Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive255

Laura Prepon

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has thrice removed two significant relationships noted in multiple reliables sources, and cited with multiple sources in the personal life section of this article. This is discussed on the talk page. Editor has a history of and continues removing cited relationships from articles across WP. I noted on the talk page, "Just 7 of the plethora of WP:Good Articles and WP:Featured Articles noting relationships in personal life sections: Mariah_Carey#Personal_life, Bradley_Cooper#Personal_life, Ben_Affleck#Personal_life, Brad_Pitt#Personal_life, Jennifer_Lawrence#Personal_life, Courtney_Love#Personal_life, Kylie_Minogue#Relationships. A neutral mention of two significant relationships is not "sensationalist", not "titillating"; per WP:BLP, all information about a living person must adhere to the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view, which the cited content does. Your dogmatic opinion that relationships can't be cited isn't supported by policy or WP custom/consensus and noting significant relationships isn't a violating of policy or WP consensus." Appreciate other editors' input on this issue the editor has propagated. Lapadite (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - "crap sourcing and insignificant gossip in BLP" - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari and Collect: It is helpful if you explain your reason(s) for agreeing with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that widely-reported (in reliable sources), significant relationships (here, one of 7 years, the other of 5 years) are supposedly "insignificant gossip in BLP"; and it is also helpful to show if citing significant relationships in the personal life sections of BLPs does or doesn't violates policy and/or WP consensus - particularly given that celebrity relationships (including minor ones) are noted in a plethora of GA and FA articles (indicating that it is WP consensus and does not violate WP policy). More editor input is welcomed. Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • Clue: Sources which call themselves "gossip" and refer to a "mystery man" are not reliable sources of fact about anyone at all. Are there bad BLPs around? Yep. Does this mean that they are "right"? Nope. See User:Collect/BLP for snippets of discussions in the past with a person who averred that a person who does not sue is confirming rumours.

"It's a real exposé, in the classic sense. If the report were bogus, X would have sued TMZ loooong ago. Excluding it is simply censorship, plain and simple."

"My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Y, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion."

are typical "reasons" for adding gossip into BLPs. Amazingly enough, WP:BLPdisagrees with that position, as do we here. Collect (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The two major relationships cited are not gossip. New York Daily News is a reliable source (as are the other cited sources for celebrity news, Entertainment Tonight Canada, Gawker, Zimbio, Harper's Bazaar); It is not relevant what title the writer chose to use for the article. The relationship cited isn't the one referenced in the NYDN article's title. Also, I did not link to bad BLPs; I clearly stated, those are GAs and FAs, of which there are many more citing relationships. Don't ignore this fact, which indicates wide WP consensus/practice. Moreover, as I noted, "a neutral mention of two significant relationships is not "sensationalist", not "titillating"" (not gossip), nor does it violate policy or wide WP practice, particularly in the best articles (FA). Please address the article and content in question. Lapadite (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There is far too much "gossip" in far too many BLPs. Really. Collect (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor input on this particular case needed. Lapadite (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, as an uninvolved editor who doesn't care a blue nickel about this subject, I'll give my two cents. Most of the sources I see cited in your own diffs are not reliable sources. I haven't looked at the NY Daily News article, but have no doubt that what I would find is an Op/Ed piece. What often seems to be overlooked is that no source is automatically reliable. There is no list that says "these sources are reliable for everything they print." The reliability of a source depends not only on their reputation, but also on the information itself. Not everything a newspaper prints is news. Most of it is actually Opinion/Editorial columns, which are not reliable despite the real journalism the newspaper also prints.

Looking at not just the policies, but the spirit behind the policies, I have to fist consider what it is that we are trying to build here; which is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information --clearly and concisely-- so that a person may quickly learn about a subject. This means that the information should be a summary of the subject, not an in-depth analysis. As much as that often pains us in a subject we are passionate about, most readers will see anything less to be a bunch of clutter, getting in the way of rather than enhancing their understanding. This usually means that excess details should be avoided unless they can be shown to somehow add to the definition of the subject. These excess details are typically irrelevant to understanding the subject, so are termed "trivia."

Aside from the sourcing issue, the content deleted in your diffs had no contextual information to show just why I, the reader, would need to know this information. It may in fact be interesting to some people (which is the nature of trivia) but how does it really help define the subject? Without any context, it doesn't. Therefore, instead of appearing encyclopedic, the deleted information looks more like the unrestrained conversation people have over their back fences (eg: gossip). In my personal opinion, Wikipedia is not here to be a collection of trivial information, but a useful encyclopedia people can use as a quick reference. For those who like in-depth analysis, Wikipedia's greatest gift is that it leads to a plethora of sources on its subjects. Zaereth (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Personal life" sections

• Badr Jafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A recent edit added a new section—Badr Jafar#Personal life. The essence is that the subject dated a supermodel and gave her a very indulgent birthday present, and later was seen with another supermodel. The sources given were nydailynews.com + theregister.co.uk + metro.co.uk + tomorrowsyouth.org + cinemarx.ro. Such a section seems inapproprite to me but I haven't paid attention to BLP issues lately. Thoughts? What would be an appropriate treatment of a subject's dating history? Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(rant on)Way too many BLPs are now parallels to the worst of tabloid excesses. It is as though the paparazzi lost all sense of propriety about individuals, and Wikipedia is now along for the ride. My position on this is based on the words of one "former and now returned" (editor quondam, editorque futuram) editor transcribed at User:Collect/BLP and remain in force. This also applies to categorization in areas which are not self-chosen by the person, and labelling of Jews as being "dual loyalty" and other such tripe endemic on Wikipedia now. Yet editors who are repeated plagiarists and thieves of intellectual property end up in positions of honour <g>. (rant off) I agree with your position on this. "Dating history" is the sign of the tabloid. Collect (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, way too many BLPs are straying way too far from what is encyclopedic. WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS, could use more details to steer editors away from simply echoing the hype from press that places promotion and entertainment value above all else.

As far as "personal life" sections go, unless there's something clearly noteworthy, it probably doesn't belong. I'll go ahead an remove it. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The material was reverted by a new ip, who started a discussion at Talk:Badr_Jafar#Naomi_Campbell. I assume it is the same person that added the information, and hope a response will be made here that attempts to address the concerns and create some sort of consensus as required by BLP. --Ronz (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Lefty Driesell

Please also see Previous report.

Will Loeb who likely has a professional connection to the article subject but has not declared a COI has returned to editing this page. The material they have added is highly promotional, including such phrases as: "Among his personal highlights were 19 points in a win over Vanderbilt..." and "...among the hundreds of players he developed were ten first team All-Americans, nine first round National Basketball Association (NBA) draft picks, 33 total pro draftees, three Olympians, and two Rhodes Scholars..." Some of the sourcing for these claims is unclear. I have therefore reverted these last two edits. Any other review of these actions is appreciated. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

matthew wynia

Matthew K. Wynia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article about me. I'm not sure who created it, but it's been around for a long time and now it's really out of date. I've also never been convinced I merit an entry. That said, i also feel uncomfortable editing an article about myself, and I don't know how to delete it (or if that might be considered vandalism). Can I get some help on this?

Thanks in advance for any guidance anyone can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.226.186.250 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking instead of starting to edit about yourself, your feelings were good on this. Matthew K. Wynia, Correct? I agree that it might not merit an entry, and I would suggest that someone who knows how to start an Article For Deletion Discussion correctly do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Now at AfD: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Larry M. Schlasinger

would like to publish an article on Larry Mark Schlasinger an airshow pilot. Hannah C Wright (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hannah. You can create a draft version at Draft:Larry M. Schlasinger. When you think it is ready to go, it will be reviewed by experienced editors and may then be moved to the live article space. Please note though that according to our policy, biographies of living persons must include references to reliable sources. Reliable sources like nationwide news coverage or feature articles in magazines are also generally required to show a person's notability. As a starter you might also want to read Wikipedia:My first article. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Move Request on the page Murder of Seth Rich

Move request:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Requested_move_19_May_2017

I think there are some WP:BLP issues involved in the requested move and I would encourage you to visit the page and take part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

article vandalism?

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
I'm currently sourcing the Jessica Barden article - One line states "She then appeared in the UK hit drama Death on Angel's Tide in late July 2007.",
Google turns up no results at all for the programme/film so I'm not sure if it's simply a programme that was never really known or whether the programme doesn't actually exist?,
This supposed "UK hit" isn't mentioned on the actresses agents CV[2] and having looked through the article history it seems it was added by an IP[3] so I'm assuming it was sneaky vandalism ?,
It being a 2007 film/programme I would assume there would be at least one mention somewhere surely?
Anyway thanks and again apologies if this is in the wrong place, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful that the program was never known by google. (I can even find The Ghost Busters even though it aired for only one season.) When in doubt, delete. Simply explain you're reason in your edit summary and ask that it be sourced before reinstating. A note on the talk page explaining your deletion may also be helpful in initiating a useful conversation. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth - Exactly I mean I've sourced quite a few BLPs where some of the films were hardly known however there was always something (even if it was a DVD amazon page), Okie dokie I'll do as you suggested, Thanks for your help it's much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Laura Kipnis

Laura Kipnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an entire section in the article about this person that is devoted to a controversy sparked around the recent publication of a book. I have updated the article to reflect that the subject is being sued. It is highly relevant given that this entire section of the article is devoted to this controversy. This is a recent update, so I put in this material to reflect the most accurate information about the current state of affairs. I have put in nothing regarding the subject's guilt or innonce, only one single line to reflect the filing of the lawsuit. I have also used multiple sources (The Chicago Tribune, Daily Nous, and Jezebel). Each time I put this up, and each time citing a different reason, the same person takes it down. This is highly inappropriate. I am simply trying to update the information and this person is clearly trying to conceal it. Please do something about this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C602:4BBA:B04B:5266:7814:DC6E (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you reading the edit summaries ? You're being told that you're using a non-reliable source, therefore your information has to be removed. We're pretty strict on BLP's over here, so anything in there has to be reliably sourced or it's removed.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Altoon Sultan

Altoon Sultan is a stub article about a noted living American artist. The article needs additional citations. The article entries themselves do not cause a violation, but the order of its section and footnote presentation is not complying to the usual editing templates. I encountered these anomalies while trying to add additional categories, text, and citations. I need help to maintain this article--which I visited today for the first time--in good biographical form. Is this an issue which I should address elsewhere? I've never encountered a situation quite like this before.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where else I would report this, but this page is usually for serious BLP violations that need immediate attention. --Malerooster (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Talk page for the article has links to four wikiprojects, (Biography, Visual arts, United States/Vermont and Women Artists), I'd start at Biography, but I have no idea what to expect. Hope this helps. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

John K. Singlaub

John K. Singlaub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John K. Singlaub was played a role in the Iran–Contra affair, however, there are three sections in the article related to his post-scandal affiliations with various organizations (i.e. Coalition to Salute America's Heroes, America's Future, and The Jedburgh Group) that appear to be unduly negative. The bulk of these three sections discusses misdeeds of the organizations and is cited to sources that do not discuss Singlaub's role in any of those misdeeds. I'm hoping another set of eyes could take a look. Thanks! -Location (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic

Hello, I'm new, so be patient. I believe this article is negatively one-sided. I will try to obtain sources to further back my claims. Initially however, there are many examples of non-compliance with the policies regarding Biographies of living persons, including Tone, Balance, Self Published Sources, Gossip and A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law and If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments....include all the explanatory information.

Under the heading Efficacy, the author states: "While the antineoplaston therapy is marketed as a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy, it is a form of chemotherapy with significant known side effects including severe neurotoxicity.[17][28]", and although it is sourced, the sources listed are non-sourced opinions regarding the labeling of the treatment as "chemotherapy" as well as the "severe neurotoxicity" of the treatment. One of these sources is also a self published critic of the subject, David Gorski, who is also quoted later in the article.

Under heading Cost: Although this paragraph is fairly neutral in itself, in the context of other statements within the article it leaves the impression that the costs for treatment were unreasonable or fraudulent. Including the cost of standard chemotherapy within the paragraph would give readers a relative value to compare it to, to make their own conclusion. Otherwise the entire paragraph could be removed.

Under Legal issues:FDA warnings: I think this would just be a method to balance the article somewhat There are several paragraphs describing an FDA Warning Letter regarding the legality of claims made by the subject, the actual context of which was originally within the 2nd paragraph as denoted by the phrases "contain claims such as the following....." prior to and "by making representations such as those noted above" after the edited section. I think including the actual statements made by subject should be view-able, again thereby letting the reader come to their own conclusion regarding statements.

Later in this same section, David Gorski is again quoted from a self published blog, where he is making unsupported judgements and contentious statements that may portray a more unflattering picture than is evidenced by the actual sourced documents.

Under Legal Issues: Texas Medical Board and Legal Issues: Lawsuits The article cites many charges brought against Burzynski but often fails to report the outcome of proceedings. this includes the lawsuit section where the final entry in that section gives great detail of the complaints but fails to reveal the disposition of the suit. It also fails to list all of the instances that the Texas Medical Board (TMB) as well as the FDA brought charges against Burzynski that were dismissed or found to be without merit by the relevant proceedings. This included at least 3 censures/licensing attacks by the TMB and 4 Grand Jury proceedings instigated by the FDA that returned NO indictments at all but tends to illustrate a clear program of harassment. (I will find sources for this)

Finally, the whole section labeled - Legal Issues: Legal threats to online critics: is half hearsay about people Other Than the actual subject (ie an employee and his supporters) and it's all gossipy fighting between people loyal to the subject and self published bloggers attacking the subject.

Also the Section - Media and Commentary: Although there are many positive portrayals of subject including an extremely loyal group of patients (who voluntarily donated to subjects legal defense) (I know I need sources) the only listed Commentary are excessively condescending, negative and irrelevant self published gossipy type articles. The positive media that is listed the author goes on to heavily critique, (unlike the negative media) although only with sourced reviews by scientific giants such as The Village Voice and Variety.--Psylocyber (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article falls under WP:Fringe theories and WP:General sanctions. Given that you are a new editor, and that dealing with such a topic requires very strict adherence to many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I recommend you work on something else while you learn the policies well. Working on articles like this leaves very little room for mistakes of any kind. If you want to continue on it, start with a discussion on the article talk page. After there has been some discussion, you might consider getting other editors' perspectives by using an appropriate noticeboard like WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN depending on the area of dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"the whole section labeled - Legal Issues: Legal threats to online critics: is half hearsay about people Other Than the actual subject (ie an employee and his supporters)" -- actually, the "actual subject" of this article is not a person, but the Clinic. The actions at question are within the range of what they were contracted by the clinic to do. And the significance of this material is made clear in that it's not just being covered by "self-published bloggers"; sourcing on this includes The Guardian and Discover Magazine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If the Burzynski Clinic published the results of its research programme in reputable journals the article would reflect this.Martinlc (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr.

Donald Trump Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It seems to me that some details regarding Donald Trump Jr. were added that although contained in WP:RS are not necessarily encyclopedic and are somewhat WP:POV. I don't really like to get into political debates, so I am asking others to take a look at the recent reversion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It belongs. Trump Jr. is active in politics, having campaigned for his father and is currently campaigning for other GOP candidates[4]. Trump Jr.'s political rhetoric is therefore notable. CNN, LA Times, The Hill and the other reliable sources that I added to the article substantiate that the content that I added was notable. If Trump Jr.'s actions and rhetoric weren't notable, there wouldn't extensive RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Susanna de Vries biographical details

Susanna de Vries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

page 1 block under photo amend Spouse to read Professor Larry Evans (correct title has been ommitted CAREER (THIS SECTION VERY RIGHTLY SAYS EDIT AND I HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS IT IS ILLITERATE WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR A WRITER'S BIOG content ok but ungrammatical please help 1st para line 5 (spacing wrong space betwen lines 1 and 2 should be removed. LINE 4 University of Technology's Department add apostrophe

change please.. due to concerns over legal complications after identifying forged Australian and European paintings.   

2nd para FIRST LINE Pandanus Press . PLEASE REMOVE The ENTIRE NEXT SENTENCE AS IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS AND NOR DO MY READERS AND i HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS. tHE GENTLEEMAN WHO WROTE IT WAS VERY KIND AND VISITED ME ADN PARTS ARE GOOD AMD INFO IS CORRECT AND HE OBVIOUSLY WORKED HARD ON IT BUT i AM NOT SURPRISED IT SAYS EDIT AS PARTS OF IT DO NOT MAKE SENSE ADN FULL OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. lINE 4 PARA 2 Launched by Governor Leneen Forde Pirgos Press (Pirgos is the Greek word for 'tower'as the company's logo is the silhouette of the Byzantine tower featured in Susanna's award winning title 'Blue Ribbons, Bitter Bread' now in its 7th edition and first published by Hale and Iremonger of Sydney and in 2016 was translated into Greek by Maria Dia. . para 3 De Vries has travelled to Europe to authenticate artworks is pretty meaningless. say instead authenticate Australian 19th century paintings on which she has written and lectured.

OTHER ACTIVITIES. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS LINE 5 ' SOME OF THE EARNINGS FROM HER PUBLICATIONS ARE (NOT IS) PERSONAL LIFE. LINE ONE. She married Dr (later Professor) Larry Evans in 1967 in London. date wrong was not 1962. PUBLISHED WORKS WRITING STYLE DESCRIBED AS 'mainstream' delete deadpan or delete whole sentence. Because her biographies cover some women written about for the first time and are very readable and bought by libraries many have gone into multiple editions and are still in print. please remove teh rest of the sentence it does not make sense.

final sentence should read De Vries has explored the lives of significant women whose stories deserved to be better known.

books

Ethel Carrick Fox, Triumphs and Travels of an Impressionist. TO HELL AND BACK add full title The Banned Story of Gallipoli with a Biography of Sydney Loch. Royal Feud, Diana versus Charles and Camilla. 2017 (only available in USA) A Colourful Life, the Memoirs of Susanna de Vries. (in preparation for 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.140 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have copied this post to Talk:Susanna de Vries, so that it can be seen by the folks who edit that page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Niki Ashton

The personal opinion of Michael Den Tandt or Andrew Coyne is not worthy of inclusion. Neither article featured a report on a survey of people regarding this. To characterize these two personal opinions as a widely held view is inaccurate. Please see below for a copy of the entry in question.

[entry in question] She was viewed as "too young and too wooden." Her convention speech was characterized as "old-timey" and uninspiring. [/entry in question]

--Mark Alfred (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

References

 Fixed Sorry for the slow response in addressing this. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinder_Mahal

Don't have the time to edit now, but the page (as of 11:30 PM EST on 05/22/2017) has been vandalized in several places by some disgruntled individual. . 2604:2000:6FC0:101:17:D314:C636:3FBF (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Charlo Greene

I was away for a bit, but recently someone has been trying to add that Charlo Greene was outed as a scam artist on Reddit via an AMA. The problem is that the Reddit thread is the only source they have for the bulk of their claims and the allegations came from a random Reddit user and not say, a reporter for the New York Times. They also posted about her doxing someone on the Reddit thread and that she posted someone's information on Facebook to encourage harassment. My own personal thoughts about the validity of the information aside, the problem I'm seeing is that this is all pretty much based on a SPS and also kind of comes across as gossip magazine type coverage. If there was enough long term coverage to justify inclusion that'd be one thing, but so far all they've provided is a Reddit thread.

I almost kind of think that there's a "make the truth known" type of deal here, so this article could definitely use some extra eyes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with the Reddit statements, that is definitely not a reliable source, and you were right to remove it per BLP. The problem with the Reddit statements are many, but primary is that they are all a bunch of leading questions (when did you stop beating your wife) with links to websites provided as answers. In other words, it is providing us with conclusions and then challenging us to read the links and connect the same dots. That is not reliable, secondary, objective reporting but a poorly guiled attempt to persuade readers to a particular set of beliefs. (What I call "Jack van Impe" reporting.) Aside from that, the text that was inserted into the article was atrocious; way too many pronouns so that is was impossible to tell which "her" was which. Zaereth (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Odette Annable

Odette Annable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The exact birthdate was removed from this article as more than one date was added and at no point was a reliable source provided to meet the requirements of our criteria for inclusion of a contentious DOB. There is a notice on the article talk page, by me, explaining under what policies the date was removed and what type of sources are required to include an exact date of birth. An editor, Happy Evil Dude, continues to add a specific date despite the links provided not meeting reliable sourcing criteria and without any attempt at joining the talk page discussion to explain how the websites are useable, preferring to throw random Google search links at the wall and see if anything sticks. Perhaps another BLP-aware editor with an understanding of WP:DOB could explain why tertiary celebrity databases and primary sources do not meet the standard of verifiability for such dates? I've searched for a reliable source, even via offline publications available on LexusNexus, to try to put this to bed with no luck. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Mr. Ponyo would care to explain why the actress in question is being held to a higher standard of "birth date source" than virtually every other actor, actress or entertainer on Wikipedia, which he has at no point done? If Odette's widely reported and confirmed birth date (not by "random Google search links") of 10 May 1985 cannot be included on Wikipedia then no one else should have their birth date detailed either. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd hope we could use a combination of primary and secondary sources to resolve this, but consensus and the legal issues are not clear. It appears the Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. ruling favoring publishing birth date information online will hold and the California laws will not, but in the meantime we have to be careful.

Given she's acknowledged her birth day on Twitter [5], I think we can include May 10 as the date.

What do editors feel of "Today in History" sources like this? --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Today in history can't be used as the provenance of the information is uncertain and is not vetted by the publisher. To answer Happy Evil Dude's questions above, all articles should be held to this standard per WP:DOB ("Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources"). The goal of BLP policy is to ensure the information included in biographies is correct and this is done through the inclusion of reliable sources. If no reliable sources can be found then the information is not included. The fact that there are articles that don't meet our BLP policy means we should be trying to fix them, not lowering the standard for all articles. And I'm not a Mr.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So adding May 10 with the twitter link would be fine for you? --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Yes, that would should work per WP:SELFSOURCE.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How about using http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrities/odette-yustman for the full birth date? --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I used that source Ronz. My edit was removed by Ponyo. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So why's the profile not acceptable but an article from the same source is acceptable?

Has she ever brought up privacy or other concerns over the year of her birth? Otherwise, I don't understand why a California-born celeb, whose birthday is easily verified from official birth records and backed by typical entertainment sources, is so contentious. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand either man. She has never brought up any such concerns to my knowledge. What can I do to make Ponyo accept the "May 10, 1985" listing? This is really frustrating. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added the full "May 10, 1985" date using the birth record (an authoritative primary source), the Us Weekly profile (replacing the Us Weekly article that did not give the year), and her tweet that indicates she doesn't object to the month and day. [6] I don't think we need another source, like the "Today in History" article mentioned above, to establish that the date has been widely published, but we could certainly add it if that's still a concern. --Ronz (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir. It should be noted these were the same sources I'd added, but hopefully Ponyo will be satisfied this time. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Max Pemberton (doctor)

Max Pemberton (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trolling cannabis lovers have turned the entry into a silly parody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:797E:5B00:4D50:EDB6:1258:4FF6 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, the vandalism has been reverted and the offending user blocked. CIreland (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Shneur Odze

My attention was called to this article by this AN thread: Shneur Odze one long BLP violation.

The article is pretty much OK now, but there is an edit that is currently being disputed. Here is the diff that added the content and sourcing. Is this OK per WP:BLP? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A more neutral wording of that notice would hav been good, but se la vie. Let's try to keep the discussion in one place at the talk page. Amisom (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording was perfectly neutral. Discussion here or there is fine. Doesn't matter. The discussion there is at Talk:Shneur_Odze#Daily_Mail for folks who want to see the prior discussion or pitch in there. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording was perfectly neutral. Oh, guess my opinion must have been mistaken then. Sorry for expressing it. Amisom (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Its gossip, where it would stop becoming gossip is if reliable sources have commented that the 'gossip' led to their being rejected by the voters - which would be relevant to their political career. Scandals that have an impact (which is covered by reliable sources) on a politician's career can be documented in their BLP. Provided the sourcing was reliable and it was worded appropriately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  Copied to article talkpage and reply added tehre. Amisom (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Because Jytdog is determined to revert any changes that he hasn't personally approved (and to warn others for edit warring when they disagree wit hhim) I'm putting this to RfC on the article talkpage. Amisom (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit note quite misrepresents the status of the talk page discussion. hm. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Otabek Mahkamov

The article contains false information about me. Please remove the following content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otabek_Mahkamov

In 2015, it became known that Mahkamov had made contradictory and false claims about his birthplace, academic qualifications, and skills.[1] The first article that brought to light the contradictions in Mahkamov's claims was published by the Osh-based literature website Ijodkor.[2] A month later the Uzbek entertainment website Sayyod published a short article which stated that Mahkamov had provided Uzbek journalists with false information about his background.[3] The author fell short of directly accusing Mahkamov, but promised to publish a more detailed account of the matter. In an interview with the Uzbek tabloid Bekajon, Mahkamov denied the accusations.[1] However, he refused to comment on the contradictions in his claims and only stated that "Those rumors you're talking about are unfounded".[1]

The sources/links given on this article either not working or doesn't contain the facts!

Thanks for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otabek.mahkamov (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok, what I recommend you do first is start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Do not try to edit the article yourself. Try to remain calm and amiable, but explain clearly and completely what is wrong with the sources (besides your belief that the information is false).

A big problem is that the sources are not in English. I also cannot access them because they show as high-risk websites. Although it is not required that sources be in English, it is preferred on the English Wikipedia so that others can read them and verify the information as being reliable or not. As is, I am not able to read the sources so I cannot check the reliability. However, the very fact the websites themselves are high-risk throws up a red-flag. Another problem is that such information doesn't belong in the lede, but the lede should be a summary of what is reliably sourced in the body of the article, so this also represents undue weight.

Another red-flag is the title of the first source, which admits that it is reporting on rumors. Any source that deals in rumors and gossip is not a reliable source, so these are they kinds of things you need to demonstrate on the talk page. (Please chaeck the links I provided above.) Unfortunately, because I cannot read Uzbek (nor even access the sources) I cannot be of much help myself in that matter, but there are many people here who do speak multiple languages who may be able to look into this further. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Most probably this is an attack piece based on terrible sources, many not working, including a letter from Google drive(!). I have removed the lot. This is no way near BLP-compliant. Dr. K. 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Dr.K! It looks like the article has been page-protected due to the edit-warring, so hopefully that will help things calm down. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also Zaereth. I personally know two of the three editors involved and I would never second-guess their edits. The edit-warring was actually due to the foreign sources. Now all editors, including the third, agree with my reasons for removal. Please see that article talkpage. All the best. Dr. K. 19:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Bartlett

Libelous, unsourced material repeatedly inserted into this entry. See diff here. In addition to false, defamatory claims, subject's salary also repeatedly posted, which is not present in other entries on active professors. Request protection of page to prevent continued vandalism as well as removal of maintenance template. Risorgimento1871 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Matter appears to be resolved; libelous material reinserted by accident when reverting to earlier version. See conversation here. Risorgimento1871 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to have current templates on this article removed? Risorgimento1871 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Rob Quist

Rob Quist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an election today, and Rob Quist's opponent has been charged with assault. The alleged assault, and what occured afterwards does not in any way involve Rob Quist. Myself and others have removed this information as off topic, but it is consistently being added back. Here is the section below:

Quist's opponent had been endorsed over Quist by three Montana newspapers, all owned by Lee Enterprises. The day before the election, Quist's opponent, Greg Gianforte, was cited for misdemeanor assault after attacking a reporter from The Guardian, an incident captured on audio recording and which was witnessed by reporters from Fox News. As news of the incident broke, the editorial boards of these three newspapers rescinded previous endorsements of Gianforte. The Billings Gazette characterized the incident as “..nothing short of assault,” that “stunned” its editorial board. The Gazette was joined by two other major state papers, the Missoulian, and the Helena Independent Record in withdrawing their endorsements. The Missoulian stated of Gianforte, "He showed Wednesday night that he lacks the experience, brains and abilities to effectively represent Montana in any elected office."

You may notice the above does not mention Quist in any way, and discusses only the actions of his opponent. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For my money, the event definitely bears mentioning, but this is overdoing it. Maybe one sentence, along the lines of "Newspapers pulled support for Mr. Quist's opponent, Greg Gianforte, after an allegation that he had assaulted a reporter." I think brevity would truly be the soul of wit here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

They keep adding it back. It's now a blatant Coatrack section. It has to tie into Rob Quist in some way. As it stands, they just make an unrelated section where they talk about what some other guy did. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Dumuzid. Worthy of mention, but above is too much. Maybe one or two sentences. Sagecandor (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Greg Gianforte

The current article of Greg Gianforte falsely and libelously states that a Buzzfeed reporter appeared to support Ben Jacob's claim. The Buzzfeed reporter was not in the room where the alleged assault or altercation took place and did not see the full altercation. Thus, the article in current form is in direct violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. NHCAB (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing false or libelous about noting what the Buzzfeed reporter said; the reporter acknowledged not being a direct witness, but stated what she saw and heard from a location nearby. Taking a look at the article, it accurately describes what the reporter reported. Regardless, there's now a direct eyewitness account from another reporter so the sourcing can be improved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What you said up above in relation to the reported facts is not what the article says or said at the original time of this complaint. The Buzzfeed reporter cannot substantiate Mr. Jacobs' claim because she wasn't there. I'm not here to debate Mr. Gianforte's guilt or innocence and I concede this issue may be moot as facts develop, but as this incident is a current event, we cannot be saying some witness supports the complainant's claim when the source does not say that and such a synthesis of information, which in itself violates Wikipedia policy, is suspect. NHCAB (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Information about the alleged assault and Gianforte's positions are being added to Rob Quist's article. You may notice that Quist is not Gianforte. The article has to include information that ties into Quist in some way. It can mention that Quist has refused to comment on the incident, or that the alleged assault impacted the election (which will take place tomorrow). But just simply adding information about Gianforte by himself is off topic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's notable and should be in both articles. But in the Quist article, could be a one or two sentence mention. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg Ventures

Hello! I've posted an edit request on the Rothenberg Ventures talk page about what seems to be a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and plausibly BLP as well. More specifically, the company article's introduction includes highly charged negative content about its founder-CEO in just its second sentence. Full disclosure: I submitted my request on behalf of Rothenberg Ventures, which I've noted in the COI template at the top of the talk page. I'll have more requests for this article later, but for now, is a noticeboard watcher willing to assist with this concern? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence does look very out of place where it is. The use of such adjectives seems rather cherry-picked, as the source also uses adjectives like "charming" and "convincing." This doesn't seem like info that should belong in the lede, but at the very least explained in a neutral manner in the article's body.

In examining the source itself, most of it looks like credible reporting. However, I'm always uncomfortable with general quotes from unspecified individuals. A quote should be traceable to someone. Likewise, while most of the reporting looks sound, I'm also uncomfortable by several insinuations it makes (ie: many people seemed to like him, but maybe they were just...). On a level of reliability, the source seems marginal at best.

Many of the other sources in the article look rather questionable at first glance, but I don't have time to go through them. The overall tone of the article is like lava and ice. On one had it seems overtly promotional while on the other rather scathing, so I'm sure there are multiple issues that need to be addressed on levels that I don't have time to get into right now. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Zaereth. Whatever the merits of the reporting, do you agree they are not appropriate for the first paragraph of the lead section? I will plan to offer a proposal for a better introduction, but since this seems highly questionable per BLP, it struck me as reasonable to ask just to remove this—not just because it's so negative, but because it's not really about the company. I won't edit the article directly, because of my COI. Are you willing to remove just this extended clause, pending the writing of a better intro? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I do agree 1.) because it doesn't have any context and 2.) because it only reflects a handful of opinions rather than giving the balance provided by the source. The lede should be a summary of the article's body, not a place to voice opinions, so anything like this just sticks out like a sore thumb. One of my biggest concerns is that most of the article is not about the company, but reads like a BLP in disguise, so I wanted to get some input from others before just removing it myself. (I guess I'm just an overly cautious person. Comes from living so dangerously for so long.) Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it per BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:Lede, suggesting that anyone who wants to restore it should do so neutrally, with the same context and balance afforded by the source itself, within the body of the article. Then summarize the facts in the lede without all the opinions and colorful adjectives. Zaereth (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of your reasoning, in particular the "BLP in disguise" comment. If you look at the edit history, the article largely seems to be the product of a few different SPAs, i.e. large additions made by accounts with no other editing history. Ultimately I'd like to propose a complete revision to the page; in the short term, I'll focus on the introduction and Controversies. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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.

---

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following BLP material was deleted today:

“ On May 3, 2017, Diane Feinstein of California, who is the senior Democrat on the committee, was asked by Wolf Blitzer: "But do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?" She replied: "Not at this time." Pressed on the same topic by Blitzer on May 19, 2017, she said: "There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence." ”

References

The edit is here, and the edit summary said "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and 1RR, in addition to BLP. There is a talk page discussion about it here. Basically, the article mentions the word "collusion" repeatedly (20 times as of right now), Feinstein is the senior Democrat on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee who has been briefed as much as anyone in Congress, and her comments have repeatedly appeared on CNN and elsewhere. So this strikes me as a blatantly absurd edit summary, and likewise for the edit itself. As usual, Wikipedia has a liberal slant, and editors are busily trying to apply that slant to this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree here with admin MelanieN, who said: "Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article.". That is the most cogent analysis so far amid all the fracas. Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting me, Sagecandor, but please include the rest of what I said, for context: If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Also it should be noted that I am WP:INVOLVED at that article and so I function there as a regular editor, not an admin. Finally, I don't see any BLP issue here so I am unclear why Anythingyouwant chose to bring their issue to this board. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah no problem, MelanieN, your whole quote makes sense. I agree this venue post, combined by the revealing POV comment As usual, Wikipedia has a liberal slant, and editors are busily trying to apply that slant to this article above by Anythingyouwant seems like WP:FORUMSHOP. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The article involves living people, and suggests that living people may be involved in crimes (e.g. treason); any violation of WP:NPOV in this regard is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, obviously. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comment about "liberal slant" betrays you. Sagecandor (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I confess to being an unslanted Wikipedia editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pardon me, but why did you bring this to WP:BLPN and why have you called my edit summary as "blatantly absurd"? I quoted Jimmy Wales advice which is part of WP:NPOV policy. The Feinstein sound bite was not extensively covered, except in notoriously questionable sources like Breitbart, Newsmax, Washington Times, NewsBusters, Redstate, and The Sean Hannity Show. I have laid out my arguments in the appropriate place (the article talk page), including pointing out that both sides of the collusion theme are already well-represented in the article. Several editors have agreed with me that this material does not improve the article.

I don't particularly appreciate the not-so subtle accusation that I was trying to apply a liberal slant to the article. That kind of disparagement doesn't resolve the content dispute.- MrX 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the day, a serious dose of WP:RECENTISM needs to be applied. The day-by-day investigation with dozens of claims and accusations flying about is not encyclopedic; we are not a newspaper, and there is no deadline to get it right. That applies to the diff statement but as well as to much of the rest of that article. That will help resolve much of the BLP (and NPOV, and other content-related policies) issues that it seems to be having. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. what will be the most notable parts in 100 years? Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• This particular edit is not a BLP issue, and I don't see how this is imposing a liberal slant. Just because it involves quotes from a living person does not make it a BLP dispute, but a weighting dispute of what should be included in the article. If anything the edit by MrX is a more cautious presentation of the claimed BLP justification above even if you think that this involves the BLP policy. Regular discussion on the article talk is what is needed. No need to bring to to BLPN. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, Feinstein is not the living person at issue here under BLP; people under investigation or suspicion or interest with regard to criminal activity are. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Its not actually entirely clear to me what your BLP complaint is, and I don't see BLP mentioned anywhere in the talk page discussion. Again, if anything removing the comments is more cautious even if this is a BLP issue, which I still do not see it as. It is a question of weighting coverage, of which I have no opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence of WP:BLP explicitly requires adherence to WP:NPOV. Adding 20 explicit mentions of "collusion" plus plenty of other implicit mentions, while excluding recent statements in May 2017 that there is no evidence, is blatantly not NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How is this a BLP issue? The quote removed mentions no names that are under investigation at all and neither does the section that it is in. This seems like a regular NPOV issue involving weighting to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You really think that this BLP explicitly says "collusion" twenty (20) times but never hints about who may have colluded? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're telling us it is not a BLP issue wrt Sen. Feinstein but it is a BLP issue regarding NeverHintsWho? That's not BLP. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the article mentions the word "collusion" 20 times. But it does not say, anywhere, "there is evidence that (named living person) colluded." So it's not a BLP issue. It does not even say, anywhere, that "there is evidence that associates of Trump colluded." All it says is that the possibility of collusion is under investigation. It's not a balance issue, because nobody has claimed they HAVE seen evidence of collusion. So why is it so desperately important (Very very very obviously it should be included. … Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break. ----Anythingyouwant) to put in a statement by somebody saying she hasn't (yet) seen such evidence? I agree with Fyddlestix, below, that we should go away and stop bothering these people who have REAL BLP issues to deal with.--MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. Why are we even discussing it here? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spamming alt-right template to BLP pages

• PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

PerfectlyIrrational recently came off a block for edit-warring by admin El C. [7]

Now the user is spamming links to alt-right template on WP:BLP pages.

Now, I'm no fan of the alt-right, but this is a violation of WP:BLP, especially in this spamming fashion.

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The individuals were part of the alt-right template but didn't have it in their respective articles, so I added them according to guidelines. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User was also changing on multiple pages to "expanded all" format so the template over dominates the entire BLP page as undue weight. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Brittany Pettibone and "Reception" section ?

• Brittany Pettibone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[14] [15] [16]

I'm not a fan of the views propounded by this living person, but I don't know about this creating a whole "Reception" section.

Do WP:BLP pages generally have "Reception" sections purely created to attack this person?

Can that instead be trimmed and then worked into the article body text instead? Sagecandor (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani 3

Hassan Rouhani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding text in section Hassan Rouhani#Personal life removed here by IP and later restored regarding Rouhani's son's death. See prior discussions Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive180#Hassan Rouhani, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive184#Hassan Rouhani 2, and Talk:Hassan Rouhani#Son's suicide claims. It looks to me like gossip that got slipped in and now being defended as the status quo. See the comment I made at Talk:Hassan Rouhani#private life. Can someone find out how this information got in the article and if it should be in there? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

People section at alt-right sidebar

I'm not a fan of the alt-right views, but I am concerned about WP:BLP and sourcing related to living people.

Is it appropriate according to WP:BLP and WP:V to have a "People" section at Template:Alt-right sidebar ?

Can we remove it ?

This seems like a way to have undue weight, especially in the "expanded all" setting when it takes up most of the article and pushes the body text to the side.

Can we leave this template to just have content topics and not "People" articles ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The "People" section will always by its template nature be unsourced in the template. This info is better instead for a "List" page, that can have inline cites. Sagecandor (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• If someone is confirmed as a neo-Nazi, I suppose the neo-Nazi sidebar is allowed... Drmies (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Nazism sidebar has a "People" section, with a link to List of Nazis, which links to a very very well referenced page at List of Nazis (A–E). Compare that to this template, which is totally unsourced and a violation of WP:BLP. A "List" page is the better model, as given at List of Nazis (A–E). Sagecandor (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I just went through and removed a ton of WP:BLP violations from the template. Many had zero sources in their respective articles body text whatsoever calling the living person as "alt right". Those were all WP:BLP violations as unreferenced negative claims about living persons. Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrew U. D. Straw

Andrew U. D. Straw is an article about an individual of marginal notability (if at all), and is created and edited by a single-purpose account of Hindtoad, who is someone close to the subject. It has multiple problems apart from conflict of interest; these include tone, uncited assertions, and citations to unreliable sources. He cites what appears to be a docket entry for a petition to the US Supreme Court (which has no content other than the fact that a pleading was filed)[17], and has self-published the petition itself on his own website.[18]

I don't know if the article can be saved, but in its present state does not meet our standards. Kablammo (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If, after viewing the 51 citations and the TV and newspaper coverage of Mr. Straw and his disability work, you find nothing notable in the article, obviously delete it. If what is on the page is of an equivalent level of notability to other lawyers who are listed on Wikipedia, by all means improve it in every way that makes it a more neutral and interesting article. I don't feel I own the article in any way, but I certainly do feel that some of the other editors are being unfair here.Hindtoad (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have to say that I like the interface for making edits and especially the citations tool because it makes it so easy to add citations from news sources and others. I hope these editors will take the time to find citations and add information about this page rather than simply ripping large portions of text out and saying it was not written right. Find the citations you seek and add information rather than ripping apart what I and others have added.Hindtoad (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Kablammo has made malicious comparisons between Andrew Straw, a lawyer who works on disability rights and access, and someone under investigation by the FBI for porn. Kablammo apparently is not neutral toward this subject, but is on a rampage to defame Andrew Straw, using every argument at his disposal. I have suggested that Kablammo's neutrality is severely in doubt given the malicious and even defamatory statements he has made. He has removed material that was sourced and cited from the page to lower the notability in any way he can. This is the not the action of a neutral editor. He should be banned from editing this page after such malicious behavior.Hindtoad (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some of Kablammo's edits, his claims of sourcing problems seem to be accurate or at least reasonable. And the lawyer that he made a comparison to is under investigation for his disability access work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Someone who supports comparing Andrew Straw's disability rights work to a lawyer under investigation for PORN. Andrew Straw does not promote porn and comparing the two is defamatory. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy about defamatory postings? Kablammo has violated that policy. There may be people under investigation for any number of things, and bringing disrepute to disability work is reprehensible. Andrew Straw is not one of them. Hindtoad (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Billie Eilish

• Billie Eilish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being continuously updated to state that the individual is dead. There is no evidence to support this, the article being used as evidence does not mention the individual and is from the wrong day. The individual in question has been active on her Facebook page and is not dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaliika (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Although a source was added in support of the claim that the subject died, the source did not mention the names of any parties involved, so it is unreliable—and has been properly removed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP range that's been making these false edits has been blocked for vandalism. We'll see if the issue continues after 24 hours. —Guanaco 21:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Adamescu

This article (and the one on his late father, since this edit) is basically a huge exercise in soapboxing. I'd appreciate some help in starting to at least get an approximation of neutrality here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Andriy Parubiy

Andriy Parubiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questionable series edits by a user or group of users, labeling Andriy Parubiy as a "neo-Nazi politician" and providing a link to globalresearch.ca, which is known for being quite unreliable. While his early connections to a right-wing party with certain neo-Nazi leanings are depicted in the article, there's no proof that Andriy Parubiy is advocating or promoting any neo-Nazi policies or practices in his further political career or his current position of Chairman of Ukrainian parliament. Also, the same user has added the same edit for Oleh Tyahnybok, but without any kind of proof this time - not sure if a separate entry should be filed for this case, it did not become (probably, yet) a subject to edit warring. Initml (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked all the accounts as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Death threats sent to African-American politician and WEIGHT

See here.

This... scared the hell out of me when I heard it (here). I can't imagine how people who actually know the individual personally must have felt. The fact that he publicized the threats himself might be relevant here, but I really feel like they probably shouldn't get their own section in the article. Especially given that they were made in direct response to the events discussed in Al Green (politician)#Tenure, so putting them in a sub-sub-section with ==== Threats against Green ==== directly beneath that discussion would be better.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

David Hazony

re article: David Hazony Repeated insertion of contentious unimportant personal material by user Guestuser1977 based on gossipy news report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guestuser1978 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz is a reliable source. Reasons for firing from a significant position, even if somewhat salacious, do not seem inherently inappropriate for an article. The insertion of this material has been undone twice with no editing comment saying why it was undone. I see that there's been no attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page; may I suggest that you raise the issue there, so that other editors of the page may weigh in with their views? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Doze

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

Hello!

I made this article about myself a couple of years ago.

Now I'm less stupid so I'd like it to be removed as :

1. I'm not famous 2. The informations are not correct 3. I don't want to be on wikipedia 4. To "doze" means "to sleep" in english... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.247.200.184 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles aren't generally removed on request of the subject. Besides, there's no way that we can verify your identity: only the Volunteer Repsonse Team could do that, and you'd need to contact them via email. That said, the article has no references. I've proposed the article for deletion; I'm not convinced that the article can be speedy deleted. (Note that multiple editors have made substantive contributions, so CSD G7 is not an option.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Content Dispute re Piggate

I have a dispute about the inclusion of the following content in the article Piggate:

"In November 2015, solicitor Myles Jackman, an expert on sexual liberties and obscenity law, said that performing a sexual act with a dead animal would not be illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (He did not address the laws at the time the event was said to have occurred.) He noted that possessing a photograph of such an act would be illegal under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 if it was produced for pornographic purposes, but not if the purpose was "satire, political commentary or simple grossness".

My argument against it can be seen at the article's talk page:

"I do not see how the legality of the alleged act is relevant. Let us be clear with what we are dealing with here: this is a piece of hearsay passed on (without the assertion that it was true) by a political enemy of Cameron in an unauthorised biography. No evidence of this allegation has been produced and no formal allegation has been made. Therefore to have a discussion of the legality of such hypothetical act seems not just unnecessary but actually a violation of WP:BLP as it is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did. I have brought this to the talk as suggested by Andy Dingley but there does not seem to have been a talk consensus for adding this in the first place. Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)"

However, the only response to this was by Andy Dingley

"I don't much care what you think - even your username makes this much obvious, let alone your repeated blanking of large sections here. But the consensus of other editors has been that it's a section worth keeping. The legal notion that the combination of two illegal acts becomes not illegal, rather than doubly illegal, is a somewhat surprising one. A surprise that RS, including broadsheet newspapers, have seen fit to cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)"

There does not seem to be a consensus for this content's inclusion in the article nor a legitimate reason for its inclusion. Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this material isn't relevant. I had never heard of Piggate, but after having read the article, it looks like accounts of this issue are complete FAKENEWS. It's a shame Wikipedia has turned into a tabloid / news aggregate. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sean Frye

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Frye

Info at top incorrectly states that Sean Frye played Elliott's older brother. The character Steve was a friend of Elliott's older brother named Michael played by David MacNaughton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C728 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you misread something. The article, which has not been changed in weeks, says he played "Steve, Elliot's older brother's friend", which seems to match what you describe. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

nathan barrett politician

Nathan Barrett (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is information that has been entered into this article and deleted twice that is potentially libelous and either sources a taboid newspaper or others that used the tabloid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanBarrett1976 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been reported at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board.[19] An IP claiming to be the article's subject has been removing sourced content,[20][21][22] as has NathanBarrett1976,[23] so there is an obvious COI issue here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference to a "tabloid" source is presumed to be referring to The NT News who broke the story. The story has been covered by every major Australian media outlet including the ABC, News Corp (The Australian, The Daily Telegraph), and Fairfax. There is some contention between Barrett and the NT News regarding the consensual nature of the communications, which the article does not mention. The subject has confirmed that the conversations and relationship took place, so to entirely remove any mention of events which precipitated resignation from the cabinet and the party seems a pretty clear conflict of interest. --Canley (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that the content is "potentially libelous", please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. --Canley (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

So I am the person that the article is about. Argueing that the NT News is not a tabloid is an interesting claim. The fact that other media agencies picked up the story from this tabloid and ran it does not improve its reliability. I stand by my comments that the deleted material is injurious and comes from a sensationalised source. I stand by my recommendation to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanBarrett1976 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ABC is reporting it in their own voice, not saying that "according to nt news... ". Further, there was a resignation and a public apology for the actions, so there's not much worry that the information is false. That it is unflattering is not Wikipedia's issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that it wasn't a tabloid, I presumed that it was the source you were referring to as a tabloid. The Wikipedia article is quite carefully worded and does not go into excessive salacious detail of the matter. If there is a sentence or detail in this article that you claim is false, then please identify it. You surely can't be claiming that the entire incident never occurred (given that it was admitted to the Legislative Assembly). --Canley (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@NathanBarrett1976: Also, please be aware of our no legal threats policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wally Carr

Wally Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article mentions he was in his mothers stomach. That is not biologically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.201.122 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That part has been removed.--Auric talk 12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Marcus Hutchins

So, this guy does one newsworthy thing once, and then is doxxed by several newspapers, putting his safety at risk. And now some editors are insisting on keeping the article on him, rather than simply deleting it or redirecting it to the article on the underlying event. For shame. That is almost as disgusting than the behaviour of the newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.185 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• AfD: [24]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirected.--Auric talk 12:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not true -- the "redirect" is to an article that uses the name of an alias he uses (MalwareTech). That article is still about him. It should be deleted, per WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ken Eurell

On 6 March 2017‎ Maineartists Undid revision 768844077 by 72.226.7.89 (talk) clear violation of BLP family member, do not revert.

IP#72.226.7.89 Yesterday 31 May 2017‎ 72.226.7.89 (talk)‎ . . (3,227 bytes) (+145)‎ . . →‎Personal life: Added more content vandalized the BLP family members to wit: wrote "Their first child was conceived during an affair between Dori and Ken's brother, Danny. Danny is the father of Ken and Dori's eldest child, James. "

This is a complete outright lie of the BLP & blatant abuse of Wikipedia. IP#72.226.7.89 is nothing but a troll & should be banned from further editing of any wiki page.

thank you for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.6.7 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Removed as a BLP violation. If any admin is watching, the IP that has added the info has been inserting highly negative and BLP violating info for quite a few months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ariel Weinmann

Please note the following from perserec.mil, the official DoD website, which contradicts or supplements\ a significant amount of the material in your article: [2006 - ARIEL JONATHAN WEINMANN, 22 at the time of his sentencing, joined the Navy in 2003, having recently graduated from high school in Salem, Oregon. That same year he had met a girl with whom he fell in love. However, her anti-war parents did not approve of her dating a sailor. In the Navy he became a fire control technician, which involved operating and maintaining submarine weapons systems. Weinmann deployed to the submarine, USS Albuquerque. He quickly became unhappy with life on the sub, describing it as “morally corrupt.” After his tour of duty he returned home to be informed by his girlfriend that her parents did not approve of the relationship and that she was being sent to college in Switzerland. The next day he told her that if he did not hear from her by his October birthday, he would move on with his life. Following her departure, Weinmann moved to Austria to be near her. Before he left for Austria, he downloaded classified information from the ship’s database that he hoped would gain him asylum in Austria. These documents included biographical information on 29 prominent Austrians that the US government had compiled and also technical manuals on the Tomahawk cruise missile system. With his $7,000 savings, he arrived in Vienna at the beginning of July 2005. The October deadline passed with no word from the girlfriend, and that same month he entered the Russian Embassy in Vienna, handing the official a binder full of classified documents on the Tomahawk system. He never heard back from the official. When he realized that he had given away his only leverage, Weinmann decided to go to Russia to seek asylum there. However, that meant returning to the US first. On 26 March 2006, he flew from Mexico City to Dallas Fort Worth where he was arrested by US Customs agents because his name appeared on a deserter watch list. However, apparently he had not given away all his classified documents; some were found in his backpack, which led to the espionage charges. Weinmann pleaded guilty at court-martial to espionage, desertion, theft, and destruction of military property. He was sentenced 10 December 2006 to 25 years in prison, a dishonorable discharge, a reduction in rank, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. A plea agreement limited his prison sentence to 12 years and he will be eligible for parole after four.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.191.80 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Anders Indset

The person in question does not meet Wikipedia's requirements on noteworthiness.

He likely made up his "business philosopher" expertise. The person has worked in advertising without achieving fame and has then become a conference organizer for a few years and then moved on to earn his living by speaking at other people's conferences himself. Now the person claims to have become a philosopher. The sources all point to himself and his book has no relevance in the field #13645 in Books > Business & Money > Management & Leadership > Management .

Google search results on his name point to his own activities. Moreover, claiming to be one of Europe's leading business philosophers is no achievement, as this category returns very few names globally.

It distorts the perception of actual philosophy to place such an entry on Wikipedia.

Concludingly, the article is about a person that has not acquired substantial fame and recognition and is pure marketing for a conference speaker and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.159.99 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Highly promotional. Should be placed at AfD. Maineartists (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

R. C. Sproul Jr.

I posted this at WP:RSN but it got archived with zero replies, so now I am posting here. The article sources claims to hushmoney.org, which appears to be a self-published attack site. I would have thought this was inappropriate for a BLP, but another editor has been restoring it, noting that the website has been included in the article for ten years. Would someone be able to take a look at it? StAnselm (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Tricky question. Regardless of what website posted this, the PDF file itself does appear to be a reliable source on the matter. However, it is also a primary source, being a copy of the church's official judicial-findings on the matter and their subsequent action. This is somewhat similar to digging up someone's court records to use as a source. In many instances a primary source can be very useful, but should not be the only source, and this is especially true where a controversial claim or allegation is made. For something like this, I would usually want to see a reliable secondary-source in lieu of the primary (as opposed to one added to support the primary source). Zaereth (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely we want reliable secondary-source for this material. I have removed it for now. --Malerooster (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's been reverted again. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it back per BLP and PRIMARY, explaining that there is a discussion here. The burden is on the person who wants this reinstated to provide reliable secondary-sources. I won't participate in any edit war, but if this continues without discussion you may want to take it to ANI. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the contributions of the editor who is reverting this material back into the article, they are a WP:SPA - whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles. They have edit warred to keep this material in the article, and will likely continue to edit war this material back in. I also agree the content in question should be removed per WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep it on my watchlist for a while. It does look like your prediction is already coming to pass. I was half amused by their latest edit-summary, which said "Any secondary sources, even if available, will only link to the same Primary Source." This seems to indicate that not only are no secondary sources available, but a clear lack of understanding about what a secondary source is, why they are needed, and how they work. The talk page is full of similar, circular arguments. To StAnselm, please be aware that WP:3RR does not apply to those correcting BLP violations (but does to those reinstating them.) Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been blocked before for correcting BLP violations, so I didn't think I could do anything about it. Thanks for all the help. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that primary documents were also used in the BLP regarding charges which have not yet been adjudicated. Collect (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Collect. Not surprised. I haven't had time to look through the whole article yet, but have no doubt a serious clean-up is in order to make it BLP compliant. I'd do it myself but am much too busy at the moment. (I only spend about 10 minutes a day in front of a computer (on average) and almost never on weekends, hence my suggestions about 3RR and ANI.) If someone else has time to dig into this article further, do a little sweeping and tidying-up, it would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

William Green Miller

William Green Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please take a look at recent (June 1) additions to his bio referencing alleged trips to Iran on behalf of the Obama campaign. Sourcing is townhall.com and the subject himself denies this in other media outlets (Politifact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.19.110 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this content. MPS1992 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Steele

This edit by an IP (implicitly claiming to be the subject) is problematic for stalking and legal threat reasons. The edit summary is self-explanatory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

While the legal threat is, of course, problematic, the edit itself is reasonable. USPTO documents are not the sort of public coverage that we want to use for sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

John Coleman (news weathercaster)

Anonymous users have repeatedly inserted a claim that John Coleman (news weathercaster) is a meteorologist, which might lead people to put more faith in his claims that climate change is fake. Given the contentious nature of the debate, would it be possible to lock that page from edits by anonymous users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.0.177 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he was a member of the AMS and named "Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year" in 1983. Virtually no academic meteorologists were engaged in broadcast journalism at the time Frank_Field_(meteorologist) was a Doctor of Optometry. I find no reliable source, by the way, that Field trained as a meteorologist at MIT, so that "citation needed" claim in the BLP may be an issue. He, like Coleman, holds no actual degree in meteorology. Collect (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Rudolf Schumann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Schumann

Article deleted on 13 May, 2017.[25] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Timmy Tan might be poorly sourced, because I cannot find that much information about him.

In this page link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timmy_Tan, there seems to be gibberish information that seems to be poorly sourced, update: I removed the poorly sourced information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs) 01:00, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Article deleted on 3 June 2017.[26] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Travis Konecny

Libelous, unsourced material repeatedly inserted into this entry. See diff here. In addition to false, defamatory claims, for 4 straight days now. This person's page continues to be vandalized for 4 days straight now following a gold medal final game (Travis Konecny is an athlete)

His bio is being altered to call him a "diver" and general vandalizations regarding him displaying embellishment tend to litter his page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Konecny

IP 83 was warned to stop vandalizing but kept on doing it. And the nonsense by IP 83 spread to another article today (June 4) prompting a revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Geiss

Robert Geiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some of the information in this article is pure speculation, not backed by any reliable source, moreover, not even confirmed by Robert Geiss himself when asked by various journalists. For further details go to --> talk. Rüdiger Überall, June 5, 2017, 11:45 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rüdiger Überall (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sadiq Khan

Please can someone review whether the recent addition to Talk:Sadiq Khan by IP 78.151.* is reliably sourced. I have removed it once, in the belief that it is not, and per WP:BLPTALK. (Another editor had already responded to express the same view that the source was not reliable, but had not removed the material.) It has since been reinstated, and I believe that it should be removed again but I do not want to get into an edit war. Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. I see no problem discussing it via a link, but the text from that source should not be added to the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:COPYVIO concern, on top of anything else. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If they readd it, I suggest just simply reverting again. I linked to the policy in my edit summary, which I think they must have seen because I got an reversion alert. It mentions the option of discussing via a link, so the information is there if they can be bothered to read it. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bill Shorten

Bill Shorten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am wanting the opinions please of independent editors relating to the inclusion of rape allegations and a police investigation against Bill Shorten the Australian opposition leader that were at the time very widely published in all of the Reliable media Sources in Oz. So far only Australian editors have commented. I would appreciate others to take a look at the points made at Talk:Bill Shorten and assume good faith. I'm looking for policy based and neutral opinions here.Birdy1234 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Opined. And your position is, alas, at odds with Wikipedia policy. When the police aver that there is no basic for a formal charge, it is possible that the crime is not relevant to the person. In any event, you appear to have nothing remotely approaching a consensus for inclusion of such allegations. Collect (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Stana Katic

Stana Katic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A relatively new editor added a charity section to this article. I reverted because with the exception of one of the charities, it was sourced only to primary sources (the charities). Once I explained to the editor why I had done it, they bowed out.

Then, TonyTheTiger, a seasoned editor, reverted me saying in their edit summary "rv unexplained content removal", even though I had included an explanation in my revert. I reverted again (second and last time) pointing that out in my edit summary and asking TTT to follow WP:BRD. TTT then added a sentence to the Talk page that said that WP:PRIMARY permits using primary sources without saying why. Although I responded, I didn't realize TTT had reverted again "per Talk". So much for BRD.

The material is self-serving and shouldn't be included. Many celebrities give to charities, but it's not noteworthy unless a secondary source recognizes the contributions in some significant way. Otherwise, we'd have charitable sections for most celebrities and most wealthy BLPs. Even if such sections exist in some articles without secondary sources, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a justification for including them in other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The information seems incredibly trivial to me. I think the use of primary sources should be very careful to avoid such problems. I use primary sources all the time, such as flight manuals or scientific studies, but this only works if you are able to understand the source correctly. The most important criteria, it seems to me, is that the source be about the subject, not just mentioning it in passing or as a way to promote themselves. Since all of the sources lean toward the latter, I'm inclined to agree with you in removing it. Requiring at least one secondary source for this seems very useful in weeding out the trivia and promotional information/links. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The SPS used - which stresses the person's name - is linked to zero other real content (all of which is "coming soon") and thus represents a non-notable organization, one not covered by reliable sources, and where the link is SPS by definition. Collect (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump resistance

Appears to have been written as a WP:BLP attack page. Started discussion to see what the community thinks, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump resistance. Sagecandor (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed questionable sources and WP:SYNTH. Sagecandor (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Now up for deletion at AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravindan_Neelakandan

The article is a biased biography of living person with no verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitscorpio (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The article may be a bit slanted but there are certainly references to support most of the claims. Can I ask specifically what you may be referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"His work involves research on traditional rural communities, as well as on educating farmers of cost-effective technologies to boost their agricultural output." --- No reference.

"His personal library includes around 5,000 documents, including books, magazines, journals, and volumnious archives of media reports." -- No proof.

"Aravindan Neelakandan serves as a mentor to the Srishti Madurai, which involves academicians and Independent scholars from universities around the world." -- The link to Srishti Madurai doesn't work, and the reference 7 is nowhere relevant for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitscorpio (talk • contribs) 06:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the first two claims you noted but the third is sourced. Meatsgains (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

David Duke and Holocaust-denial

It should go without needing to be said that Duke is a disgusting individual, and I'm the farthest thing from an apologist for him that there can be. The lede of his article calls Duke a Holocaust-denier. I am unable to verify this with anything in the text. There is at least one source calling him one, but I'm unable to find any direct quotes from Duke. It would certainly be fine to say that 'A', 'B', and 'C' call Duke a Holocaust-denier, accuse Duke of Holocaust-denial, etc., but to call someone–even someone as reprehensible as Duke– a Holocaust-denier in Wikipedia's voice should require a direct quote. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not. No one who is a Holocaust denier is going to call themselves that, with very close to 100% certainty. A reliable source calling someone a Holocaust denier is enough. Stop being disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

On Talk:David Duke I posted an avalanche of sources supporting this point. Some are very strong, including multiple biographies about Duke which discuss in length his denial of the Holocaust. This has also already been discussed several times in the talk page's archives: Talk:David_Duke/Archive 4#Holocaust denial?, Talk:David Duke/Archive 4#"that's what he's notable for", and others. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should be fairly simple to provide a direct quote from Duke from one of these sources. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you that this is not necessary. Your position is bizarre. You are not edit warring to uphold BLP; you are edit warring to try to impose your strange preferences on other users. I will report you at the edit warring noticeboard if you will not self-revert. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since Duke is not a reliable source, at all, that would be neither necessary, nor sufficient by itself. Many, many sources describe this as a defining trait as a matter of fact. Going against all of those sources to ignore this is fundamentally not neutral, and is whitewashing in service of a WP:FRINGE perspective. Several of these sources might say he's evasive or euphemistic when asked about it, but all of them clearly support the statement that David Duke is a Holocaust denier, and has been for decades. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It would absolutely be necessary. Now that I've finally found one, I have restored the text. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No it isnt. Multiple experienced editors have advised you of this now. Self-identification is not required where there are reliable sources that label the subject as such. We would not for example not label criminals as such because their personal view of their actions differs from how society at large views and describes them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A reliable source that someone is a Holocaust-denier will obviously contain proof of such a claim. As I was eventually able to find such a quote from Duke, it's back in the article. It's really quite simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes its quite simple, it would have been back in the article regardless of your involvement. You lack an understanding of what a reliable source is able to be used for in conjunction with the BLP. Specifically WP:PUBLICFIGURE - when plenty of secondary, independant reliable sources described someone as a holocaust denier, it is not required that the subject self-identify as a holocaust denier to include that description in their article. Had you spent the less than 5 minutes required to read the archived material posted above by Greyfell, you would have found your position has been well refuted on a number of occasions by a wide variety of experienced editors and administrators, with references clearly provided that source the description. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it would not be back in the article without that proof, but you go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. Tell you what: you go find a Wikipedia article that calls someone a Holocaust-denier without proof, and we'll see how it winds up. Hint: it will come out, and stay out until proof is provided. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with everyone here. I've been watching this, and your position does seem to be a very strange one. I've always been strongly opposed to labeling and categorizing people, but even that is limited to a very specific set of circumstances. The amygdala is hard-wired to categorize information before sending it to the hippocampus to be stored as memories. Categorization is inescapable. The old adage, actions speak louder than words, is very much true. People are usually the worst sources of information about themselves due to a simple lack of perspective. It is their actions that society (and reliable sources) will categorize them by. Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that someone self-identify as a negative label in order for us to use that negative label as an encyclopedia. We are supposed to consider the range of coverage about a subject in the sources, and reach a consensus about what their consensus is. Besides, these types of people don't come out and say "the Holocaust didn't happen," or "black people are inferior," or (normally) "member of X group should be put to death". Instead they swim in nuance to the point that it becomes obscurantism: the numbers are inflated, the sources have an agenda, the emotional weight misses some larger emotional thing we would otherwise be concentrating on if we weren't so caught up in these damned Jews. It's the same thing with climate change whatever. They don't call themselves "climate change whatever"; they want to have an obstructively nuanced conversation about scientific consensus, and the limits of human knowledge and impact, or the importance of public debate or dissent.

Even if all this weren't true, the source we should be considering the least in issues that are controversial, and in any case where one way or the other is the least bit self serving, is the subject themselves. We require the consensus of RS in order to overcome BLP; we don't require it to overcome the subject themselves, because of course they're going to say they're not racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist, antisemitic... on and on and on. TimothyJosephWood 21:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• • There's no question that there are plenty of sources that call him as a denier, and it would seem to be a major omission to not include the fact that many sources considering him a denier as part of why he is a notable person. But because this is label derived from his actions and words and not any direct statement he made (eg people are guessing at intent), the language, particularly in the lede, should reflect that this is a assertion made by most commentators/critics, particularly while he is still alive. A century from now, when there is more historical analysis and BLP doesn't apply, maybe the scholarly assessment will agree that he was one, and thus we can say it factually. But in the present, with him still a living figure, we need to state in prose where that stance is coming from. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It's plainly obvious that if a reliable source is referring to someone as "racist", "homophobic", or whatever, it will back up those accusations with proof. That would be the "reliable" part of "reliable source". The idea that we could call someone a Holocaust-denier in Wikipedia's voice, yet not have any verification as to what they said about it is beyond ridiculous. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

assertion made by most commentators/critics Sure, if someone can find any type of reliable source that refutes this seriously, then I'm game. If not, then it's not a BLP issue, and whether or not he self-identifies under those words isn't a serious issue. His opinion on himself is comparatively unimportant. There have been a dozen sources on the talk asserting this and as far as I can tell, nothing offered in response other than the assessment of the subject on himself, which means little to nothing as far as Wikipedia is concerned. TimothyJosephWood 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Where the hell did I say he had to self-identify as one? I said that if a source calls him one, then that source must obviously provide sufficient evidence in order to be considered reliable. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Zacarias Moussaoui and Sadiq Khan

Zacarias Moussaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) For those who are unaware, during the election for London mayor between Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Kahn "Both the Conservative campaign and several Conservative-aligned newspapers sought to tar Khan as an apologist for, or even sympathiser with, Islamic extremism" (quoting from Kahn's article here). Proustfala (talk · contribs) has been trying to make similar links both at Kahn's own article and Moussaoui's. At Moussaoui's article he is inserting "The law firm of future London mayor Sadiq Khan consulted on the defense of Moussaoui." Now you could ask so what, if it's true, but the article doesn't name Moussaoui's defense lawyers and yet he wants to add Khan's name not as the main lawyers but simply as a firm who was consulted. I see his edit summary says " Wikipedia is not allowing me to add YouTube footage of Khan defending Moussaoui on live TV" which might refer to this video discussed at Snopes. It's my belief that this doesn't belong in Moussaoui's article and, as an aside I guess as it's really an issue for AE if it continues despite his BLP sanctions alert, this is part of a pattern of editing by this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for persistent disruptive editing on biographies. Bishonen | talk 09:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC).

James Duddridge and Jason Cowley

The IP user: 81.109.87.141 has been adding poorly sourced citations to articles about the politician James Duddridge here and the journalist Jason Cowley here and here. I have warned him on the talk page, provided links to the most relevant policy documents and mentioned COI in case he has an issue with one or other of the named individuals. S/he seems to have ignored my advice in edit summaries and has restored material to Cowley's article. I think a higher level warning from an administrator would be appropriate. Philip Cross (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

David Duke

There is a dispute over there about calling him a Holocaust denier, and whether or not you can also put in his denial. But the issue I wish to bring up is this.

I stated that this quote form the BLP page.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

Meant that we had to make it clear that the accusation of Holocaust denial is just that an accusation "X has said he is a denier".

The response was this [27], I asked why not and pointed out you just had to change the wording to be appropriate to the case. The response was this [28], or (in essence) this does not apply to him as it is not about what he said.

So my question is this (ignoring the obvious issue of examples being taken to literally).

Do rules on BLP's get wavered if the person is accused of holocaust denial, or do they still apply?

Am I correct in saying that if a BLP denied an accusation then we cannot say that accusation is true, we have to say it is an accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No. There are a lot of shameless liars out there, in high and low places. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not correct as a blanket statement. I have not looked in to the substance of the issue at hand, but I would say it depends on the strength and wording of the sources. Sometimes it is the accusation itself that is notable and what is being reported on; in those cases, obviously, it should be called an accusation. Sometimes there's not a lot of sourcing, but it's strong enough to get by BLP policies. In those cases, the contentious epithet should be specifically tied to the source -- "The Freedonia Times called Dumuzid a dullard." But there are certainly times when despite a subject's denial, sourcing is strong enough to defeat the denial. Thus, if several reliable newspapers, television stations, and scholarly works call me a dullard (which I am NOT! [I hope]), then the label should be applied to me. Or, at least, that's the way I see it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There is so much solid sourcing regarding Duke and Holocaust denial that it really doesn't matter what he says about that characterisation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. If reliable sources characterize the subject as a holocaust denier based on objective facts, such as statements made by the subject, then we can also describe the subject as such. The subject's self-serving denial of what is widely regarded as a fact would be gratuitous.- MrX 11:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

How is this even a debate? It's David Duke - of course the article should state that he's a holocaust denier, since that is extremely well documented and one of the primary things that he's famous for. This is not only a case of a spade being a spade, but of there being hundreds of high quality sources which directly state that "this spade is a spade." Its frankly absurd that anyone is dragging their heels over this (let alone wasting other editors time with two separate discussions of the issue on this page). Fyddlestix (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Arguably, it's still a subjective label, since he seems to have never actually called himself that. Turn the situation around: we don't factually call Einstein or Stephen Hawking "genius"es, but instead note that they are considered as such by a range of sources. Same should apply to something like this: we should at least preface such statements with attributions or at least some type of clause "Duke is widely considered as a Holocaust denier", which removes the label-as-statement-of-fact from WP's voice without any effort. Editors far too easily want to "factualize" positions that fall outside a perceived moral center, but we need to be more neutral than that. We can't omit the widely-popular opinion, but we can still make sure it is set as opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no objective standard for what constitutes a "genius", though — arguments could be made for IQ, accomplishments, breakthroughs, memory, learning, etc.; there is a fairly objective standard for what constitutes a Holocaust denier — have you denied the Holocaust — yes/no? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Which, as I understand the situation for Duke, he has not said anything affirming either way, so it is still subjective. His words and actions strongly point to that position, but that's not the same as an affirmation. If a BLP had said they deny the Holocaust happened, then there's an objective statement, end of story. But as long as we're basing it on what others believe his implications are, then it's subjective. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect Masem, you cant have looked into this in much depth if you're seriously going to pursue this line of argument . Read this (pay attention to the direct quotes from Duke) then look me in the eye and tell me that he's not objectively a holocaust denier. We're talking about someone who has stated that the gas chambers were for disinfecting clothes, who says that the photographs of piles of bodies are fakes, who says "extermination didn't take place," in the death camps, which he claims were internment camps (comparable to Japanese internment) only. That's holocaust denial and if you can't concede that you probably should not be editing Wikipedia (much less have the mop). Fyddlestix (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think we should probably just take a deep breath- Fyddlestix, I've seen you around and what you do *thumbs up* -and I know this is a ?controversial subject (understatement of the century!)- but I don't honestly think it's going to clear the issue up or help in anyway by questioning an admin's integrity when they are clearly only commenting as an editor. That's all. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll strike that part, sorry Masem I should not be attacking you personally. I do think your argument here is... rather poor and Ill advised though. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec and apology accepted) As I said "as far as I understand". I have not spent hours looking over the sources, just that from a glance at the issue and the current page, it was not clear if he said anything affirming his stance if the Holocaust was real or not; the OPs question (as well as the previous thread) suggest those sources that says he said along the lines of what you suggest don't exist; but if they do, in his own words, then there's little else to say beyond placement (not a lede sentence but in the lede for certain). The problem that this stems is that there is the larger issue where we as a community are throwing negative subjective labels on BLP in a matter-of-fact manner just because the entire body of press make that claim. We're an encyclopedia with a broader scope and long-tail world view and we need to be more amoral on these facets. We shouldn't be rushing to condemn BLP of having very contrary views, which is what presenting subjective labels as fact ends up doing. For Duke, assuming we can quote what he said, then we're now going off fact, and there's little argument against inclusion as fact. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to stay away. I really did. Masem and I have been through this exact argument once or twice. But again I find myself gobsmacked! Masem, perhaps I misunderstand, but if "the entire body of press" makes a claim, we can't state it as fact on Wikipedia? I am all for epistemic humility, but that seems extreme to me. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If the question of Duke's stance was in doubt (per what Fyddlestix says exists, this doesn't appear to be the case), then when we're talking "the entire body of press" we are really talking "the entire body of the press that meets our RS standards", which due to numerous reasons, averages to a left-leaning, Western world view, and not a holistic picture particularly excluding views from either extreme or other cultures. And it likely does not include the BLP's own stance. So therefore the stance of the press is subjective, and should be treated in a middle-ground view by simply stating the factually true "X is considered a Holocaust-denier by most of their critics", rather than the blunt subjective "X is a Holocaust-denier." Again, flip the situation around where the entire body of press may consider someone a genius, or the best artist/actor ever, etc.; we don't state as fact but as a qualified statement. Same should be done in for such negative statements too. (Again, for Duke, this likely doesn't matter now). --MASEM (t) 16:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Stating in a Wikipedia article that someone is a Holocaust denier needs to be substantiated by a number (certainly more than two; we can't just rely on "this is extremely well-known" or "everybody knows this about him") of incontrovertible citations. But it is not necessary for the subject to self-state that they are a Holocaust denier, because such people often do not use that term or publicly state that's what they are in those exact words. Softlavender (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I cannot disagree strongly enough with this notion that we must "preface such statements with attributions" like "widely considered." No, no, no. Where multiple, well-respected, sources, including scholarly sources, describe Duke, or another person, as a Holocaust denier, we describe them as such in our own voice. We do not insert these needless, doubt-casting, hedges like "according to critics" and we especially should not do so out of the misbegotten notion that the sources have a "left-leaning, Western" view). WP:NPOV: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Where a statement is not contested or controversial within the community of scholars, we directly state it. This is true even when the subject or similar fringe figures might object. Neutrality^talk 17:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• (Responding to questions in OP comment) Yes, they do still apply, and no, you are not correct. Being a Holocaust-denier (indeed, being partly notable for being a Holocaust-denier) is not the same thing as being alleged to have had an extramarital affair. If enough reliable sources don't exist to get past the stringent restrictions of BLP to write a decent encyclopedia article that covers the major aspects of the topic, then the article should be deleted. This was the case with this article, but it clearly isn't here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd submit a relevant sample GA-class article that is well-cited and quite specific: David Irving. In any case, just doing Control+F holocaust on the David Duke article reveals numerous cited facts concerning his Holocaust denialism, so there's no reason to insist that he be on record somewhere as stating "I am a Holocaust denier". It's not the same thing as self-identifying as atheist [i.e., stating "I am an atheist"] or stating that God does not exist – at least one of which statements we request as cited self-identification when someone is added to "atheist" Categories or Lists. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Barbara Bush

Number 16 "NPOV dispute" on Former First Lady Barbara Bush talk page should be deleted. The second half of this section is very rambling and does not seem to meet Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources. Since the person is still alive, it may meet Wikipedia's guidelines for discrepancies on articles of living persons.

Those edits are over three years old at this point and user Maxnwe never made any other edits. They are unlikely to continue the suggestions or to edit teh article itself. We generally do not remove what has been posted to talk pages unless those posts clearly violate one of the Talk Page Guidelines and simply noting a Canadian call-in show's assertions, however ludicrous, is not defamatory or otherwise violating any guideline I see. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As a relatively low-traffic talk page, no one has set up archiving. That would be one solution, as any stale discussions would still be accessible but not obviously visible. I generally recommend it for any BLP. (I would do it myself except I am spectacularly bad at it) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I'll try siccing Cluebot III on it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

godfrey bloom

• Godfrey Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Wikipedia page is written with comments that have been taken completely out of context. The information is incorrect and unsubstantiated. The individual has continually attempted to have this article removed and we are asking again for it taken down from your website please. These rumours affect the individuals life and the perception of him in his elderly years. He has continued to fight against these accusations and has proven ever time that he does not hold the opinions as suggested in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcle0d (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick scan of the article shows BBC and similar grade sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a quick scan suggests no significant problems here. There's a malformed AfD request; waste of time, there's no prospect of deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bappusaheb Bhosale

Bappusaheb Bhosale Founder President Dalit Panther Of India Known as DPI was Born on 26 June 1977 in Pune City State Maharashtra Country India His Father Late Sadashiv Bhosale was One Of The Founder Of Old DALIT PANTHER Movement in 1972 with Namdeo Dhasal and Raja Dhale , Bappusaheb Bhosale working for The Tibetan Cause as Free Tibet Movement From India working for dalits the oppressed peoples in India Mission Free Education Support and Help For Social Justice in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bappusaheb bhosale (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What about him? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Time Sensitive/Unwarranted Edits Tainting Jack Scalia Profile

Jack Scalia updates are repeatedly taken down I am a professional journalist & I am growing weary of the malicious editing of Mr Scalia's page. Scalia has been active with the Military and I have cited articles from the San Diego Tribune, NBC TV , Good Day New York. We believe that his post is being edited with malice leaving negative (albeit old articles) while continuously removing current and documented activities of Scalia's that are favorable and positive. WHY Is THIS REMOVED? Military support[edit] Scalia's avocation is serving Veterans and war fighters. On a May 1017 interview on Good Day New York Scalia talked about his multiple tours to Mosul for humaitarian missions [11] Scalia was also a key participant in the 2016 Pearl Harbor 75th Anniversary Memorial Parade[12] and hosting the 105th birthday celebration for WWII veteran Ray Chavez.[13] Scalia met the 104 year old Chavez on the USS Missouri in December 2016 when he hosted an event to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor (which included the governors of Hawaii and Arizona). After the event Scalia, 9/11 firefighter Joe Torrillo, and patriotic rocker Jeff Senour came up with the ultimate honor for Chavez. On March 11, 2017, more than 600 people were treated to a patriotic concert in Chavez' honor, as the oldest living Pearl Harbor veteran was showered with presents, a four-foot cake, letters from one sitting and four past U.S. Presidents, and an outpouring of love and national media attention.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Real Journalist (talk • contribs) June 10, 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some of the edits you've done, I can see why your fellow editors may not have been supporting their inclusion. In this edit, for example, there are three sources, only two of which even mention Scalia, and then not for more than a single sentence. These do not seem to be indicators of significant events in Scalia's history. Additionally, your writing seems to have a point-of-view spin; writing as you did in the edit I indicated that he spent "countless hours" doing something, or as you write above that something is the "ultimate honor". These are terms that are not encyclopedic in nature. The best place for you to be posting a message now would be Talk:Jack Scalia, the discussion page for that article. There you can raise your concerns about what you feel is not included, and other editors involved on the page can respond. That way, the disagreement can potentially be worked through.

Also: above, you use the phrasing "we believe", which suggests the possibility that you are working on the behalf of the subject or some other interested party. May I suggest that you review our guidelines on editing when you have a potential conflict of interest? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Observation. A Real Journalist (talk · contribs) has made 35 edits in their 2+ years on Wikipedia; only three have been not related to Scalia. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Teddy Sheringham

Teddy Sheringham, one of the most famous English footballers of the modern era, is falsely listed as being a player on Beitar Jerusalem F.C. with 68 goals in 72 appearances from 2015-17, but this is laughably inaccurate given that he is 51 years old and never played outside of England, let alone in Israel.

Perhaps related to this is the fact that Teddy Stadium (Beitar F.C.'s home stadium) was inaccurately listed in its own article as being NAMED after Sheringham, when it in fact is named after former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek. I've corrected these errors on both the Beitar F.C. page and the Teddy Stadium page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clmetsfan (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Clmetsfan: thank you for fixing both these articles. All of these edits were made by the oddly named editor Wankypedagogue. I have left a polite -- perhaps too polite -- warning on their talk page. You may wish to watchlist the two articles in case they ignore the warning, but perhaps you have already done so. I am not sure if the oddly named editor's name is grounds for further action, but possibly people with understanding of such policies will deal with it. MPS1992 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

sultan qaboos al said

With respect the below content about his personal life is misleading information and shall be immediately removed

"Some Omanis, including Oman's former second-most-senior intelligence officer Tony Molesworth, believe Qaboos is homosexual.[31][32][33][34]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAK22 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Policy on Biographies of Living Persons requires claims about a person to be verifiable. The statement in question is not that Qaboos is gay but rather many Omanis believe Qaboos is gay and there are four citations to biographies and other reliable source books supporting the statement. Wikipedia is not censored. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored but it is also not for gossip, and this looks to be in that realm. There's nothing in the article that claims that this belief of some Omanis has any further significance, making the need for it to be covered dubious. And at least one of those four books cited was blatantly not a reliable source, it was a self-published book; I have removed that reference, but the entire sentence should be indeed considered for removal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Added: the article is Qaboos bin Said al Said, for anyone who wants to weigh in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The status of gays and lesbians in the Arab peninsula is certainly not a trivial subject, nor is the survival of Oman's government after Qaboos' death, which his lack of heir (see [29]) makes doubtful. Oman's position as a close US/UK ally and the human rights situation in the Arab world in general makes Qaboos' position, and possibly his sexuality, important issues. The Ling/Beasant book is an academic biography and makes it clear that this speculation is an important issue in Qaboos' sultanship and relations to his people. This is not mere gossip. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not presented in the article in any way as being anything more than mere gossip. There is no context there, and besides, it's not talking about his sexuality but rather people's beliefs about his sexuality, so context would require the impact that those beliefs have. As for concerns about whether or not he has an heir, those can be addressed without concern for his sexuality; he's a 76 year old man at this point, and an heir is not likely to suddenly appear whatever the reason for the situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

So the correct course of action would be to add that context. that's what we're both saying, correct? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that the correct course is to remove such material until the time (when and if) that the article has such context - some genuine impact of this public belief, not speculative belief on what the impact of the gossip is, nor speculation on what that claim would mean if true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it until the proper context and consensus for its inclusion can be established. MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm Nance

• Malcolm Nance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Removed undue weight and WP:BLP violation to unreliable sources, per source Snopes [30]. Diff of removal [31].

Needs attention so this doesn't get added back, thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor - I don't see snopes.com listed as a reference, I see Washingtontimes.com as a reference (and not an op-ed column either). Washington times is a reliable source and the incident is referred to exactly as the Washington times said it happened, it's also not salacius or over long, so I'm not seeing the issue.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation. Dubious source. Didn't fact-check their work. One source given for an entire subsection in the article. With plural "Controveries". No 2nd "controversy". Doesn't merit mention here due to comparison of WP:BLP with fact the source did not bother to fact-check, per Snopes. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in this WP:BLP. Needs to go. Per source Snopes [32]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, snopes.com doesn't appear in that article at all. Snopes is also not a reliable source. The source for the article is reliable (washington times ). As long as we as a reliable source , it's a candidate for being included. Also, undue weight ? I seriously doubt it, the write up on the page is less than 1 paragraph.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Entire subsection? For the one source? You removed the bibliography section? You put all the books into the controversy section? You did not explain why ONE so-called "controversy" is titled in the plural for subsection title? No. Negative material highly critical of WP:BLP. Undue weight from one source that failed to fact-check. Debunked by Snopes. False. Wrong. No consensus to include. Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source so it doesn't matter what the heck snopes says, Washington Times, however, is a reliable source, and yes it does matter what they say, the claim of BLP is spurrious.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I never thought I would ever type this sentence, but KoshVorlon is completely correct. As far as sources go, Snopes has roughly the same WP:RS status as the graffiti on a toilet wall, while The Washington Times is a perfectly respectable source. Sagecandor, you're skating on extremely thin ice here. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? Snopes is a reliable source for debunking and fact-checking. We don't use one dubious source that didn't fact-check to add negative claims about a living person. That is the very definition of undue weight and harm to a living person with knowing falsehoods. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Sagecandor. Snopes is actually an accepted reliable source for these matters — they have established editorial policies and are well-known as a source for debunking Internet claims. The Washington Times is well-known as the mouthpiece for the Unification Church. Republishing out-of-context tweets and claiming that they amount to a terrorist threat is ridiculous, and we rightly have removed it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. If we had paragraphs for every time anyone tweets anything if even one source says something negative about it, that would be ridiculous to create a "Controveries", plural, section for that. Sagecandor (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Any reasonable person reads that tweet, in context, as stating (in a poorly-worded fashion) that the building has become a high-value terrorist target. No reasonable person reads that tweet as encouraging a terrorist group to bomb a building. No mainstream reliable source — not even Fox News — claimed otherwise; the entire sum total of this nontroversy can be found in the right-wing echo chamber of InfoWars, GatewayPundit and LouderWithCrowder. It does not belong in Nance's biography, not one bit of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. His entire career is shaped around counterterrorism. Emphasis on counter. Sagecandor (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Washington Times is not RS for challenged BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice logic there. RS is RS, period. Washington Times is RS. You (meaning not just specifico, buy Sagecandor and NorthbySouthBaranof) are challenging what Washington Times is saying because a NON-RS source says something opposite. That's fine, find another actual reliable source that contradicts Washinton Times, otherwise, I'm afraid the Washington Times post source needs to stay , per WP:BLP and WP:RS.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears consensus including SPECIFICO, NorthBySouthBaranof, and Nomoskedasticity and myself, is against inclusion for violating WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Sagecandor (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User appears to have violated consensus, and undid a tremendous amount of sourcing and improvements to the page, and added back unsourced info tagged as uncited, to a WP:BLP page [33]. Sagecandor (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I reverted your attempt to whitewash his article, you totally removed the controvery section which is reliably sourced and removed a lot of other reliably sourced stuff. Sorry, that's not going to fly. As I explained, your attempt to revert the controvery section by using snopes just won't work. Snopes was already ruled a non-reliable source (it's known as such on the WP:RS board) therefore you'll need to gain consensus that snopes is indeed reliable first before you can use it to remove the controversy section. Not the other way around.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The "controversies" section, as currently constituted, strikes me as absolutely a BLP violation. First of all, simply labeling something a "controversy" does not remove it from the sphere of BLP issues. Secondly, the phrasing in the article misrepresents the source, as far as I am concerned. To wit: our article says "On April 18, 2017 Malcolm Nance encouraged ISIS to carry out a suicide bombing of a President Trump's property." The source says "MSNBC terrorism analyst Malcolm Nance has deleted a tweet that appeared to call for a terrorist attack against Trump Towers in Istanbul." We have taken an "appearance" and made it fact. That must be amended at the very least. When considered in the grand scheme of things and giving it due weight, I'd say leave it out -- but I don't think that's obviously demanded. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

NO one's saying that it does. Simply put, the controversy section was reliably sourced and took up a small portion of the article , so screaming WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE aren't a reason to remove it. There really isn't one, that and snopes.com whichi is being used to refute the allegeation, isn't a reliable source.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To my mind, BLP is certainly among the reasons to remove a sentence which does not accurately represent the cited source. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A couple quick comments on reliable sourcing. One, the claim that "RS is RS, period" is not supported by our standards; see WP:RSCONTEXT. (I have no comment on how this applies to the Washington Times.) And the dismissing of snopes.com as a reliable source goes against the leaning the last time they were brought up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Much of the concern over the years has been that it's a self-published source, and that's less applicable now and not at all in this particular case; while the Mikkelsons used to serve as writers of all the content, the remaining member of that couple now serves as editor and most of the content, including the piece in question, is written by folks under his editorial control. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon has now repeatedly inserted this contentious negative material into Nance's biography without consensus; indeed, without any attempt whatsoever to gain consensus on the article talk page. There is no consensus for the material's inclusion and edit-warring contentious negative material into an biography is a violation of policy as well as common sense and human decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

NOt really --- it's reliably sourced and isn't undue. The argument to remove is based on a non-rs sources disagreeing with this, and I have 2 reverts yesterday, 1 today, edit warring, really ?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, the version you apparently prefer, baldly stating that a terrorist attack was called for, does not represent the cited source (which hedges a bit, using the word "appeared") and I would say for that reason, it is obviously violative of WP:BLP. I also think it undue, but there I believe reasonable minds can differ. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to break 3RR to be "edit-warring" - you are clearly edit-warring by repeatedly making a disputed edit with no attempt to gain consensus for that edit, and you have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. As per established, black-letter policy, as the person seeking to insert disputed negative material into a biography, it is incumbent upon you to gain consensus for the inclusion of your proposed edit; absent any such consensus, the material has no place in the article. As I noted on your talk page, if you persist in edit-warring this material into Nance's biography, you will be crossing the threshold into disruptive editing, and I will seek sanctions based upon that disruption. Either discuss your proposed addition and abide by consensus from that discussion, or drop the issue and move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

.....Actually, you're attempting to replace a reliable source with an unreliable source, yes, consensus needs to be established, but not my way, you would need to have consensus that an unreliable source can be used in a BLP to both replcae a reliable source nd be suitable for blp.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not proposed replacing anything - the fact is clear that you have proposed to add a highly-defamatory claim about a living person that is, at best, thinly sourced, and which, in the considered opinion of a number of editors here, violates a number of policies and principles relating to how we write about people. The burden lies on the editor or editors proposing inclusion of any material. You do not have consensus for your proposed change and you have made no attempt to gain consensus. Repeatedly attempting to force the material into the article is disruptive and indicates that you do not understand our policies and principles affecting how we write about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Undue appears to be the only argument against inclusion that I can see. Don't really have a strong opinion on that front. I disagree with every other argument made so far against inclusion. WT is fine. Arkon (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have several problems with it. The first, and almost a separate issue of its own, is that a section titled "controversies" is a nothing more than a dumping ground for any POV a person wants to push. Information for such a section could just as easily be woven into the text and timeline.

The next is that the information itself is a perfect example of circular reasoning. (If A, then B.)

The last is that it begins by making an affirmation by drawing conclusion that is not supported by either source, which in itself is synthesis. The tweet is one of those sentences that can have multiple meanings, depending on how you look at it, and apparently there are others who regard it as a warning, as in "this is the next most-likely target." The Washington Times article gives almost no information, but at least Snopes did some fact checking and provides a pretty thorough report, concluding, "We found no evidence to support the claim that Nance was advocating a terrorist strike on a Trump-licensed building in Istanbul. Instead, based on Nance’s current high profile position as a counterterrorism expert and his decades-long career of military service fighting terrorism, it’s not credible to assert that his tweet, while perhaps poorly worded, was in fact advocating terrorism." The information from our article gives none of this balance but rather makes the opposite conclusion --a conclusion not found in either source. Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Zaereth. It's also not noteworthy of inclusion anyways. Sagecandor (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth cogently lays out the case for why this should not be included. The only even arguably-reliable source that can be found is a single blurb in a right-wing newspaper which takes a single 140-character tweet out of context to argue that a counter-terrorism expert is asking ISIS to bomb something - this is patently absurd, defamatory and entirely unsupported by any independent, non-partisan analysis. That a poorly-worded tweet was latched onto by a right-wing echo chamber is not indicative of something that belongs in a brief encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. It is the very definition of false and defamatory and violation of WP:BLP. And especially WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a biographical encyclopedic entry. Sagecandor (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Have people lost their fucking minds here? The Washington Times is generally speaking a reliable source. In this case, it's incredibly obvious that there's at the very least a reasonable chance they got it wrong. While "RS is RS" is true, the Washington Times is not the Inerrant Word, and as far as this specific incident is concerned, it is obviously not RS, at least not to the degree required by WP:BLP. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This article [34] by the Intercept's calls out the fake news Nance retweeted and pronounced as true. This biography continues to list the fake news that the Podesta email's released by Wikileaks continued forgeries. Greenwald and The Intercept are left wing outlets and their criticism here is accurate and notable. From the article: Jeff Greenwald: Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes:.... Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported — and continue to report — on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done. --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon also covered the tweet about recommending a Trump property for bombing by ISIS. MSNBC Contributor Deletes Tweet Calling for ISIS Bombing of Trump Property. This was a notable, relevant event. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting that you recently removed sourcing from Raw Story from the BLP a of conservative politician charged with a serious crime on the grounds that it's an unsuitable source (something I happen to agree with; we can and should do better than Raw Story when it comes to sensitive issues) and removed all mention of the charges, including several indisputable sources on the grounds that it was unfair to the subject. Yet here on the BLP of a moderate or liberal political commentator, you're demanding to regurgitate ludicrous and defamatory claims published by a right-wing partisan mouthpiece based upon nothing more than a flagrantly-out-of-context tweet. It seems that you have a rather interesting set of standards for BLPs; Raw Story isn't acceptable and all mention of formal felony sex crime charges against a Trump campaign official must be excluded as "unfair" to the article subject, but the "Washington Free Beacon" is acceptable and a flagrant and defamatory accusation against an MSNBC commentator based upon nothing more than misinterpreted and out-of-context tweets must be included as "notable" and "relevant." To be charitable, that is not a very coherent reading of policy or practice; indeed, by all appearances, it is naked partisanship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The comment by NorthBySouthBaranof above, calling out the problems with the user about double-standards when the user supports removal of negative material from right-wing Wikipedia articles, and acts the opposite on the other side of the spectrum, is striking and a disturbing violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof what is interesting is that you don't see a difference between accusing a non-public figure of a crime and providing a source for a statement made by a public person that is in front of cameras all the time. I didn't characterize the tweet. I didn't add material regarding the tweet. I didn't demand anything so what exactly is your problem? Accusing the Beacon of publishing defamatory material is quite the claim. The Nance tweet happened. It was not a crime or accusation of a crime. It was covered in the press. Nance is a public figure. Nance's biography wasn't written so that they could be "defamed" but Tim Nolan's biography was created solely to document a criminal complaint and score political points. It was used as cannon fodder. That you don't see a difference is disturbing. I recommend articles of all persuasions that are created solely for political reasons be deleted. Maybe you'd care to weigh in to delete them? --DHeyward (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, NorthBySouthBaranof is right, these edit summaries would be nice if applied to political-left figures the same as the user does for the right: [35] [36] [37] [38]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this edit by DHeyward [39]. We should avoid use of word "fraud", per policy WP:BLPCRIME. I have instead added a full quote, that mentions Nance directly, by name, in the quote, at [40]. To use the word "fraud", absent other sources saying the same, is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and violation of WP:BLPCRIME. And I know the user agrees with me about the policy of WP:BLPCRIME per their actions at "rm a section simply not allowed by BLPCRIME". Sagecandor (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User has violated 1RR and added "fraud" back into the page a 2nd time, [41]. This needs to be removed from the page per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Sagecandor (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not 1RR vio. Unless you think a single revert, like yours, is a violation. Also, fraud is an attributed direct quote from the source. Attribution is required and is provided. --DHeyward (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong to accuse a WP:BLP of "fraud" with one (1) source. Sagecandor (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you should write a strongly worded letter to the person that used the word "fraud." I didn't make any accusations and it's not my word. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is one (1) source. It therefore does not belong in the article, per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:BLPCRIME. Sagecandor (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with removal and edit summary explaining it by MrX. Sagecandor (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

[42]. Both fail WP:BLP as poor sources for a BLP. Polemic and fail WP:NPOV. Sourced info was also removed. The "Guest analyst" sections should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for every negative thing said about the living person in unreliable poor sources that fail WP:BLP. Edit should be undone and source removed. Sagecandor (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment I feel like the entire article is puffery around a Twitter personality ( https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance ) and SageCandor is wiki-lawyering away any sources that describe this, so the profile makes it look like this person is notable for his work as a military officer rather than for his media career (both writing books and appearing on TV shows) after retiring from the military. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User made a similar comment on the talk page [43]. Dumuzid and Nomoskedasticity agree these sources are questionable, at best, and unreliable for spurious disparaging claims about a WP:BLP. Per WP:BURDEN, user has failed to back up any of their assertions with reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You're arguing about the credibility of other sources, but they do prove beyond a doubt that he appears on TV shows and has a Twitter account with 200k followers and many posts per day. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I linked to his Twitter account in this thread. Here is a Youtube clip of this man appearing on a panel on MSNBC: [44] . Please stop wiki-lawyering about the references and defend your position. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We should stick to WP:SECONDARY sources, where possible. Sagecandor (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop wiki-lawyering about the references and defend your position. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My position is to rely upon reliable sources. Especially for disparaging claims about living persons on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau

The lead for Mary Kay Letourneau as it stands is rather biased against the subject:

Mary Kay Fualaau (née Schmitz, formerly Mary Kay Letourneau; born January 30, 1962) is an American former schoolteacher who pleaded guilty to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child, her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. Her plea agreement called for six months in jail, with three months suspended, and no contact with Fualaau for life. The case gained national attention.

Granted it is an unseemly subject, but nevertheless BLPs deserve to be as neutral as possible. I made an attempt:

Mary Kay Fualaau (née Schmitz, formerly Mary Kay Letourneau; born January 30, 1962) is an American former schoolteacher who gained notoriety for having a romantic relationship with her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau, whom she later married. The case gained national attention; Letourneau (later Fualaau) was convicted of second-degree rape of a child and incarcerated from 1998 to 2004.

User:Flyer22 Reborn has somewhat angrily reverted this (a nasty message left for me). I don't know precisely what the axe to grind is on this particular article and I don't want to get into an edit war. But I do believe keeping it neutral is important so I am simply stating my concern here hoping to get other opinions involved.

-- MC, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

Like I told the editor on my talk page, "The previous editor added 'child lover' and also added 'the illicit liaison.' Both edits were reverted by SarekOfVulcan. And then I warned the editor. Similarly, you added 'having a romantic relationship with.' And I reverted you, and then warned you. To most of the public, and when looking at most of the sources about Mary Kay Letourneau, she is known as the woman who committed statutory rape by having sex with her 12-year-old student. It is not usually framed as a romance, but rather as a crime. If is it being biased to frame the matter as a crime first and foremost, then that is only because the literature is mostly biased in this regard. We go by Wikipedia's rules. What was there before you edited the article is not judgmental language; it is reporting the facts. The language you added, which is framing/judging their interaction as romantic, is far more problematic. And I see no need to restore the rest of what you added, but I did restore this bit."

On the article talk page, the editor tried to compare the matter to Richard Nixon and that we don't begin the lead of that article by noting the Watergate scandal. I told the IP, "Nixon has a lot of other things to state about him, such as the fact that he was the 37th President of the United States. Letourneau is only known as the female teacher who committed statutory rape." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a misleading defense. Nixon is far more well-known for the Watergate scandal than he is for his presidency in general. If the criterion for the lead sentence is what the subject is most known for, you would use Watergate. But, again, doing so would be character assassination (whether or not he deserves to have his character assassinated is beside the point). -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

Nothing misleading about what I've argued. And I repeat: "Letourneau is only known as the female teacher who committed statutory rape." There is nothing else to her name/to her WP:Notability-wise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. If the only facts about Letourneau that matter are her committing the rape then why talk about any other part her life? Why mention that she was a teacher, her previous marriage, her subsequent marriage, or anything else? We include these other items because if we are going to have an article about a topic, it should be complete and neutral. Focusing exclusively on the most well-known aspect of the topic is deliberately not neutral. WP is not supposed to be a tabloid. We do not sensationalize topics. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

Yours is the one that makes no sense. That is why your arguments are not being backed up. Your understanding of the WP:Neutral and WP:BLP polices is deeply flawed. And do start signing your posts using four tildes. Stating "MC" is not signing anything in terms of Wikipedia talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

And, for the record, most of our BLP articles talk about the person's early life, career, and personal life. It's not the case that all of those things are notable. What is in the Mary Kay Letourneau article is there for context. She is not known for her teaching, her previous marriage, or her subsequent marriage (except for as it relates to Fualaau), or anything else. To the public (not counting people in her personal life), she is known for statutory rape. Only. Either way, this dispute is not about noting other parts of her life in the lead. It's about whether or not it is a BLP and/or NPOV violation to begin the lead by noting her statutory rape case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also been clear with the IP that the WP:Neutral policy does not at all support beginning the lead with "having a romantic relationship." The IP's interpretation of the WP:Neutral policy is way off the mark. And there is certainly no WP:BLP violation when it comes to the current lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Facts themselves are inherently neutral. Bias is introduced when theorizing about those facts, or when exaggerating/glossing over those facts, say by trying to use words with connotations that are meant to illicit/quell an emotional response in a reader. I think both choices do that. "Rape of a child" seems to aim for an emotional response for the child (not that one isn't warranted) while "romantic relationship" seems to try to smooth the response. Personally, I think the clinical term "statutory rape" is sufficient to get the message across while still keeping a certain detachment from the subject. (It also saves from piping the link.) In my opinion, if someone is convicted of statutory rape then that is what we should call it. Zaereth (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A small note: The assertion that "Facts are inherently neutral" is a rather dangerous. I'm sure you have heard the saying "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics." Thinking that because every statement you have made is technically factual that you are not being misleading or unfair is very wrong. Some of the most dangerous lies in history were based on solid facts (e.g. the Nazi theories of Aryan superiority were based on the very well-founded study of the Indo-Europeans). -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that argument is based upon circular reasoning. Facts are observable/recordable phenomena. Everything else falls under the category of theory/interpretation. That the sky is blue is a fact. Why it is blue is a theory. (For better explanations see sources like: On writing well: The classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinsser, Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills.) What you have at best is a content dispute, not a BLP vio. However, I do not foresee your theory that child whose brain is not half developed can be involved in a romantic relationship as going very far. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth, what to use for the lead sentence has been discussed before; see Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 2#Conviction, use of that term, and noting Vili Fualaau in the first sentence. "Second-degree rape of a child" is used because it's what she pled guilty to. As noted in the Statutory rape article, "very few jurisdictions use the actual term statutory rape in the language of statutes." As for a conviction, DHeyward argued the following in the aforementioned discussion: "To be completely accurate, she was not 'convicted,' rather she plead guilty (which has the same legal ramifications). She was sentenced to 7 years and released on probation after serving 80 days. For violating probation, the prosecutor presented evidence of probation violation to a judge. She was found guilty of probation violation by the judge and was resentenced to serve the full 7 years in custody on the original crime. She was still afforded a trial for the probation violation though the burden of proof is lower. She was not charged with a crime when found again so her only criminal 'conviction' involving the victim was the original crime she plead guilty to. She still only has the single felony child rape conviction. Really, there were two parts of the probation violation: the first was a hearing to revoke probation, the second would have been a new set of child rape charges. The prosecutor chose not to file new charges I believe because of a lack of cooperation from the victim. They had plenty of time to file if the victim changed his mind as the statute of limitation clock doesn't start until the victim is an adult. Now it's moot." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that was just my opinion, but either way, I see no BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

She's known for pleading guilty to raping her 12 year-old student, having his children and later marrying him. It's not our place to gloss over facts. There are plenty of adults in college that develop adult relationships between student and professor. They aren't notable for developing a "romantic relationship" because that type of relationship is normal. I can't imagine softening the rape conviction of the Stanford swimmer or Sandusky at Penn State any other rapes that have already been adjudicated. --DHeyward (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll simply respectfully disagree. I don't know what "gloss" is being referred to. The version I suggested talks about the illicit nature of the affair right in the lead paragraph. What it does not do is attempt to bury the facts of her notoriety as the current version does. The point is that presenting the facts in a misleading way as they are now is violation of WP:BLP, pure and simple. Whether or not the statements are factually accurate does is not the only criterion of that policy. In fact the very first element of that policy is neutrality. Verifiability is actually the second element. The current lead is a hatchet job (though not the worst I've seen on WP). --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

You need to study both the WP:Neutral policy and the WP:BLP policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have. That's why I objected. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

There is no order-of-importance for core policies. Neutrality, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and no original research all work together to make Wikipedia work. If there is a specific part of the policies that you believe supports your view, then I would suggest focusing on those and avoid meaningless characterizations such as "pure and simple", "worst I've ever seen", and "hatchet job." Keep in mind that every policy is augmented by every other policy depending on factors like context and significance. Most people who watch this page have a very good understanding of policy, and a real desire to keep BLPs fair and encyclopedic, and can easily help clear up any misunderstandings you may or may not have. If you have a valid argument, presented in a logical and professional manner, people here will often be quick to jump in and help. If no one does, then that is also a pretty good indication. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki

Brought to AfD to assess notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kiyosaki. Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this here? First, did you really nominate an article for deletion which has 138 sources? I'm sure some are questionable but the guy is obviously notable. The AFD should be snow closed.

Second, why you providing a link to an AFD in this noticeboard? I don't believe that's the function of this board.

Third, I took a brief glance at the article, which is more hagiography than biography. There ought to be an NPOV discussion. Are all the editors unaware that much of the life story is "questionable"? A brief Google search turns-up claims of scam, and fraud.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Posted to WP:NPOVN as well. Posted here as it is a WP:BLP with prior history of page issues. Sagecandor (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg, revisited

Hello, folks. I was here a couple weeks back with an issue involving Rothenberg Ventures, which has been the focus of a couple different SPAs in recent months, adding highly charged, negative material to the article. Well, one such SPA has added a new paragraph to the introduction: mention of a lawsuit apparently filed in March against the founder (not the company) that has not been reported by a reliable source (I searched, the Rothenberg Wikipedia article itself is the top result) and for which an external link has not been included. I've tried seeking help from a couple of different editors, but they have either not responded or declined to look into the matter. Because the content is essentially unsourced and is contentious, I'd like to ask someone here to review the diff and consider reverting the edit. Following that, it's worth looking at the SPA's edit history and consider offering a warning. Then as before, I must note my COI, as I'm consulting for Rothenberg Ventures. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content as a blatant BLP vio, for the use of primary court documents as a source. It appears that, possibly, someone may have a grudge to push, so a few extra eyes over there may be helpful. If the BLP vios continue then it may be necessary for an admin to intervene. Zaereth (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Brian Snitker

This page has been edited twice today to state that Brian Snitker died today. Neither edit provided any source and a extensive internet search has not confirmed that Brian Snitker has died. I feel that it would be best to block any edits from unconfirmed users for a few days. This type of false information can be very stressful to baseball fans and family.-BuffaloBob (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Skitker was giving interviews today, which would tend to dispute dying. Breathing is generally a necessary prerequisite for speech. I suppose he could have died after that discussion, but WP:RS are somewhat mute about that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)