Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

The lead of his article indicates he is a writer/author as well as an academic, so I would think MOS:LISTSOFWORKS applies for his publications. I did a quick search through the Wikipedia Library, and it appears he is a well-known author, and his publications have received multiple reviews. Based on his Google Scholar profile, his citation count is 5465, and his h-index is 37. As for how many publications, I'd say his books are fine, but his journal articles, I'm not sure. Pinging David Gerard who might offer his insight. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a lot of books, I tend to just books. Basically Wikipedia doesn't need the subject's entire academic CV - it's an encyclopedia article. Maybe items that are Wikipedia-notable in their own right? - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of scientists without publications is really just showing that those articles could be fleshed our better.

Obviously, we don't need to list every publication, especially for contemporary scientists who do a lot of publishing, but we should be listing key works and for humanities scholars it's typical to list all books (breaking off the list into a separate article of necessary.) Jahaza (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Crick's article doesn't break out a list of papers, but it does cite about 15 of his scientific papers in the footnotes. (And has a list of his books.) Jahaza (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reemphasize my original point, I am here addressing lists of primary publications (e.g., journal articles) excluding books and review articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the right policy to consider is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That said, I agree with what seems to be consensus that books (which are generally substantial efforts) are generally worth listing. Journal articles not as much: my opinion is that a list of 3 higher impact papers is generally somewhat worthwhile to include, and that this could be _slightly_ longer in some circumstances. 45 seems over-long in most circumstances, and I think would typically violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My sense from having encountered many short bio pages for scientists and other academics is that a "Selected publications" list might have 3 or so papers. Generally they're the most-cited, or the most influential by some other metric. Including 45, even if they're culled from an even longer list, is way out of line with standard practice. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some pertinent considerations may include:

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

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

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

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

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

• Reem Alsalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seeing a lot of activity by SPAs/new or infrequently active users on the Reem Alsalem article both adding and removing content [1], which seems to be related to the subjects contentious views on transgender topics. Would it be possible for BLPN regulars to take a close, neutral look at the article to make sure that is complaint with BLP (I have only limited familiarity with the topic so don't feel qualified to judge) and watchlist to make sure that BLP violations are removed in the future. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there seems to be WP:WEIGHT issues with some of her views covered by non-RS like Unherd per RSN.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, went through a citation by citation cleanup[3] and *whistle* removed a bunch of competing viewpoints by Alsalem and advocacy organisations without actual secondary RS coverage to establish weight. Some of the supporting secondary sources were downright laughable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Woops, as I posted this, @InklingF reverted, but a little discussion about the relevant policies and how to go about this sort of thing wouldn't go amiss :) (also, just in case it comes up again, as it might...) Weirdguyz (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of this posting, there are two brief sentences in the personal life section, and there is no BLPVIO there. And the person purporting to be the subject of the article has been given a COI notification, which is the proper course of action. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact wikipedia you are wrong because fearne cotton is not a vegan so get your facts right 148.252.147.153 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recent unexplained change ([4]). As the cited sources both describe her as pescatarian, I have reverted to that – though those sources are now five years old. Is she still a pescatarian? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this says she is vegan now. She's also written a vegan recipe book. Nthep (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counterintuitively in their cookbook "Happy Vegan" they say they aren't vegan: "Here's the disclaimer bit: whilst this book is 100 per cent vegan, I'm not", but that was in 2019. I found other more recent dubious [5][6] or unreliable [7] sources making the same vegan claim. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is an interview with Cotton and is therefore probably reliable as WP:ABOUTSELF. I've had a go at rewriting to incorporate this Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia account of Ernest G. Green's biography is inaccurate. It fails to include mention of his first wife, Judith Mason, the mother of two of Green's children: Adam Paul Green and Jessica Green. Ernest and Judith were married in 1963 in Lansing (or East Lansing), Michigan. They divorced approximately ten years later. Both parties remarried. I urge the editors at Wikipedia to verify these facts, with Ernest and/or with Adam and Jessica. Adam Green is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Chicago. 170.85.71.28 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please point us to a reliable source with the information you've written above. Without a reliable source, this information about living persons, even if true, would not be included. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I removed two unsourced entries from the infobox at this article because they were neither discussed nor sourced elsewhere in the body of the article. JFHJr (㊟) 22:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed there was no personal life section in the article that mentioned a wife or children, and no sources for the wife/children, but a link in the external links sect does indicate his wife is Phyllis and has three children. As for the first wife, I found two news clippings from 1963, one that says he was married to the former Judie Paulin, and then a marriage license notification that says Judith P. Mason, so with the uncertainty surrounding his first wife, better sources are needed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon I have attempted to make changes to Natasha Asghar MS's wikipedia as it very negative and none of her achievements are listed there as it should be to be fair and truthful. However the system is not letting me do it. Her Mayor of London candidacy has been mentioned twice and it does not need to be listed there over and over again, hence I attempted to remove it from the 1st paragraph as it is part of her politictical career and I was stopped from publishing my changes which have been fully sourced and from proper sites.

Please see below:

She was awarded devolved politician at the House of Commons for he work in relation to the 20MPH campaign in Wales in 2024 ^[1] and she was also awarded the Iron Lady Award in the House of Lords for her contribution in politics.^[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushiroll12345 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’d like input on the article Nate Morris, a BLP that has recently undergone politically significant edits.

On 28 June 2025, editor Bram880 added a statement that Nate Morris had announced a bid for the U.S. Senate on a podcast with Donald Trump Jr.

On 30 June 2025, the same editor added a follow-up stating that Morris was endorsed by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point Action.

While both additions appear to be cited, they were added without prior Talk page discussion, despite being politically weighty additions to a biography of a living person. This raises concerns under WP:BLP and WP:NPOV regarding balance and weight.

At the same time, I added cited and neutrally worded content that was reverted by Bram880 without edit summary or discussion. Rather than engaging on the article’s Talk page, they followed up with repeated questions about my identity and whether I had a conflict of interest — all of which I have addressed transparently and in good faith.

I’m requesting input from uninvolved editors on whether this editorial pattern, including the selective handling of political material and lack of collaboration, aligns with Wikipedia’s expectations for neutrality and responsible BLP editing.

I’ve intentionally refrained from making any further edits to the article while awaiting engagement on the Talk page, in line with Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process and to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Thanks. KSUThorobreds (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone adding material without previous discussion is not improper, particularly something as of-note as that the subject is running for office. We consider that WP:BOLD, and we encourage it. You were free to revert, although in that particular case if you had a problem, it probably would've been best just to discuss. You yourself added material without prior discussion, and when it was reverted, you started a discussion... which is what we call the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and is common for Wikipedia editing. About the only failure here is that Bram880 has failed to fruitfully engage in discussion on the Talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and thanks. Bram880 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fundraising material you added[8] was not cited to reliable sources per WP:DAILYCALLER and WP:BLPPRIMARY for OpenSecrets and possibly LegiStorm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

In this talkpage section I removed the word "false" from the section title, but I see the claim repeated in the talkpage. I understand that there is a lot more leeway given to talkpages than to articlespace, but given the accusations which are, as far as I can tell, fairly unsubstantiated (w.r.t whether it is "false" for him to identify as "African American"), do you all think we should WP:BLPREMOVE some of the more egregious commentary? jps (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, yes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, some pretty bad stuff there. I've told one editor they need to take a step back, mentioning the CT alert on AP I gave them. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Content in question – diff

I am bringing this article here following WP:THIRDOPINION advice - see the talk page.

Essentially my issue is that InilanNahklia (talk · contribs) added a large amount of content in a "Controversies" section, which I asserted was a violation of WP:UNDUE. The editor who provided the third opinion, Hipal (talk · contribs), agreed with the undue weight argument (the content was at least 50% of the whole article) but pointed out that there were some BLP issues in what had been added.

This (diff) is the latest version of what was added - I reverted the addition following the third opinion advice, but without any discussion InilanNahklia went against that third opinion and just reinstated it without any explanation or engagement with that third opinion on the talk page.

So now we're at a stalemate. It's a dispute that could go to WP:DR, but for now I think the BLP issues trump that. I have never done a report here or at WP:DR before so excuse me if I fumble in any way. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided some additional feedback at talk. Thank you for alerting us here. JFHJr (㊟) 18:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion regarding possible BLP concerns in the above linked article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Michel DeGraff article has a sequence of editors seeking to add material about a lawsuit against him and MIT, alleging antisemitic harassment. I have been reverting addition, but would like opinions of BLP experts as to whether this is the right thing. I do expect that inclusion is likely to eventually be WP:DUE (but WP:CRYSTAL applies). Arguing against inclusion at this time: 1) sourcing is well short of WP:NPF level, with some coverage in the local press [9] and a fair bit of coverage in the Jewish and Israeli press [10][11]. 2) the lawsuit is ongoing, and we usually prefer to wait for resolution before covering. The main argument in favor of inclusion that I see, is that DeGraff said in an automated email responder that he has been "removed" from the linguistic department (but is still faculty at large at MIT). If we could directly connect such removal with the lawsuit and harassment allegations, then that would be the kind of professional consequence under which we might include the material with the current sourcing. Pinging Ekpyros, who most recently added this material (the other adders were mostly IPs with few other edits). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, which is WP:MREL, his removal from the linguistic department is over public attacks on the university for rejecting his course proposal. There's also a link included in that article to a letter dated November 2024, he claims he received from the dean of the Humanities Department. There's also this source, which backs up the claim he was removed from the department back in November 2024. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... which removes the only case I see for inclusion of the material on the lawsuit at this time. Until someone makes a policy-based argument for inclusion, I will keep reverting as necessary. I guess that this aspect of the article probably falls under WP:ARBPIA, and that edits of non-EC editors can be reverted for that reason if necessary. Thank you, and apologies for missing that the removal from linguistics happened earlier. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching out about a section on Smriti Irani's profile, titled "Trivialising Child Abuse". I've spent a considerable amount of time navigating Wikipedia's policies, and my concern here isn't about personal likes or dislikes. It's about something far more fundamental: ensuring our encyclopedia remains a truly reliable and fair source of information, especially when it comes to living individuals.

My request boils down to a core principle we all cherish: Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP. This policy isn't just a guideline; it's a bedrock principle designed to protect people from potentially damaging claims that aren't impeccably sourced. And frankly, when I look at the "Trivialising Child Abuse" section, my instincts tell me we might be falling short here.

From what I can gather, the content in question seems to originate from reports about an Instagram story – the kind of thing that often gets labeled "viral" or sparks "buzz" in news cycles. While traditional news outlets might report on such online phenomena, we need to ask ourselves: are these types of reports truly robust enough to support such a serious accusation against a living person?

Here's why I'm deeply concerned:

The Nuance of "Viral" Content: Think about how quickly things can be taken out of context on social media. An Instagram post can be fleeting, a single moment captured, then amplified and interpreted in myriad ways. When news sources then report on this "buzz," they're often capturing a public reaction or a narrative that might be heavily sensationalized. This isn't always about factual reporting of an event itself, but rather reporting on the public's emotional response to it.

A Story, Not a Fact: An Instagram story, even if widely discussed, isn't inherently a verified, in-depth public event in the way a legislative debate or a major press conference might be. Basing such a weighty accusation – "trivializing child abuse" – on what appears to be a social media interaction, risks manipulating the narrative and presenting a highly charged interpretation as an undeniable fact. This feels like a perilous path for a serious encyclopedia.

The Fine Line Between Opinion and Fact: We constantly strive for a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. If the sources are primarily reporting on online outrage or opinion surrounding an Instagram post, then we are, in essence, incorporating someone's opinion or a collective interpretation as a factual statement about the subject's actions. This can easily lead to misrepresentation and, frankly, risks maligning Smriti Irani's public image based on what may have been misquoted or misunderstood within the rapid currents of social media. Our role isn't to amplify every public outcry, but to distill verified, balanced information.

In short, for an allegation of this magnitude in a biography of a living person, we need exceptionally strong, dispassionate, and verifiable sources. Reports built around "viral" social media moments, however widespread, often don't meet that very high bar. My worry is that this section, as it stands, could inadvertently vandalize someone's reputation not through malice, but by relying on sources that just aren't designed to support such a heavy burden of proof under WP:BLP.

Given these very serious policy concerns, particularly with the stringent requirements of WP:BLP, I respectfully but firmly request that the "Trivialising Child Abuse" section be removed. When contentious, negative material about a living person is poorly sourced, WP:BLP actually instructs us to remove it immediately, without waiting for prolonged discussion. I believe this situation falls squarely into that category.

Let's ensure Wikipedia remains a place of fairness and accuracy, built on solid, unambiguous facts, not fleeting online interpretations.

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this matter. Leeyong Wang (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took one look at it and removed it. Entirely undue, given the sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J.K. Rowling has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Some1 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This youtuber is (in)famous online solely for his 2021 arrest, which didn't end up with any prosecution or conviction. The Wikipedia policy about biographies says that wikipedians should avoid including information from primary sources on such articles, but this page includes an obscure court document to expose the fact that this guy had tried to change his name, and that he was met with hostile armed men at his house. The policy also says that articles about people only known for one event should not be made, which is apparently the reason why this page had been deleted a week after it was made in 2021. Can people more familiar with this policy take a look? V. S. Video (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the content, but others should look and may want to remove more. PARAKANYAA has already started a deletion discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some kind of edit conflict on this article. Apparently the subject reportedly made stolen valor claims and I believe recently admitted it. Looking at the history of the article there are numerous edits going back and forth about the topic and its coverage. Personally I think there should be some mention of the controversy in the personal life section or military history section but I am not familiar with the policies on BLP information, and im mostly retired from editing myself. I'd hope maybe someone here can do what needs to be done. I should note that the user GeorgeTSW seems to be editing potentially in a biased manner. Here is a diff [12] Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an article on a youtuber, EDP445 (slightly above on this page, actually), and it had a pic of his signature, File:EDP445 sig.svg, in the infobox. My knee-jerk reaction was to remove it since I didn't see it as useful (and I did). Then I looked at where it came from, [13], which seems to be an upload by someone of a 2021 public document.

So, does this use in the article count as a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Signature should not be there in any case. Per Template:infobox person, Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject, and ensure that this information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself. Signature is useful for visual artists, for example, but no reason it should be relevant for a YouTuber. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but people sometimes like to add signatures to all kinds of people, politicians are not that uncommon (like Simon Ekpa), possibly because it's seen as adding some gravitas or whatever. And IMO it does matter if this "case" is a BLP-violation or just a bad stylistic choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced or poorly sourced material keeps being added back to the Josh Kraft article, despite multiple issues around synthesis, original research and just bad use of sources. The material has been removed for such issues but it gets being added back. First time, second time and a third time. The material in question makes contentious claims which are sourced to reddit, text on photos similarly make claims that are either unsourced or one is sourced to an NBC article that makes no mention of Kraft. This has been discussed as well in the talk page but still was added back anyways despite being challenged and very possibly a BLP violation. This mainly revolves around the portion talking about a truck used by Kraft's campaign. SlackingViceroy (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]