Talk:David Hirlav

I have substantially revised the article. The issues raised should now be resolved. FactArchivist (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The references obviously need cleanup. There are multiple duplicate references, and many without basic citation information. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

But that does not really line up with the tags you keep adding and changing as they get disproven. Do you have actual examples for all the tags you put up? PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

disproven That screams AI-written.

Do you not understand {{refexpand}}?

Recovering from an edit-conflict with your comment:

I'm refraining from restoring the ai-tag, though it's a good explanation given the mismatch between the sources and content. The first sentence fails verification. References 3-7 look like public relations pieces. --Hipal (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The refs from OK Magazine, Distractify, Finance Feeds, The Street, and Town Flex look like public relations pieces as well.--Hipal (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie: Could you comment on the revised state of the article? Do you think the reference problems have been addressed since your tagging? What about the ai-generated text? --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Text that may look AI generated has been removed and revised February 25 by me. FactArchivist (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

No longer looks AI (though please remove the Wikipedia:CURLYQUOTE—or run WP:AutoEd, mine won't work). For the sources, don't use OK Magazine (refs 11, 20, 28, 31), Science Times (ref 5, 35), or Distractify (ref 33). It looks a lot better than it did before, and needs some general cleanup, but good job @FactArchivist =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie Thanks. I will work on the sources. FactArchivist (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Checked the text with my AI detector program and the AI issue seems to be resolved. Suggesting removal of tag "ai-generated|date=February 2026" CodeThornton (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@CodeThornton We don't use AI detector programs, same reason we don't use AI. Humans are much more accurate and we know what to look for. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

also known as Tiger Nation appears to be a hallucination that appeared in the creation of this article. I've removed it. Until everything is verified, we've not resolved the ai problems. --Hipal (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like everything is resolved. Over 20 sources and everything has inline citations. Any reason to keep the tags? PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Nope, looks good to me! – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Look again. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For sourcing? Only issue I see is potentially using thestreet. – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

We've not made it past the first sentence yet. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that, however I'm not sure a single inline tag warrants the larger article tags. – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's fix the refexpand problems so it's easier to see how we stand past the first sentence. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I though the AI was already dealt with so I just focused on the references being there and being reliable. – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I assume that verification problems will not be an issue in an article that's been tagged and revised. When they remain, including sloppy ones, something is very wrong. AI use and/or lack of English fluency are likely reasons. Have you ever looked for tools or tips to help identify ai-editing? I've yet to do so. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No, however I have a computer software background and can usually spot AI well. – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Why have the tags been brought back?

The AI issue is solved long time ago. Article is fine, there should be nothing resembling AI. FactArchivist (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I see first sentence again says failed verification. Which part of the sentence is the issue? Is it the birth date or is it the companies? I have cited sources that include all details of the first sentence.

Also the street seems to be fine, it's published by an editorial team of the outlet.

Do you see any other issues with the citing, which parts of the article are not covered well enough? FactArchivist (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

If you are not capable of verifying your own content, then you should find something else to do.

Otherwise, go over it phrase by phrase, fix what you find, then we can look it over again. --Hipal (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The AI issue is solved long time ago. Article is fine, there should be nothing resembling AI. It has also been confirmed several times by other editors such as @LuniZunie that there is no AI language.

If you think otherwise please provide the exact paragraph where you find AI language. If there are no objections to this I will remove the maintenance template for AI language FactArchivist (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie@Hipal|

Regarding "This article needs more complete citations for verification"

Large parts of the article have been removed by @Hipal on March 10. Also several sources have been removed.

"For sourcing? Only issue I see is potentially using thestreet. – LuniZunie(talk)"

@LuniZunie As you have confirmed before the sourcing seems to be fine now. Pl

I have added some new sources and since then it seems to me that all remaining parts have a valid citation. Please let me know if there is still a citation problem and specify it so I can take care of it. FactArchivist (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I never checked if the sources fully supported what they said they did. And there are a lot of signs of AI that I just was not looking for because I assumed they were fixed. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie

I have checked every source in detail and made sure everything written is fully supported. 3 poor sources were already removed so I would like to request the removal of the 2 flags regarding the sources.

I have written the article without any AI. Also I went through every sentence and made alot of changes in the past, right now I can't find anything that would resemble AI. Could it maybe be a false trigger by your software you're using? Is there any specific paragraph you have in mind that I should revise? FactArchivist (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Im not using a software, Im using what I already know of AI. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie Could you tell me what it is so I can correct it or do you want to correct it yourself? FactArchivist (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:AISIGNS – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie I am familiar with AI language. I'm saying I checked the article in detail and there is absolutely nothing resembling AI language. I have rewritten every single sentence in own words to make sure. Also Ive used sentence structure I've found in other articles. FactArchivist (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie Could you please confirm we can remove the flags regarding the sources. As you've also confirmed up there, the citing seems to be fine. I can confirm it aswell. FactArchivist (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Once again, the first sentence has such problems. --Hipal (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@FactArchivist The usage of curly quotes across the entire article suggests otherwise. And no, we cannot remove the tags without consensus to remove them. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuniZunie Please have a look again. Corrected the first sentence. Also I have standardized the quotes. This does not come from AI, it happens when having different keyboards set up for different languages. FactArchivist (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I am going to let Hipal check this over as they have been doing. Thanks – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal I have restructured the first paragraph. Citing and sources should also be fine. FactArchivist (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

How is "also known as Tiger Nation" verified? Why aren't you attempting to fix even the relevant references? --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Have a look at the first sentence. AI issue is solved. Template can be removed FactArchivist (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Tiger Nation is veried with the citation [3] The Street, among others: European Business Review etc. I added an additional citation for Tiger Nation specifically, have a look. FactArchivist (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Please quote from each reference how you feel it might be verified. --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal First Links https://www.companyhouse.de/l/p/David-Hirlav and https://www.northdata.com/Hirlav,%20David,%20Frankfurt%20a%C2%B7%20Main/n4i show the connection between the celebrity and the companies. I dont know why you would mark it as failed verification.

Tiger Nation is mentioned in https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/who-is-david-hirlav-and-what-is-his-background/ FactArchivist (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Since we are now talking about the citation I assume you approved the "AI resembling language" is now solved, correct? FactArchivist (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly.

In these discussions and corresponding article edits, you have been unable to recognize or repair verification problems. I suggest leaving the article alone. You are wasting everyone's time. --Hipal (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal You seem totally unable to tell what's wrong with the article and you do not seem to have any intertest doing the repairs yourself. I have asked you several times and you can not say what is precisely wrong with it. I suggest you to leave the article alone and let another supervisor take care of it who can bring in constructive critique that will lead to something. FactArchivist (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The reality of the situation is otherwise. Please drop it. This is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you cant just say oh its bad without specific examples. So please give examples of individual problems so others can address the tags you keep adding or they will be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

That could result in a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Why, do you intend to edit war them in yet again? I would suggest you not do that, otherwise you will be blocked again. PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Also you have yet to identify specific issues. Can you please do that? PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Break - partially reviewed for verification

I made a lot of changes yesterday, checked every source and adapted the whole text. There should be no issue with the article anymore. CodeThornton (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Far better.

Verification is just one content policy. Meeting it just makes way for us to address the others.

NOT and POV problems due to the poor, highly promotional sources being used. One solution would be to just trim back the article to basic facts with an eye to NOT... --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks great lets go from here then to get this topic finished.

The Tennis part for example has two sources with both citing exactly the stated facts in the article including the exact dates, also the "Bezirksoberliga" name that was criticized beforehand. The information has no promotional value, but provides context information to the reader which he can read about in the two provided sources.

Wikipedias mission page states that one of the most important policies is a neutral POV, an encyclopedic style with a formal tone. Now its on us editors to determine if any of those written sentences is benefitting in any way either the individual, or the named companies/organisations or any other individual named in this article and therefore have to be adapted.

Seen from a neutral POV at this moment the article is not promoting any products, company benefits, nor special qualities.

Having several editors busy with this article while the Editorial Homepage is showing over 1,200,000 articles that need review and correction is not in favor of Wikipedias philosophy for an efficient use of editorial resources. Therefore it should be in all of our interest to name any remaining issues as precise as possible and resolve them in an efficient manner.

Furthermore it has to be considered according to Wikipedias article that "the rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law and it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. What's most important is writing good accessible articles, keeping them accurate and providing references for verification and research. Doing this will help more people, and have a far more reaching effect than becoming involved with WikiDrama." WP:ARTICLESFIRST

Our duty is to provide neutral information to people and provide corresponding sources that support the facts and provide readers with the opportunity to inform themselves further in more depth about the topic.

Lets finish this article constructively together. CodeThornton (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this immediately.

Mentioning that the subject of a biography played sports as a child is generally not something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. In this case, we'd need far better sources to consider it.

I'm unclear if you understood my previous comment. Working from promotional sources is difficult, hence my suggesting, One solution would be to just trim back the article to basic facts with an eye to NOT. Regardless if you agree or not, do you understand the problem and how that's one possible solution? --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes I understand. CodeThornton (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

But we have to make sure that its still readable and understandable for a reader that reads it. Taking away context by trimming extremely is also not the creme de la creme. Now at this state all sentences have sources and most of them solid documentations with some of the article sources being supportive sources to specify on context and information.

What text is a specific issue at the moment in your opinion so I can check it too? CodeThornton (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've looked for better sources, but haven't found any. Beyond the obvious public relations blitz published last month, there's not much written about Hirlav that I can find, and what I'm finding is just more pr.

(To be continued) --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, but until others can follow your approach here, focusing on content and policies, I think it best to at least take a short break for things to cool down. --Hipal (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Youre ignoring again the "AI issue". The AI template should be removed as there is no AI language in the article. FactArchivist (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand the content policies now under discussion any better than WP:V. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

One area that might be easier to address is the use of primary sources in the lede. They demonstrate little or no weight, nor encyclopedic value alone. Wikipedia articles are not resumes. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, understood and checked. According to the linked Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section the lead section shall provide the reader with a summary of the following article body and may not introduce any information that is not named in the article body where it is substantiated by a suitable source.

Biographies lead sections follow an extra specified guideline, which should now be satisfied. Notability criteria is satisfied by the positions, activities and roles held. Context is given. Regarding the companies: Offices, titles and positions were not deemed to be contextually relevant for the lead section and therefore left out.

The editing is based on the guideline in above manual: "[...] it is common for citations to appear only in the body and not the lead." which is seen in many biographies on Wikipedia.

The article body is being checked and overhauled in concern of these Guidelines at the moment. Asking for patience during this process to make sure the lead is properly anchored in the body and adequately supported by citations. CodeThornton (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As requested: I have removed the AI tag because since the AI issue was raised the article was substantially changed, shortened and rewritten, with myself rewriting many parts and therefore being able to ensure that in this particular rewriting no AI has been used. If there is still an editor with the impression that there is a certain sentence that seems to be AI, it is fair to speak up and precisely name it so it can be taken care of. Just today the paragraph with the sentence structure so far rather untouched has been fully deleted under the flag of AI. This may be subject to dispute but at least it is a specification that can be worked with, instead of having a complete article flagged after several editors worked on it, rewrote it and made sure to have any Ai slop gone. I therefore considered it fair practice to remove the AI tagging that spanned the whole article. CodeThornton (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the tag given we're still finding unverified information from the ai use. --Hipal (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you point to somewhere in the article you think there is a problem? PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Where exactly is AI used in the article? CodeThornton (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

--Hipal (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That looks like a question on if that source is reliable, not if its an AI issue? PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The article is already tagged with the source reliability tag. Id like to understand what this has to do with AI use CodeThornton (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The problems came from the ai-version and remain. --Hipal (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Hirlav_-_AI_use,_likely_COI --Hipal (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Is that the right board for that? Would WP:RSN or WP:AINB be better? PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'd rather try to address the article as a whole, making sure we're addressing the strict requirements of BLP. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, its just much less traveled and doesnt deal directly with the issues everyone has brought up here. Normally you go to the board that covers the topic as narrowly as possible, not the other way around. But let's see what they say. I hope this does not turn into a WP:1AM situation. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Admin note

User:FactArchivist and User:CodeThornton are indef'ed for sock-puppetry. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to consider their comments in good-faith (but only one user with one position rather than multiple supporting each other) or discard their thoughts out-of-hand (bad-faith on its face in one or more ways). DMacks (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems to have been someone with poor English language skills using an ai for both editing and commenting with little understanding of content policies, likely a UPE given the IDHT and BATTLE. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)