biographies Of Living Persons/Noticeboard
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content.
| Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Concerns Over Source Reliability and Verification in the 'Lifestyle' Section of Ed Young's Article
Issue Overview: The "Lifestyle" section of Pastor Ed Young's Wikipedia article primarily relies on an investigative report from WFAA, which is secondarily supported by a Dallas News article. The latter mainly references the former, raising concerns about the independence and verification of the information presented.
Concerns: Source Reliability and Independence: The primary source, WFAA, relies on anonymous sources and lacks substantial corroborative evidence. The Dallas News article does not independently verify the claims but simply references the WFAA report, raising questions about its independence and the verification of its content. 5dondons (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The source from Dallas News is an op/ed column which I wouldn't call a reliable source. It's written in a narrative style, which in itself makes it suspect. Same reason we don't use Forensic Files or Ken Burns documentaries as sources, but if you look closely you can see the author injecting their own opinions. The News 8 (WFAA-TV) source is a well-written news article, and I see no reason it shouldn't be used. Of course, there's a matter of due weight and balance to consider, but I see no reason the source can't be used. Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I agree the Dallas News article's narrative style and op/ed nature make it less suitable as a reliable source for factual content in addition to using the WFAA as its source for the contentious material, particularly in a biography of a living person.
- Regarding the WFAA article, while it is well-written, I agree we must consider the due weight and balance. The reliance of a single source for potentially contentious material in a BLOP is problematic.
- Given these points, we should continue to seek additional independent verification. If we are unable to find additional support for these claims, we may need to reevaluate its inclusion. 5dondons (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hipal doesn't agree its an op/ed however I do, and listed the reasons it is in a reply to him. To address his concern about it being used as a source for other pieces of the article, i have since found new sources for those pieces. I will give more time for other seasoned editors to weigh in however with only 1 source being used for contentious material I don't find grounds for due weight and I believe it should be removed entirely. 5dondons (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The initial source is legit, the second source is not an op/ed but a lifestyle piece, but all it does is confirm that those things were said. As the sentence stand, it's not even an accurate reflection of the source material, as neither source claims that the jet was purchased by the subject or his church; one source says "operated by", the other says it was leased
- We do have enough to say that he was criticized for living a lavish or expensive lifestyle, and the second source citing the first shows that that criticism was seen as significant, but the details are a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- While the clarification on the nature of the sources is helpful, it underscores a fundamental issue: the existing sources do not robustly support the claims made in the "Lifestyle" section of the article. The distinction between "operated by," "leased," and "purchased" significantly affects the factual accuracy of the claims related to Ed Young's lifestyle.
- Furthermore, the narrative style of the Dallas News piece and its reliance on the WFAA report, which itself uses anonymous sources, raises concerns about the overall reliability and independence required for such content in BLOP to ensure it does not perpetuate potentially misleading or unsupported claims. 5dondons (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can a source be counted as 'reliable' if it does not add any additional information on the topic but solely quotes another source? All the Dallas News source does is verify that the WFAA article was written. 5dondons (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. it is reliable for the fact that the WFAA makes its claims, and an indicator that the WFAA coverage is of interest. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wiki articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can a source be counted as 'reliable' if it does not add any additional information on the topic but solely quotes another source? All the Dallas News source does is verify that the WFAA article was written. 5dondons (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Neither of the linked references are used in the article. Why they being brought up rather than the ones in use?
I cannot access either of them. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, these are the articles I was referring to, they are the ones sourced on the page:
- WFAA - https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/prominent-grapevine-pastor-linked-to-luxury/287-338287756
- Dallas News: http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/pastored/ 5dondons (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like user Zaereth clicked the links within the actual article and was able to access them from there. His points should still carry weight. 5dondons (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.
- I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. 5dondons (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just read the Dallas News article again and its definitely an op/ed. It uses a subjective tone, includes the author's opinions, and focuses on broader commentary about Ed Young's ministry practices. It opens with a personal anecdote and provides subjective analyses, such as saying Young "knows how to titillate and provoke." These elements, along with a lack of immediate newsworthiness, mark the piece as an op/ed rather than an objective news report. 5dondons (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, that makes it a magazine-style article, which is an acceptable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Zaereth:, could you respond to the arguments that the Dallas News reference that was actually being used in the article is not an op/ed? --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite receiving attention on and off Wikipedia before and during COP28, there has been no update on Sultan Al Jaber to communicate the results of this event.
I would like to disclose my Conflict of Interest in regards to this article and request some changes to address missing information. I have proposed language on the Talk page for consideration, for which I would gratefully appreciate the review of people familiar with BLP policies to ensure the tone is totally neutral. Many thanks! Dedemocha (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is now live in the COI request queue but would definitely benefit from oversight by editors more familiar with editing BLPs. Dedemocha (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An IP has added content which violates BLP guidelines, specifically unsourced allegations of sexual abuse [1]. I've reverted, but it probably needs to be scrubbed from the history. Similar allegations about this person go back a long way, but reliable sources are rarely, if ever, added. It's a difficult case for various reasons, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Schneider
EDIT: Fixed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I work with Andrew Schneider and can confirm that the photo featured in [| this page] is not him.
The man in this photo is the Andrew Schneider that the above page is referring to.
The erroneous photo is the first image that appears when "Andrew Schneider showrunner" is searched, which has caused confusion at times.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
liang wang
vandalism to article and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly inserted as if factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenwiki2050 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- This user's only contributions to Wikipedia are on Liang Wang's article. There seems to be a conflict of interest. Womenwiki2050 keeps removing allegations which are now part of an ongoing story with responses by Wang's colleagues. The allegations are sadly germane to the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Trumpetrep, this edit you made[2] does not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Kizer said that Wang handed her a drink that she later suspected was drugged. Neither the Vulture nor the NY Times references[3][4] states that he allegedly drugged her when there's another person that could have done it during the night. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The disputed article is Liang Wang (oboist). However, it would be helpful to provide dif links to the disputed edits. In reviewing the misconduct allegations section, it's not clear if Wang should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE v. WP:NPF Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for clarifying. the language is much more accurate. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- good point. may be NPF. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Emil Pagliarulo
At no point did Emil "attack" Starfield's players. He posted claritifications about game development after being the subject of intensive harassment and hate online - harassment which took place shortly after his sister's death. The wording on the following sentence is highly misrepresentative of what he said:
"After the game's mixed reception after launch and further souring in reviews post launch, Pagliarulo attacked the game's players, stating they where "Disconnected from the Realities of Game Developing."
He also didn't "attack" negative reviews. The source provided in the article itself makes that clear.
″Specifically, Pagliarulo attacked negative reviews asking for features common in more modern RPGs that were noticeably absent from Starfield.″
The source used in the article itself makes it clear that Emil isn't wrong about the process being hard, and that he perhaps stirred up the pot unnecessarily:
"Ultimately, Pagliarulo's not wrong. Even getting a small indie project from concept to launch is a Herculean feat, and as much as the "lazy developers" trope has taken hold in recent years, the reality is that just about everyone involved in making a game is fully committed and working hard to make it happen. It really is, as Pagliarulo said, just about a miracle that a lot of these games ever see the light of day."
The wording on Emil's article is unnecessarily aggressive, not to mention based on false information, directly feeding hateful discourse around game developers online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.0.171.152 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Max Lugavere
I would like to raise the following talk page topic for review:
https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Max_Lugavere#%22Known_for_Fringe_Dietary_Claims%22
To summarize, the statement in the article's infobox that Lugavere is primarily "Known for" specifically his "Fringe Dietary Claims" appears to be unsourced.
I believe we need a reliable source(s) that we can clearly attribute to the specific assertion of being primarily known for "fringe dietary claims" or the contentious statement should be revised/removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalem014 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
ravi ravindra
Hi, all - I've updated this page with more links and citations. Kindly suggest if there's something else that needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankalprawal (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sankalprawal, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edit to Ravi Ravindra. Your edit added promotional language ("a prolific writer", "publishing numerous books", "numerous writings in academic publications", "well represented in the Theosophical literature"), too many publications (including what appear to be self-published works), links to lectures and interviews (many of which appear to be copyright violations), and also way too many external links.
- Wiki is an encyclopedia. We're here to dispassionately summarize what reliable, secondary, independent sources have written about the subject. That means reputable newspaper and magazine articles, book, and other sources about Ravi Ravindra. Those are the types of citations that the article needs. Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Aaron Maté
The introduction to this article is filled with contentious and potentially libellous material which is very poorly sourced - almost exclusively from The Jewish Chronicle, a paper widely known for aggressive smears against it's political opponents.
Attempts to remove the material, as per the BLP policy, is repeatedly reverted by obviously disingenuous editors.
Please consider protecting this page from further vandalism and smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirik1 (talk • contribs)
- @Peirik1: The Jewish Chronicle, per WP:Perennial sources, is judged as "generally reliable". The material in question (Maté's reporting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria) is sourced to The Guardian (also considered generally reliable) and Monthly Forecast, a publication of an organization known as Security Council Report, an independent organization that monitors and reports on activities of the United Nations Security Council. The material to which you object may not be pleasant, but it is backed by reliable sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics.
- To therefore suggest that this source is in any way reliable about a far-left blog like The Greyzone, is borderline ridiculous.
- Regarding the Guardian source I refer to my other comments on the talk page. Peirik1 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Jewish Chronicle is used to cite the fact that Maté works for The Grayzone. Your edits don't dispute that fact; you've left that fact in your version of the article. So what's the problem? If your problem is with the characterization of The Grayzone as supportive of Russia, Syria and China, there are multiple sources cited to verify those claims. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Sunny Hostin journalist or commentator
The introduction to this article refers to Sunny Hostin as a journalist and I question that considering she never received a journalism degree, she never was a news anchor, or wrote for newspapers or magazines. She's been on TV as a political and social commentator and legal analyst. On her own website she refers to herself specially as being "widely known as a social commentator and has covered many of the major legal, political, and cultural community stories of today". It's more appropriate to describe her as a social commentator and/or legal analyst than a journalist. I know there are several sources which describe her as a "journalist" but I can't find any sources with evidence of her journalism career. There needs to be a distinction between actual journalists and television personalities. The One I Left (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you. KyleJoantalk 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seems entirely reasonable to call her a journalist given that a wide range of RSes do. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm questioning whether we should rephrase to "legal journalist" per my reasoning on her talk pageThe One I Left (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)