (despite Beccaynr's claims) "unduly self-serving", and obviously so because it's a simple self-description that is if anything slightly against her best PR interests. Nor is it (again despite Beccaynr's claims) involving third parties: there are claims about third parties in some of the original sources but we don't repeat those claims nor do we use it to source any such claims. Loki (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're mistaken, any self description is inherently self-serving. In fact it's a key example of the sort of thing we're supposed to avoid. Otherwise we'd be adding crap like people calling themselves climate change scientist or vaccinologist when no one familiar with that these terms mean would remotely agree with that self description. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would note that having looked into this further, I've found a bunch of sources that do briefly touch on the "not a feminist" thing but only in a very limited way and often without even clarifying whether she's said it or in what contexts. So it seems there is even more reason to exclude as reliable secondary sources despite being aware there is some dispute on the issue, have by and large felt it not worth clarifying further. E.g. [26] [27] [28] [29]. The only source I found which did is [30] but unfortunately it's a discussion programme so not really a source suitable for a BLP. (I'm ignoring crap like Daily Mail obviously.) As I said on the talk page, why this is, isn't really my, or our business, we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The talk page has soundly rejected this interpretation but also let me explain my personal issue with this claim:
Self-descriptions are indeed sometimes self-serving. In fact, on the very page in question we have a talk page note saying that we call her an anti-trans activist instead of her self-description as a women's rights activist because that's what the sources say. But just because some self-descriptions are self-serving, that doesn't mean that every self-description is self-serving. That's like saying that because some food is tasty all food is tasty. It's just a very basic fallacy. We need to actually use our judgement as to whether something is "unduly self-serving", there's no hard-and-fast rule.
In this particular case, "not a feminist" is slightly self-defeating, measured by the fact that supporters of Keen-Minshull often assume she's a feminist while opponents often loudly deny that she's a feminist.
The sourcing issues I think are fairer, but we do have at least one reliable source for this. Although it's audio-only, it clearly has both the interviewer and the expert (and a recording of Keen-Minshull herself) all agree that she's not a feminist. And besides the reliable source, we have Keen-Minshull saying over and over and over that she's not a feminist, which is important to clarify because other sources get this wrong all the time, and assume because she identifies as a women's rights activist, she therefore identifies as a feminist. Loki (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note that I stick by my earlier view on using Keen-Minshull tweets as the sole source for the claim, as a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB first criterion. But I'm lazy to debate it further. And for the article, I now consider it a moot point. I've found a source which I consider sufficient to add the claim in the article if editors feel it's important. (I'm still surprised at how hard it has been to find this given that Keen-Minshull isn't someone who has avoided the interest of RS, but whatever I don't care enough to argue it's WP:UNDUE.) For more details, check out the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emily Austin and Emily Austin Perry[edit]

Last time I brought up Emily Austin redirecting to Emily Austin instead of Emily Austin Perry it went down like a lead balloon. I fought the good fight and when the motion got resoundingly beaten, I accepted that decision. No problem. I'm only writing now because twice in the last couple of weeks, there were considerable spikes in page views to Emily Austin. 9,738 on September 2 and 12,065 on September 16. Does this in any way change things vis a vis who Emily Austin should redirect to? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO this is one of the consistent errors of RM -- titles are navigational aids, not statements of something's value, and because Wikipedia is a living document it is a feature rather than a bug if navigation methods change routinely as their targets ebb and flow. Having said that, 1. by prior experience with RM this is still extremely unlikely to get through, 2. this is technically the wrong forum, and 3. in practice the least bad solution for a lot of these is to propose a disambiguation page rather than a primary topic. Vaticidalprophet 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for responding. I looked at the noticeboard for page moves and its only for requested moves. I wasn't going to go through process again unless people thought there was merit in doing so. Where is the correct forum to write post this?
My point then and now is that you have someone who is known as Emily Austin vs someone who sometimes is referred to as as such. For 100+ years, Emily Austin Perry was the most notable Emily Austin, but I would counter that in 2023, she isn't. If everyone else disagrees, fair play :)
All I'd like clarification on, is at what point, this could change? I won't bring this up again till that happens. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree Vaticidalprophet that there's a big difference between proposing a disambiguation page vs a redirect so when will depend on a lot on which one you're asking about. This case is somewhat complicated, Emily Austin Perry is clearly a way more significant figure in terms of long term significance frankly if you want to put it in numerical terms by at least one order of magnitude than Emily Austin the journalist is. This is tempered by the fact Emily Austin Perry has multiple names. But still this extreme difference in long term significance means that any proposal to make Emily Austin the primary topic is only likely to succeed if Emily Austin gains that long term significance which is likely to take many years at a minimum barring something extraordinary. You won't need something quite so extreme for a disambiguation page, but still some indication that this is is someone of wide interest e.g. coverage over a longer term and in sources which are more selective in what they cover would likely help. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your very thorough answer. I really appreciate it. So the spike in views doesn't change a thing and thus there is nothing to do here now. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, while not relating to living persons, I've often considered Java a good example of the complexities of what is the primary topic for an article. I think for the entire life of the articles Java (programming language) has gotten more views than Java which is (and has generally been) our article on the island. Currently it's 143,468 vs 52,464 over 30 days and at least so of those 52k were likely people wanting to go to the programming language article or somewhere else (whereas probably very few people ending up on the programming language wanted to go elsewhere, except maybe a few for Java (software platform) or JavaScript). And I think the view counts have had a bigger differences in the past. I'd actually hardly be surprised if at least in the early days of our articles, more people also wanted to go to Coffee or something related to that rather than the article on the island. However whenever it's come up, the consensus has generally been strongly against the programming language being the primary topic, and fairly against even Java being a disambiguation page. (There have been some cases when the situation was changed but I think these were all fairly unilateral moves.) Editors just fundamentally disagree that an island of 152 million people, currently the world's most populous island, should be anything other than the primary topic. (Noting also the names of pretty much everything else came from the island one way or the other.) While the issues when you have two humans are obviously not going to be the same I think it does illustrate why for better or worse, editors may not just take view counts or what readers are looking for as the ultimate arbiter. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jim foster baseball[edit]

Jim Foster (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jim Foster has not been fired from Northwestern University. He was relieved of his duties due to false allegations and reports that are currently being investigated [1] and he is pursuing legal action against all media outlets and individuals involved.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimFoster-TheTruth (talkcontribs) 21:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this an argument about semantics? Fired vs. "relieved of his duties?" It's not like he was laid off. No opinion on the allegations or investigation. --Onorem (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ESPN says he was "fired". [31] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add another ref to the article for the wording "fired". And yes, he apparently is taking legal action, but teh OP's link to the legal firm's page doe s not tell us anything.Meters (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new source (July 14) says that Foster was fired "on Tuesday" and was "initially suspended for two weeks without pay prior to his firing". Since July 14 was a Friday, it appears that Foster was fired on Tuesday July 11, not July 13 as our article claims. I'll fix it. Meters (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, the original ref specifies Thursday, and other sources agree so I'll leave it. Meters (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current information is extremely outdated.

Need help in updating the information. There are ample references to support the new information.

Will try to avoid external links if it violates the norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebaratiG (talkcontribs) 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DebaratiG, you should first discuss your reverted edits on Talk:Subramaniam Ramadorai. Don't remove existing refs. Don't insert external URLs in the body, except as sources between <ref> tags. Don't use promotional language (such as "Due to his keen passion"). Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure DebaratiG (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2023).
Please help me identify the sentences and paragraphs where the citations are needed for verification. DebaratiG (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don Bingle[edit]

The wikipedia page for me has been wildly out-of-date and innaccurate for years. There is plenty of more recent and more accurate information about me online, including my complete writing resume, at my website at If anyone want to help out, please take a look there and please fix this. You can feel free to grab pics, book covers, details about my books, and more there. Also, information about my gaming history can be foound at Thanks for any help you are willing to give. Donald J. Bingle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:700:4A50:B5C8:FCD2:D64D:AAA5 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Don. Unfortunately, personal websites and other self-published sources are not considered reliable sources (for most types of info) for Wikipedia's purposes. As an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source, which means means we get most of our info from WP:Secondary sources, which are things like, books, magazines, newspaper articles, reliable websites, etc... Like most people, you may be thinking, what could be more reliable than getting it from the horse's mouth? The simple answer is that most people have a rather biased opinion of themselves and personal websites tend to be rather self-serving. Plus, secondary sources are how we determine the weight and balance of information. Unfortunately, this means we cannot always be up to date on our information, but then again we're not facebook. An encyclopedia should be written in a perfect or timeless perspective, just as we would if it was a paper encyclopedia which would never get updated. The best thing you could do to help update the article is to provide some reliable sources on the talk page, and request your changes there. Please review our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and try to avoid editing the article yourself. Thanks, and I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like some help on the Lou Engle article. The "Controversies" section has, I think, spun out of control, but there is lots of sourced information there and I don't want to gut the whole thing. (I am involved but I don't really want to be.) StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my God (no pun intended), that is awful. Not only do we have a controversy section, but it's broken into subsections of no more than a sentence or two each, with big, bold headlines above them. This is the perfect example of how not to write an article. I see a lot of unreliable sources there, such as Glaad and Rightwingwatch. There's no narrative to it whatsoever. It's literally just a list of allegedly negative things he's done, which makes it come off as a total smear job. That needs way more work than I have time for at the moment, but I fully agree, it needs work and is a serious BLP issue. Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree regarding presentation (subheadings) and sourcing. I also think controversy is part of this subject's lasting biographical notability. That a dedicated half the article space and a third of references relate to the subject's notoriety is WP:UNDUE. What's reliably sourced should be streamed into the body in a timeline order. There should never be a judgment section. JFHJr () 05:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick glance shows that there is little coverage of controversy in the "controversies" section. There are plenty of things he said that do not speak well to him, perhaps, but unless there is some kickback to them, they aren't controversies. A theoretical statement of "Gay people eat puppies" would only be a controversy once someone responded "no they don't!" (Just as a counterexample, Lou Engle#Anti-Muslim comments in Singapore does document a controversy, as it shows folks feeling the need to apologize for his speaking and saying he would not be welcome to do so again.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There also appears to be copyvio issues with the controceries section, note the very close phrase between it and the GLAAD article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the way the controversy section was written invited people to pile on. Many of the controversies did not have strong sources. I have attempted to reorganise in a more neutral way.[32] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to Ghaffari surname[edit]

There is an issue of religion The edits we have made regarding Judaism and its relationship to this surname exists edits has constantly been removed we are trying to explain that the Ghaffari surname exists in the Jewish community in Iran there have never been any citations or sources because the Iranians have never recognized Jewish people please help in making this page more inclusive and including information about the “Jewish” Ghaffari’s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishsephardic (talkcontribs) 16:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be making changes based on you own personal knowledge. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you need to find a reliable source that has already published what you wish to add. If you continue making changes in the way you are, they will likely be reverted as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - So I wasnt to say upfront that I'm affiliated with Aria Finger. That said, I believe that the material about the walkout on her page violates Wikipedia standards. There was an independent investigation into the allegations and it found no racial bias or discriminatory intent and Finger was reinstated as CEO. Here is a statement from the Board about it ( Given that and the fact that the walkout sentence cites sources of dubious quality and the articles contain no investigative journalism, the sentence includes essentially unsubstantiated allegations and I think it should be deleted. I'd also suggest that even if the fact that the walkout happened is appropriate content for a biography of a living person wikipedia page, saying it was "in protest of racial abuse" is inflammatory and should be deleted. Thank you for reviewing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) I've reverted the latest edit that replaced the content that was not supported by WP:RS, violated WP:BLP guidelines, and presented WP:UNDUE weight. I've also watched the page. 2) IP OP, please consider registering an account and making sure you're logged in before editing. 3) Please see WP:COI for good ways for you to participate in the consensus process – again, registering an account helps. But coming here is a good step when you have a conflict of interest. Kudos. 4) And to everyone else reading: the edit history looks like a sock drawer, doesn't it? JFHJr () 00:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This subject's notability is hard to make out. This one could also use a sourcing check. JFHJr () 00:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jonah Paffhausen page is having repeated problems with an anonymous editor pasting in contentious, poorly sourced accusations about Metropolitan Jonah's adherence to Orthodox teaching. The content is defamatory and libelous, and appears to be the product of someone with a personal grudge against Metropolitan Jonah. I ask for the page to receive immediate protection and moderation. --Nepsis2 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a different forum for Requests for Page Protection. I'll be happy to watch the page though. JFHJr () 00:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've blocked the IP range from that page for a month for BLPvio and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article should be deleted because of these reasons: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth).Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines and comment on talk section. [[33]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbcheku (talkcontribs) 06:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you are looking foremost for WP:AFD. For any user behavior issues editing or on talk pages, there's WP:ANI, but if the article is deleted at WP:AFD, the editorial problems may become moot. Cheers! JFHJr () 04:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun potentially libellous material / repeated edits using biased sources.[edit]

This page contains potentially libellous material regarding an accusation by biased sources that Mr. Pannun made threats against Hindi people.

@Suthasianhistorian8 is repeatedly editing the page to add these accusations, the sources they are using fail to mention any "threat" made by Mr. Pannun.

I am requesting Suthasianhistorian8 be blocked from editing the page.

Due to the recent assassination of Harjit singh nijjar, many other Pro-Khalistan leader's pages such as this one are being vandalized by users for emotional reasons. I've also requested this page be temporarily protected from any edits

Crude attempts by an editor with 7 edits to their name to whitewash a controverisal figure, who as the Canadian Press, a highly regarded news organization with extensive ties to the Associated Press, reported, "advised" a religious community to go back to their country of origin as soon as possible and accused them of being disloyal to their nation [34] [35]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no issue if you would like to change "In September 2023, Pannun threatened Indo-Canadian Hindus and advised them to leave Canada"
"In September 2023, Pannun advised Indo-Canadian Hindus to leave Canada"
This is what I've been trying to correct it to, and it seems you're now in agreement Varials (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the Hindustan Times, a source extensively used on Wikipedia, explicitly called it a threat - certainly a reasonable assumption. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the Hindustan Times is objectively a biased source when it comes to Khalistani issues, considering Punjabs and Hindus are in direct opposition when it comes to the issue.
It would be like using "Russia Today" as an unbiased sources on issues related to Urkaine. Varials (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funnily enough, the Hindustan Times was actually founded by a member of the Sikh centric political party Shiromani Akali Dal, which governed Punjab for decades. Hindustan Times is not biased, they called a spade a spade, telling people to go back to their country can 100% be construed as a racist threat. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Hindustan times is Headquarted out of New Delhi, India.
India ranks 161 out of 180 on the world press freedom index
Any source coming out of India must be carefully reviewed as it is likely comes from a source in which the Government of India contains some editorial control.
Therefor, using sources from Indian media on a topic the Indian government is actively and aggressively attacking is ignorant if not malicious.
Anyone would agree that 3rd party, independent sources should be used. When you cited one, it contained no mention of a "threat" being made. Varials (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't make sweeping generalizations that every single Indian news outlet is biased, those that are overtly so such as Swarajya or OpIndia have been deprecated by Wikipedia and can be removed on sight. But there are more neutral outlets, India Today, a prominent news organization, published numerous articles sympathetic to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even the official Public Safety Canada Twitter handle called the video hateful and offensive and suggested it was an act of aggression and intimidation- [36] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global University Systems[edit]

My name is Hanisha and I work for Aaron Etingen. The Global University Systems page was recently changed:

  • From: "Russian-born British entrepreneur Aaron Etingen (also known as Arkady Etingen)"
  • To: "Russian entrepreneur Arkady Etingen (sometimes known as Aaron Etingen)"

Mr. Etingen was born in Russia, but immigrated to Britain as a child and holds British citizenship. The change seems to be designed to emphasize a Russian connection by focusing on his Russian birth name and saying he is a Russian entrepreneur, rather than a British one. However:

  • His British name has 5x the Google hits and is what is used by reliable sources.[37]
  • Reliable sources support the original "Russian-born British entrepreneur" reference.[38]

The phrase "Russian entrepreneur" infers he is working out of Russia with Russian companies. This is harmful to Mr. Etingen's business because of the stigma around Russian affiliation, and is offensive on a personal level, since his wife's home country (Ukraine) was recently attacked by the country the page infers he is affiliated with.

Thank you in advance for looking into it. Best regards. Mstechvision (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mstechvision, that change (Nov 22) was the only edit made by a new account, and was unexplained, so I restored the previous version. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And on closer look, I removed "Russian-born" because neither cited source mentions that. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The referenced article and information which I continue to remove is gossip, slander, victimizing and should not be sourced based on the Wiki guidelines: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Thank you for your assistance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by NursePractitioner101 (talkcontribs) 03:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. I've performed a deep revert to the last WP:BLP compliant version. Your edits were also problematic. Please don't source WP:BLPSPS (people talking about each other) from interviews to author WP:UNDUE (extensive) and WP:SYNTH (synthesized and irreverent) prose regarding personal health. As to this being a non-public figure, thanks for the laugh. He's a politician even if he's retired or scandalized or what have you. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). Lastly, you'll find your mileage will improve when you don't begin here, and leave edit summaries, winking at WP:LEGAL. Cheers. JFHJr () 05:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Craig Newmark[edit]

Craig Newmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Folks, I was suggested by an editor to come here with an ongoing request I have on the Craig Newmark article.

It was suggested that the Philanthropy section could use some restructuring into subsections. Which I have been trying to do. I made a draft and tried the COI edit request queue and was told to establish consensus before making an edit request. Following that, I asked at Biographies of living persons and an editor said that wasn't the place to ask for help and suggested WP:BLPN. I did'nt think this would be the best place to post so before coming here, I also tried at WP:BIOG and the Teahouse without success. Since no one else has weighed in on my proposal, I am taking the previous editor's suggestion by coming here to see if anyone is interested. I am happy to take any questions on the Craig Newmark talk page Much thanks, Cnewmark (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be tedious, but focusing on one specific COI edit at a time is usually the best practice. Thriley (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Thriley here, Mr. Newmark. That's a long list of things to tackle all at once. It can be more than a bit overwhelming, to say the least. But let me ask you a serious question: is that actually how you want an article about you to read? No offense, and please take this as constructive, but it reads like an accounting record. A very long and tedious accounting record. It's long and boring and really glosses over what it should be telling us about, which is the subject --this person that the readers want to get to know better. There's an old saying in writing, which traces back to Browning I think: "Less is more". Seriously, if you want that section to look good, adding more is not the way to go. It needs to be a much shorter summary that still encompasses all those wonderful thing that you do. That will read better, be easier to comprehend, and will stick better in the reader's mind. That's what an encyclopedia is all about, cutting all the boring details and whittling it down to the nitty gritty. Less is more. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whenever I hear that a businessman's article has a "philanthropy" section, I raise an eyebrow, because it seems like every businessman who ever lent his gramma five bucks wants to be labeled a philanthropist on Wikipedia for it. I was please to see that in this case it reflects a very legitimate and aggressive philanthropy. However, it's a slog to read, with a lot of "in this period, this cause got this chunk of money and this specific organization got that chunk", with overlapping periods and overlapping chunks. It seems to me that, even though the organization is so closely linked to the man, we have enough material that the organization might have its own web page (Craig Newmark Philanthropies is currently just a redirect to the man). That way, in the individual's article, we could have a good summary paragraph, covering in broad strokes the amounts given, targeted issues, and key recipients. Then the organizations article could have much more detail, with listings of the foundation's structure and the various causes addressed, with those including listings of recipients. Doing that in a separate article would not seem to overwhelm the article. But that's just my view, others may feel that the organization is too linked to the man to be a separate article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a very good idea to me, just to keep the section from getting so bloated. Still, what I would want to avoid is ending up with what is basically a list article, or what I like to call a simple timeline of events. It's important to look at it from the average reader's point of view. What's their attention span? What's easier for them to comprehend, follow, and retain, a history textbook full of dates and events or a simple, short narrative? The question I would ask myself is, how can I take all this information and condense it, squeeze it, and pack it down into a single paragraph? From there, then how can I expand it, elaborating on the first paragraph, to another two paragraphs --four at most-- but no more? Answer those questions and I find I'm on the way to a good looking section. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry Blodget[edit]

Requesting that this line be removed from the first sentence of the page on Henry Blodget: "considered 'one of the great scumbags of our generation'[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr (talkcontribs) 19:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]