Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive269

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Disruptive Edits by Jane Dawson

User:Jane Dawson is using Wikipedia to push a political stand by editing selected articles in a manner to discredit anyone and any entity linked with the Singapore Government. User intentionally commits other violations, including infringing Wikipedia's policies on living persons in doing so. User also uses rubbish sources as references for these discrediting attacks.

I removed one edit, then realised that the user's contributions are full of this. These are the selected articles of living persons affected:

Charles Chong
K. Shanmugam
Chee Hong Tat
Desmond Kuek
Ng Chee Meng
Indranee Rajah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.113.186 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

--219.75.113.186 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Not quite the right venue for user behavior. Might want to try WP:ANI. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Carlos_Mendoza_(baseball)

Hello! I just want to make an acotation to this page. There is two different Venezuelan baseball players called "Carlos Mendoza" One of them is "Carlos Ramon Mendoza" Born in Ciudad Bolivar, who played with Magallanes and Caribes de Oriente on the LPBV. This guy also played in NY METS and Colorado Rockies.

The mistake is, that the other guy "Carlos Enrique Mendoza" was born in Barquisimeto, Venezuela on Nov,4. He played in Cardenales de Lara and Tiburones de la Guaira at the "Caribbean Series". Carlos Enrique Mendoza was the one who "entered the Yankees Minor League system for the 2009 season as a member of the Staten Island Yankees coaching staff before joining the Charleston RiverDogs in 2010. During the 2011 campaign, he served as the manager of the Gulf Coast League Yankees. He then returned to the RiverDogs as their manager from 2012–2017.[2]

Afterwards, Mendoza gained a promotion as an infield coach for the Yankees before the 2018 MLB season.[3]"

What I see, is that you are mixing information of two different baseball players in one BLP.

See attached photos*

Carlos Enrique Mendoza http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Carlos+Mendoza/New+York+Yankees+Photo+Day/REdDo5Jx5s8

Carlos Ramon Mendoza http://www.pelotabinaria.com.ve/beisbol/mostrar.php?ID=mendcar003

I hope this mistake could be fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASTRIDMMH (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@ASTRIDMMH: You're right. The MLB player "Carlos Ramon Mendoza" and the coach "Carlos Enrique Mendoza" have been conflated into one person by our Wiki. I'll make the second bio to address this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Carlos Mendoza (baseball) and Carlos Mendoza (baseball coach) are now two separate pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

TigerSwan

Does the second paragraph of the Standing Rock Protests section meet BLP requirements? It names two individuals who are not otherwise known, and quotes at some length from a statement they issued claiming responsibility for some criminal acts. I suppose the information is not false (in fact they're proud of it), but I'm not sure about singling these people out and going into so much detail on their acts, especially on this page, where it's being done to prove a point in lieu of a more normal source. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it depends whether sources on the topic tend to mention those two people. It is an interesting quote to see what they mean by "peaceful" protest. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A Google News search for "reznicek" "tigerswan" spits out 6 articles, but 3 of them don't actually appear to contain the names "Reznicek" or "Montoya." (They're from the Intercept, and part of the same article series as a 4th hit that does mention the duo) I'm probably being pedantic with those search terms, but they certainly don't look promising. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it, it's not cited to a reliable source anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji

Hello, I could use help at the Angana P. Chatterji article. Certain editors over the last few years keep wanting to use this page to connect this rights activist and feminist scholar to a controversial person, due to one conference Chatterji attended. As an academic, she has probably attended a LOT of conferences, but they keep bringing this one up to either use it as a platform to talk about that controversial person, or to link her to controversy, it seems. I could use another set of eyes, thank you. Torren (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you have to do this forum shopping without notifying others and without providing necessary details? "Certain editors"? There is clear consensus to include this information per talk page. Yet you have been censoring it whenever you get online and this is by far the only article you edit, because you are an WP:SPA. Nearly the whole article has only primary and unreliable sources like we discussed before, so why dont you remove them all? Inclusion of information supported by multiple independent WP:RS [1] about this meeting is clearly warranted. Given past warnings on your talk page regarding this subject, you are getting close to a topic ban or block. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an extraordinary position to describe that rather heated talk page discussion from 2013 as a "clear consensus" for anything. The source being used now is a long piece about Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai which mentions Chatterji only once and in passing, and does not draw any conclusions about the significance of her attendance at the meeting. Using this to posit an "association" between them is clearly WP:UNDUE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Only Torren and you are the one who are not agreeing. What about Raymond, me, MBlaze agreeing with the clear consensus established in 2013? Given the subject nearly lacks coverage in third party sources, you don't have to censor information you don't like, unless its a hoax. It's not undue. Capitals00 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm an entirely neutral and uninvolved individual who took a look at the issue after Torren requested a third opinion here. And as far as I can he's right: there seems to be a determination to keep a sentence "Chatterji was associated with Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai's Kashmiri American Council, being one of only 20 attendees in a fully paid private resort conference." in the article based on inadequate sourcing. Why is it so important to you to keep this sentence in? If the association was genuinely important there would be multiple reliable sources directly commenting on the fact, when as it stands you have precisely one source which only mentions the issue in passing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence is WP:SYNTH garbage. The source [2] says: "(Fai) spoke about the usual things," recalled Angana Chatterji, an Indian-American scholar who attended the event. "He has this list of dignitaries he brings up and issues like the UN treaties and self-determination." That's it. The source does not say "Chatterji was associated with..." or "being one of only 20 attendees". They are editorial comments added by an editor in order to direct the reader to a certain conclusion. The sentence (a stand-alone paragraph) should be removed until a secondary source is available that makes the claimed connection, and which demonstrates the information is WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq is absolutely correct here. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Atlantic mentions "About 20 of Fai's guests then flew with him to Montevideo". And the source I had provided here, which is DNA India, and it said: "The declaration was signed by three Indians who had been regulars at conferences that Fai used to organise using money from the ISI. These three Indians are Prof Angana Chatterji, Gautam Navalakha and veteran journalist Ved Bhasin. Other prominent Indians who attended his conferences included the current interlocutor on Kashmir Dileep Padgaonkar and Justice Rajinder Sachar, former chief justice of the Delhi High Court." It is secondary and proves event was notable. What do you think? Raymond3023 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a determination to introduce the material? Is it to show something negative about Chatterji? I am not aware of the background but there is a very good chance that a source related to "self determination for Kashmiris" is not suitable for drawing conclusions about a person. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Article is written by Saikat Datta, who is an award winning journalist. More important question is that why we should not include it? Given that most of the content of the article itself is sourced to primary and unreliable sources, there's no reason we should not include it especially when it is supported by reliable sources. It only adds to the notability of the person. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Let's agree with your point, it still seems this incident is important enough for inclusion in the biography because it is covered by multiple sources on different times. The DNA source[3] mentions "Chatterji" 6 times in relation to this incident, I would call it significant and the source is very reliable. There are other multiple reliable sources that covered the same story earlier or after.[4][5] It seems that the requirement mentioned by you and Johnuniq has been met. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep asserting that this is covered by WP:RS. Several highly experienced Wikipedians have reviewed your claim and found it problematic. It appears that the more reliable a source is, the less closely it supports your preferred edit. Example: India Today (RS) said "The 11th such conference in July last year had former Indian High Commissioner to the UK Kuldip Nayar, Justice Rajinder Sachar, anthropologist Angana Chatterji and Human Rights activist Rita Manchanda as invitees," which does not support your edit, whereas the unreliable rediff news says "At last year's conference, the two highly charged attacks on India were made by an Indian journalist and an Indian-American academic Harinder Baweja and Professor Angana Chatterji," which does. So what is required is sources which are both reliable and directly support your preferred edit without engaging in speculation or synthesis. Can you provide those please? Guy (Help!) 12:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I have made no reverts on the article and it is not my preferred edit. I only said that the notability of the event is supported by the reliable sources, that's why there is no need to exclude the information like the OP is asking to do, by finding it "controversial". Nabi is director of "Kashmiri American Council", that organizes the conferences. When India Today was saying "11th such conference in July last year", it was referring to this same event that took place in July 2010, which is indeed referred as from "July last year" when written in 2011.[6] India Today also says "Fai organised a series of 'Kashmir Peace Conferences' in Washington, attended by scholars, senior journalists, academics and human rights activists from both India and Pakistan besides US scholars and Congressmen. The 11th such conference in July last year had former .... Rajinder Sachar, anthropologist Angana Chatterji and Human Rights activist Rita Manchanda as invitees."

It should be reworded. What do you think about adding: "Chatterji attended 'Kashmir Peace Conferences' in July 2011, along with Kuldip Nayar, Justice Rajinder Sachar, and activist Rita Manchanda, which was organised by Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai."[7] ? Raymond3023 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we can do without it, as it is clearly being deliberately misrepresented by people on and off Wikipedia, and it is rather obviously trivial. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I have no problem with letting it go, but what about the rest of the article? Since this has been already brought here and given we are inclined to be careful about sources and the importance of the information, I should mention that there are enough self-serving puff claims prevalent on article. Most of the article depends on very close (non-independent) and self-published sources like dissidentvoice.org,[8] kashmirprocess.org[9], and more that are ultimately unreliable. I believe they should be removed as well as the information sourced to them. Some of the information has been sourced to Angana's personal website.[10] I find them trivial as well, because if they are really notable/important then one should find independent WP:RS for supporting them. Right? Capitals00 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am never going to stand in the way of removing badly sourced puffery from an article. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I would also like to clean up the article. It's hard for me to understand why self-published sources on Chatterji's citizenship status was removed (it was from her testimony before a Congressional task force on international religious freedom), or why http://kashmirprocess.org, which is the website of the people's tribunal she co-founded, would not be a reliable source on the work of the tribunal (which reported on mass graves in Indian-ruled Kashmir and other human rights violations)? The particular article Capitals00 mentioned is for reference when Chatterji testified before the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights, itself a notable event in her work as well as for the history of human rights work concerning Kashmir.

As well, the tribunal's website was removed at some point as an external link on the article and I would like to put it back in, can anyone here tell me if that's objectionable? (And can someone how me how to search through the history for a particular edit, such as when that external link was removed?) The Dissident Voice article Capitals00 mentioned was cited to indicate her stance and involvement with the Narmada struggle against dam displacement. If this is trivial or puffery, let me know, but they seem like they belong in an encyclopedia article on Chatterji. Torren (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Igarashi.torren, Sorry, but they aren't reliable sources. Read WP:RS on what sources are considered reliable. I agree with others that the information in question is trivial, and unless you can provide third party reliable sources, I am afraid you don't stand a chance. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Scott Pruitt

The entire article is uniformly hostile toward Scott Pruitt and appears to have been written by a team of partisan Democrats. If there were just a few points where less-biased text could be incorporated, then I would attempt to make some edits. But fixing this article may be beyond my own available resources. Any suggestions as to how to overhaul the entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Baustian (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You would have to start by actually listing problems with the article. Keep in mind that neutrality means we match the consensus of reliable sources, and honestly describe where the reliable sources disagree. It does not mean we entertain argument to moderation (false balance). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nidal Sakr

Some scrutiny from people more well-versed in US right-wing sites (like Gatestone Institute and Frontpage magazine) vs. alleged Al-Qaeda associates would be welcome at new article Nidal Sakr. Contents should be verified with neutral sources or removed, in my opinion, but it may just as well be that this is an accurate article but with poor sourcing (including images on imgur). Fram (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Jayson Lusk

Claims in the controversies sections based on the book "The Food Police" cannot be directly observed anywhere else in his writing and are misquoted. As an example, pg. 49 is actually a discussion of the well-known political beliefs of Upton Sinclair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.156.152 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_del_Carmen_de_Lara

We are currently having problems with this article, because people with black intentions has been editing this page adding content that invite to insult the people related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killganon (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

We cannot help with the Spanish Wikipedia. You need to find that wiki's equivalent of this page, wherever and whatever it may be. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biografías de personas vivas Shritwod (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Kirsty Gallacher

Hi, First off apologies if I'm doing this wrong never filed one of these before,

A month ago there was an edit war over the paragraph below and it was taken to BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Kirsty_Gallacher) however it's been noted on the talkpage no one would've known it was here because no template was applied on the article,

Anyway is this paragraph fine or should it be removed ?

On 12 August 2017, Gallacher was stopped by police in Eton near Windsor Castle, breathalysed at the roadside and arrested. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out.^[1] On 4 September 2017, Gallacher was banned from driving for two years, ordered to serve 100 hours of community service, pay £85 prosecution costs and an £85 victim surcharge.^[2]^[3]

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's unimportant, and should be removed, which it currently has been. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I believe it should be removed as per my last comment:

A few celebs don't have drink-driving incidents on their article yet they too were heavily reported on, Ofcourse every celeb makes a mistake and in this case there was no job lost and no consequence in terms of her job,

We don't need to report on every little mess up a celeb makes .... but then again this could all simply be a case of the BLP wanting to removing "negative" content from the article ....,

In some ways I feel as if the content is there to simply "shame" the BLP and nothing more,

(On a side note Ant McPartlin also drank & drove however the stark different between these 2 blps is that one is in rehab and was axed from the television show they host for now as well as being axed from a TV advert deal (ie there's been consequences for one) where as the other has been banned from driving and had to pay a fine .... See what I mean ?), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well.. it's one of those things that is true but doesn't really add any meaning to the biography. So definitely in the case of Ant McPartlin there were consequences. Compare also Steve Coogan where his motoring offenses are mentioned, but the biography also notes that he is a car enthusiast, but conversely Jeremy Clarkson was also fined for speeding, but it isn't mentioned. So were there professional consequences for Kirsty Gallacher? It seems not. Does she have some notable connection with motoring? It seems not either. So, on balance I would say that it isn't relevant and shouldn't be included. Shritwod (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all - Apologies for the time waste, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "Kirsty Gallacher admits drink-driving in Eton". BBC News. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
^ "Kirsty Gallacher claims she was suffering from divorce stress when she was caught three times the drink-drive limit". Telegraph. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
^ Kirk, Tristan (4 September 2017). "Kirsty Gallacher handed two year driving ban after being caught three times over drink drive limit". Evening Standard. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

Dana Loesch

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch and her husband/agent objected to something that was included in her article, so they posted something in their Twitter feeds today. Several of their Twitter followers came here and have removed the content, citing BLP. You are encouraged to participate at Talk:Dana Loesch. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Earlier today, I was reading about Dana Loesch in the news which I went to her Wiki page. I noticed a significant issue which the editor in question {User:DrFleischman} used the term "falsely" in their interpretation which is based on a non-NPOV source which the writer, Tim Elfrink, of the article writes based on his own observation of a video he viewed and determined that Dana Loesch supposedly lied. This came up about around February 22nd the day after Parkland Town hall. Dana Loesch made a statement which she said "There were people rushing the stage and screaming, ‘Burn her,’" and Chris Loesch said "When @jaketapper leaned over to my wife and asked if she had an escort and told her she needed to get out of there and a woman rushed the stage while others pushed forward yelling all sorts of nastiness and threats, yes. We held our heads high and walked with ARMED SECURITY!. That statement came after Daniel Dale's reporting here: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/966673033367781377 This went onto later be confirmed by Jake Tapper, the CNN reporter in the interpretation of the event given by the Loesch. However an editor with the Miami News Times, Tim Elfrink, is making significantly flawed interpretation of the event. Tim Elfrink later takes it to Twitter which he isn't hiding his biases in this. https://twitter.com/timelfrinkmia/status/967039274385362945 The other issue is that Elfrink claims that the Loesch said that the audience supposedly were "attacking her" although neither the Loesch said this happened.

1. Chris Loesch statement: https://twitter.com/ChrisLoesch/status/966750152051580928

2. Daniel Dale reporting: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/966673033367781377

3. Jake Tapper confirming after disputing Ian Millhiser : https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/966763817991589888 & https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/966765507457241091 which he goes onto corroborate the Loesch's version of the event.

Then what do you know, a coincidence that someone happened to notice my change and it apparently got reported to Twitter and got noticed which I got accused of meat puppetry which apparently the removal of the contentious material must be reverted and kept despite going against WP:BLP regarding contentious material.

I would appreciate a review of the material in question. I'm not active on Wikipedia because I have a life to attend to. I'm just familiar with the event in question of the interaction between the three people (four if you count Ian Millhiser) which most people are not. ViriiK (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have a life too and have no intention of digging too deep into this. I will say that twitter is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. I can't access it from this computer anyway, but what it amounts to at best is a primary source, not a secondary source, so using it as a source for the article really amounts to original research. I'll also say that I see no evidence of any accusations. Insinuations perhaps, but not accusations. There's a big difference between someone saying "you did this" and "something smells fishy". It appears that Dr.F made every attempt to convey this in a thoughtful manner, which is exactly what he/she should do. If nothing is fishy, then you've got nothing to worry about. Zaereth (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The fishy part is the "falsely" part. However out of all the issues surrounding Dana Loesch which I know this event has been majorly misrepresented by Elfrink, why is this particular "falsely" notable compared to her attendance in the town hall? It goes to back to the flaw of Wikipedia which despite ALL the evidence to the contrary, the falsehood becomes "fact" especially on a biography of a living person. ViriiK (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

After more researches, I have sources that directly contradicts the New Times which unfortunately is the Daily Mail [11] using the statement from CNN AND deadline with the same statement ALSO from CNN. [12]. The Daily Mail at least recognized that it did not show the part of her on stage which the New Times failed to point out which Loesch's statement was centered around. The problem is that it's now old news. The edit was put in several weeks ago which came months after the event in question so why would anyone want to rehash an old story that is obviously contentious material with a one sided view of what happened? ViriiK (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. And no The Daily Mail didn't contradict the Miami New Times. Why do you insist on running three separate discussions about the same content in three different places at the same time? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said "unfortunately" regarding the Daily Mail. And yes, the Daily Mail does contradict the New Times The footage does not show Loesch on stage at the end of the Sunrise, Florida event – the point in time at which she said she was threatened. The fact remains is that YOU refuse to accept anything other than an obviously biased source which my contention is that the whole thing is literally disputed by Jake Tapper himself. Disregard Wiki's standard of Primary Source vs Secondary Source. Is Jake Tapper a reliable reporter? As far as I know, yes he is. He after all was a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign over a decade ago and he did somewhat fairly moderate the town hall despite the jeering. However contrast that to the "gaslighting" reporter that calls Loesch an "NRA shill" in the video byline. You want to stick to the story that CLoesch falsely claimed a version although that version of the event was corroborated by Tapper and rely on a video that shows an entirely different timeline. The point is I don't think this paragraph belongs in there and it is cherrypicking with barely any other sources discussing the same issue. I can find dozens of sources that reports on Tapper and Loesch but I already know the result that you will oppose their inclusion hence why it should be thrown out all together entirely. ViriiK (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Remember the endless succession of marginally active accounts that suddenly piled in with pro-GamerGate edits a couple of years back? James J. Lambden reminds me a lot of that. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A follow-up. You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sean Patrick Fannon

There have been recent allegations of inappropriate behavior by Sean Patrick Fannon. ^[1] A section about these allegations was added and then subsequently reverted because the WP:BLP policy says there should be multiple third-party sources regarding the allegations. Sean Patrick Fannon is a public figure in an industry that does not have many journalists and thus there is unlikely to be more articles about these particular allegations. As such, this requirement seems to be tantamount to burying the information of these allegations. These allegations are consequential to Sean Patrick Fannon as it has resulted in his separation from Pinnacle Entertainment Group as well as other organizations. What is the proper thing to do with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LambdaKnight (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For one, forum posts are rarely RS, and definitely are not RSes for accusations of BLP. Second, even if it was an RS reporting on this, we do not include any allegation against a BLP unless it has resulted in court convictions or has had a significant impact on their career. --Masem (t) 17:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an article on a news site, not a forum post. Regarding "has had a significant impact on their career", he has separated from EN World, Pinnacle Entertainment Group, and the RPG Creators Relief Fund, which seems like a rather significant impact on their career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LambdaKnight (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that how much impact being a contributor to ENworld is not mentioned on Fannon's page, so if it is that much of a career breaker, its hard to tell. But let's assume it is. Given this is a fan site, albeit notable, I think the most you can say "Fannon's columns on ENWorld were discontinues after allegations of sexual misconduct were raised, allegations that Fannon denied." No details of exactly what. --Masem (t) 21:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not even clear that the fellow himself is notable, much less that his no longer contributing to an apparently non-notable organization is an event of signifiance in his career. MPS1992 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, "a public figure in an industry that does not have many journalists" is not a convincing way to get round the requirements for WP:GNG, WP:BLP, or anything else. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I fear this is a tempest in a tea-pot that has spilled over to here. Helton recently requested Wikipedia editors contact him on his Facebook page. Web Warlock (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a very poorly referenced BLP that, in my opinion, fails to demonstrate that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "Helton, Christopher. "Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done." EN World, 1 May 2018".

St. Catherine University -- claim covering security issues there lapses from BLP

St. Catherine University, a small Catholic University in Minneapolis/St Paul, has had two recent security incidents. I added coverage of those two incidents, and the University's contract with a third party firm that runs an app that will advise staff and students of security concerns, over their smart-phones.

Calton excised the sections I added. I thought, I think, such a large excision really requires an explanation on the talk page, and I asked for that explanation.

Calton, and two other contributors, made claims that the material Calton excised had to be excised because it lapsed from BLP.

First question... under St. Catherine University#Organization I added a tertiary section heading entitled #Campus security. The Campus security section had just two sentences, neither sentence mentioned any living persons.

Under what circumstances would BLP concerns justify excision of a section like this, that does not mention any living persons?

Second question... I added a fourth level subsection heading, #Active shooter reports of September 12, 2017. It does talk about the individual who triggered a campus lockdown, who turned out to be a campus security officer, who realized he himself was violating the University's policy barring all firearms from campus, when he realized he had brought his own personal firearm to work. He then managed to shoot himself.

Under what circumstances should BLP be used to justify excision of coverage of an event, when that coverage doesn't explicitly name anyone?
I have been told WP:BLPCRIME requires silence on individuals, while they remain mere suspects. But this former campus cop pled guilty, has been sentenced.

Third question... I added another fourth level subsection heading #Arson incident of January 17, 2018. As above, the excised material does not explicitly name the suspect.

As above, under what circumstances should BLP be used to justify excision of coverage of an event, when that coverage doesn't explicitly name anyone?
If an article doesn't explicitly name individuals suspected of committing crimes, when covering an event, under what circumstances is it a lapse from compliance BLP to use references that explicitly name the suspect(s)? Is it only a lapse from BLP if the reference names the suspect in its title? If so, is there a workaround?

Yes, I realize that, usually, fires on campus, where no-one was injured, would be regarded as too trivial to be covered here, would be assumed to be harmless high-spirited hi-jinks. But counter-terrorism experts, and other commentators, pointed out that the suspect had previously been reported to the FBI, and the FBI had interviewed her.

I think Jeffrey Ringel's comments on how the suspect should have been monitored by the FBI make this arson incident a notable matter. [13] Also comments from Ron Hosko and Steve Vladeck...

Anyhow, that would be an editorial concern, that should be discussed elsewhere, probably Talk:St. Catherine University. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you waited months so you could come here with an utterly fictitious version of what happened at that article. Let's see:

"Calton, and two other contributors, made claims that the material Calton excised had to be excised because it lapsed from BLP." - no, only one editor, not Calton, mentioned BLP. (That one editor was me.) @Calton: and @World's Lamest Critic: went after it on whether the material was of sufficient import to include it, as seen by the invocations of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT on the talk page and in edit summaries.
The invocation of BLP was not in an instance when no person has been mentioned, not having anything to do with the campus cop who shot himself, but with these edits where you tried to edit-war in a named individual.
The claim that "I added a tertiary section heading entitled #Campus security. The Campus security section had just two sentences, neither sentence mentioned any living persons." is untrue, because you added those two sentences and then two long subsections, and a subsection is still part of the section. The subsections mention three individuals - it didn't give them names, but it still mentions them as individuals and on two of them gives personal details such as age, job, and gender. BLP does not apply solely when names are specified.

I have no idea why, months later, you are here to make false claims in order to support inclusion of information that every other editor who voiced their opinion has found unworthy of inclusion. I suggest that you drop the WP:STICK --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So, with regard to Calton's excision of the section on #Campus security, you seem to be saying that, while there was no BLP concern with the paragraph of exposition following that section heading, his excision was justified because it was followed by subsections that triggered their BLP concern. You do realize that the third level section could have been retained, while excising the following subsections?

With regard to the excision of the sections on the two serious incidents... You seem to be acknowledging that Calton excised that material, even though it did not explicitly name anyone, "it didn't give them names...". But you seem to be claiming that BLP even applies when individual are not explicitly named: "...but it still mentions them as individuals and on two of them gives personal details such as age, job, and gender. BLP does not apply solely when names are specified..."
Okay, can we slow down and think about how your claims of a very broad application of BLP would affect our coverage of other topics?
Consider Stormy Daniels. Her interaction with Trump, and his lawyers, is full of unproven allegations and counter-allegations. Those allegations and counter-allegations touch on all kinds of other individuals, including individuals our articles aren't explicitly naming. So, how would we apply this broad interpretation of BLP to those events? Our readers could read our article: (1) and be sufficiently interested to read the references we used; (2) and, through reading those references learn the names of individuals we haven't named! Are you going to stick to your broad interpretation, and ask that we drop coverage of Trump's Stormy Daniels controversy, drop coverage of the Russian collusion investigation?
I suggest to you that this very broad interpretation of BLP, which applies even to individuals we don't explicitly name, would require rewriting about half of the wikipedia's articles -- basically every article that had any element of controversy. Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have zero idea why you continue to claim that Calton excised that material for BLP reasons. Perhaps you think you'll be able to then convince folks that the BLP matters don't matter, and then ignore the actual issues that Calton raised. However, it is not grounded in the reality of what happened. I see absolutely zero reason to engage you in some theoretical debate about how a different article should be handled. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought, I think, such a large excision really requires an explanation on the talk page, and I asked for that explanation. You -- as seems to be a general trend with you -- have it backwards, no matter how you try to frame it: the editor ADDING material has the burden of explanation -- and it would help if that explanation addressed the ACTUAL problem (Hint: WP:DUE). Your self-serving interpretation of WP:BLP -- especially your ridiculous slippery-slope argument -- pretty much fails even the argument you want to have. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hell, your claim fails even on the terms you set (Under what circumstances should BLP be used to justify excision of coverage of an event, when that coverage doesn't explicitly name anyone?), since not only did the media coverage use a name, you explicitly INCLUDED the name in the footnote. So even the premise of your question is wrong. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Calton...made claims that the material Calton excised had to be excised because it lapsed from BLP. Guy, here's the edit summary I used: Rm minor incident. Not only did I not mention WP:BLP, I didn't even use the letters B, L, or P. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Max Wright - Crack cocaine incident

I've posted also on the appropriate article's talk page (see here:Max Wright). Did the edit which I made have a problem with the source? Since I did say on the talk-page that I thought it wasn't very good. Would having the two-sentence summary of the event be appropriate with a citation needed attached to it? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It sounds like you need to read WP:BLP, where Wikipedia's sourcing policies on material related to living persons are described. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is basically banned as a source for BLPs; see WP:DAILYMAIL. And without a source, there is no way that material should be in a BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the event in itself notable? Or is this simply a case where the material can't be added because either the Equirer or Mail is the source? Is it completely out of the question to simply have a two sentence summary of the event? My concern is that factual information is being left out, I know Wikipedia's standards for sources are high and I respect that. But certainly some acknowledgement of the event needs to be made? If sourcing is the only issue, could an FAQ in the Talk-page be an answer? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP applies across all of Wikipedia, including talk pages. Again, please read WP:BLP before proceeding further. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If the event was truly notable, you'd be able to find a better source reflecting that. We do not put things that could be seen as negative into a BLP without a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Jayme Mathias

Any of you feel up to cleaning this bio from some vanispamfluff? I am depressed. I mean, he's got a lovely smile, but User:Jaymemathias is not really here to improve Wikipedia, and this article is waaaaaaaaaaay over the top. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayme Mathias. Run of the mill schismatic cleric who got local press coverage. A vicar general who left the Catholic Church would get much more coverage, but we wouldn't cover them unless they were also a bishop. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, thank you--that's one way to skin a cat. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm

I have now reverted some contentious material on this page more than 3 times in the last 24 hours. I have added a passage to the talk page mentioning WP:3RRNO, exemption #7 which I feel is appropriate. The passage being repeatedly added has already led to the page having editing restrictions being imposed against new and unregistered users for two days earlier this week. Philip Cross (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Khangate

As this isn't mentioned in either Trudeau's article le or the one on his premiership, I've taken it to WP:RFD for others to decide. The term was also used during Trump's campaign. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel S. Peña Sr.

Concerned about speculative talk going on on talk page [[14]] and the Fraud allegations in the article. Sethie (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So User:Axcviii made a pass at cleaning up that vanispam article, here. I think they went too far, and they also linked unacceptable material. This needs a good and uninvolved editor. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, YouTube material is generally only problematic if there's a question about *its* sourcing, i.e. it wasn't originally from YouTube. There were multiple YouTube citations in the original article, so I didn't really think much of it (but why did you not remove the "Education" section as well, if that was the issue, since its only source is YouTube?). I have no COI one way or the other, but I am newer to making larger edits to WP articles, so I did probably go a little too far, and for that I apologize. Axcviii (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

User is repeatedly adding misleading verbiage regarding a symbolic action to the biography. [15], [16],[17],[18]. Similar spamming at Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission,George W. Bush,Trial in absentia. The issue is that the Kuala Lampur War Crimes Commission is not a judicial body, has no standing to convict anyone of anything, and issues "symbolic" verdicts. Though one may not like the subject of the article, it isn't necessary to lie to our readers. However, this is a battle I'm not going to take on. -Nunh-huh 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted some of the material, not sure if all, and started a talk page thread. --Malerooster (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ling Dong

I initially A7ed this artcle, and had the request declined.
I've now per the admins suggestion in this edit summary In which the A7 was declined, put the article forward for PROD as shown in this diff
I've also made a request for more sources on the article's talk page as well as alerted the author
The only message left in an effort to validate this article is an unsourced claim to the subject's fame. The citation reference provided merely links to an image search on a Chinese search engine.

Edaham (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Luboš Motl

Persistent edit-warring in of contentious unsourced material by a new editor. [19] Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you got one single individual who's on a mission. I warned them, via the talk page (in case it's more than one), and rev-deleted some material from the article. Thanks Rolf H Nelson, and your colleagues. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Motl comes from the same generation as Peter Woit. Both have made similar criticisms of string theory (M-theory, D-branes, etc) and these have been influential, even if controversial. It's all part of the stringy blogosphere. Motl's personal views on politics have no relevance to wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz

Shmuly Yanklowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This surely needs to be locked, but also requires some objective eyes. Lots of edit warring by multiple IPs re: favorable/unfavorable content. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've just put in a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP and also a few edit-warring warnings to various places. MPS1992 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Chris Atkins (filmmaker)

Please take a look at Chris Atkins (filmmaker) and user Magpie61. Conduct by user Magpie61 could be interpreted as the abuse of Wikipedia for the whitewashing of a convicted criminal. -Applefall (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The crime/trial is still there, just less detail (like the judge's opinion and his response). The only question, and while related to BLP it is not anything actionable, is whether this conviction should be in the lede or not. --Masem (t) 15:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Al Giordano

This BLP has undergone a number of contentious edits since sexual harassment allegations came out against the subject in February. At that time, the consensus seemed to be that the allegations lacked RS to back them up and support their inclusion in a BLP. Now there is a new report, published in the Huffington Post, that includes direct testimony from multiple alleged victims, who attended the subject's journalism training school. I can understand why some editors may take issue with HuffPo as a source, but in this case I see no reason to question the story's reliability, unless you believe the reporter fabricated the women's words. Even journalist Noah Berlatsky, who has written flatteringly about Giordano in the past, calls the report "well sourced and devastating." Nevertheless, I'd like to hear from other editors before reinstating the short section about the sexual harassment allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised a new IP editor brings this straight to BLPN without discussing on the article talk page. The HuffPo article in question, which was added by a new SPA attacking Neera Tanden, Herman Kaine, and similar others in addition to Al Giordano, was penned by HuffPo freelancer Eoin Higgins who is monetizing his "journalism" with Patreon, which rewards partisan attacks.[20] If some WP:RS does some investigation and considers this notable enough to create a balanced article, I agree that it needs a mention in the bio. Meantime, please go to the talk page of Al Giordano to discuss why this is reliably sourced BLP information. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was having trouble locating the article talk page. Re: the HuffPo article, can you please explain what your objections to it are as a source (beyond your personal dislike of the author)? Do you believe there is some reason to question the credibility of the women - students and colleagues of Giordano - who are quoted at length in the article?

Even if the HuffPo is taken as an RS, the question then must be asked if these allegations have impacted this person in a meaningful way. Right now, with only the HuffPo reporting it and no other RSes, no it has not, and per BLP, we shouldn't include the allegations yet. That might change since this is recent (last few days). But if this is all the sourcing that ever develops about the the allegations, then we should not include them, just because we happen to have one RS that mentions them. --Masem (t) 13:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the question then must be asked if these allegations have impacted this person in a meaningful way." Are you asking why they are relevant to the article? The subject is notable, if he is notable at all, for being a journalist and political organizer. Multiple women allege that he harassed, bullied, and exploited - over the course of multiple years - young women at his journalism training school. There is a reliable source, including direct testimony from multiple alleged victims, to back this up. How many additional RSes would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The policy being cited above is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The single HuffPo article, written by a freelancer who has feuded with Giordano in the past, works to present each allegation in the most damaging way. It is hard to see how that particular article should be added as an RS to the bio of an elderly self-employed journalist battling cancer. If other WP:RS take up the story and present material in a more balanced way, then these accusation will be added to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you incapable of discussing the content of the article without bringing in your personal feelings about the author and Giordano (who, despite your claim, is cancer-free)? Please explain how the author "works to present each allegation in the most damaging way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the actual Wikipedia policy that I am citing, instead of your personal feelings about my possible personal feelings. Also please WP:AGF rather than making personal attacks on other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks? All I did was ask you a question, which you have so far refused to answer. Can you tell me which parts of the article you find problematic/unreliable? It would help if you would cite particular examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of BLPN is to get advice from more experienced Wikipedia users about Giordano's bio. I have no intention of wasting my time and their patience editorializing details of the HuffPo article, which they can read and decide about for themselves. (I suggest somebody hats this entire dialogue.) HouseOfChange (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to answer me on the Giordano talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Could some admin please put a template on Al Giordano, identifying it as post-1932 politics? Page history will show that 108.41.95.216 is removing material and references ([21], [22], [23] that show Giordano's notability, at the same time he is seeking to add defamatory material. Is there 3RR here or 1RR or something else that we should abide by? Thanks for your help. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Review will show that I removed a short passage of text that misrepresented the source material. Furthermore, I added no defamatory material. HouseOfChange seems to be under the impression that they are the guardian of this page and no one else shall be allowed to make edits, even when those edits improve the accuracy of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the new IP is inexperienced in WP policy. (If you create an account it will be easier for others to engage with you and help you become a better editor.) If you look at page history of Al Giordano, lots of people have made edits that improved our Wikipedia project by providing informative content with NPOV. Based on WP:BRD, I try to generate broader discussion on talk page for substantial new edits. Again, our discussion here should center on what belongs in the article and not if Person A or Person B is bad. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. I'm trying to do exactly that. You'll notice that in the page history I include a reason for each of my edits. Rather than explain why you disagree with my reasoning, you've simply been reverting my edits, all of which improved the article by either removing false information or correcting misleading language. In the case of the so-called "defamatory" material, I posted that only to the talk page - precisely to engage other editors and hear their opinions before deciding whether or not to add it to the article. None of my edits have been inconsistent with WP NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your general pattern at Al Giordano has been to remove content you object to (instead of rewriting the content to match what you think it should say), at the same time removing links to references containing information about Giordano. I did revert a major change you made to the lede and you quickly reverted my change. People are now discussing this on the talk page. When you deleted material sourced to Vanity Fair, including the link to that source, I tried to preserve the information in a way that responded to your stated concern, and I put back the link to our RS for that material. When you make an edit that another edit objects to, the Wikipedia policy WP:BRD is that the editor who wants to make a major CHANGE an article can be reverted by any other editor who objects, and then needs to defend that change on the talk page and get consensus that the change should be made. 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs)

See also the newest category of material that 108.41.95.216 wants removed from the article. Talk:Al_Giordano#WP:BRD:_Expanding_material_about_Giordano's_2018_Senatorial_campaign HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti

This page has become a target of POV-editing for reasons that are obvious to anyone that follows American politics. Can we get more eyes on this page? No matter which way you lean, more experienced contributors would be beneficial.---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ross Petot

I stumbled across this BLP by happenstance and question his notability for inclusion. The only reference that may meet the WP notability requirement for a musician is the Boston Globe 1997 mention, but it cannot be found online; and seems to be taken from the BLP's website itself: [24]. The talk page does show doubt by another editor: [25]. I don't want to bring it to AfD without a second set of eyes, though. The "Yankee Jazz Beat" is a personal blog, and the "Jazz in Olympic" seems to be a mish-mash of keyword links. For what the article proclaims about the BLP ("He is considered the predominant stride piano player in all of New England"), there should be more online, re: reviews, articles, etc; but I can't seem to find any. The article also reads like a promotional advertisement: "He will also appear with the Wolverine Jazz Band in the Jazz Olympics in April 2010 in Port Angeles, Washington and also at the Olympia Jazz Society's 20th Annual America's Dixieland Jazz Festival in June 2010 in Olympia, Washington." Which leads me to believe there is a close association with the BLP. Maineartists (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Minko

re Christopher Minko

Please note that someone with a Cambodian IP address 175.100.X.X is persistently deleting referenced material

diffs for example:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Minko&type=revision&diff=840174867&oldid=840174772

Could an admin please review with a view to semi-protection?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.32.28 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Steven Soderbergh

I am trying to add a verified fact to the Steven Soderbergh page. On August 30, 2010, Pearl Button Anderson was born. She was conceived by Mr. Soderbergh and an Australian woman in 2009 when he was separated from his wife and directing a play in Australia. This is a well-known fact, reported by such sites as the NY Daily News ^[1], Perth Now ^[2], and the Sydney Morning Herald ^[3]. These are reputable sources. Mr. Soderbergh's own lawyer, Bernard Clair, admitted that his client was the father and acknowledged paternity. ^[4]. However, despite multiple sources confirming the fact that Soderbergh has a love child, User:LivinRealGüd keeps deleting this fact without providing any support for denying this fact. It is simply false to state that Soderbergh has only one child. He has two children -- two daughters, one of whom is the aforementioned love child. Please advise. From the history of User:LivinRealGüd, it appears they are selectively editing only Wikipedia pages of celebrities who are represented by the same Hollywood agency. It is a reasonable inference that this user may be a paid account designed to delete incriminating information from client pages. Zeldathequark (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The phrase "love child" shouldn't be used here. I'm sure there's a way to phrase this that is acceptable, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Your little run-around Wikipedia is fun to watch, Zeldathequark. If you'd like to contribute to the conversation find me and other editors at: Talk:Steven Soderbergh#Soderbergh's second child. Cheers. LivinRealGüd (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Talk page discussion seems to have reached a consensus for everyone except Zeldathequark on a short, neutral, and reliably sourced version. Zeldathequark has not commented in the thread recently. Meters (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  - I have agreed to a short and neutral mention of the fact that Soderbergh fathered a daughter with an Australian woman. I will not refer to the child as a "love child", per your request, as I agree that is an incendiary term. However, I am not perfectly happy with the tamed-down edits. Without getting too philosophical, Wikipedia is supposed to be broadcasting truth to the masses. Diluting the truth to protect a living person's reputation is antithetical to Wikipedia's mission. It would be far more accurate to explain that Steven Soderbergh conceived a child while having an adulterous affair. But I do see the value of settling contentious debates, and have done so here.Zeldathequark (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Illegitimate child, perhaps? See Legitimacy (family law). --Auric talk 10:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear, no. Unless we are specifically discussing an inheritance claim in a jurisdiction in which parental marriage status is relevant (and I have no idea if that's the case in Australia), this term of art is terribly POV in the status it confers on, in this case, a living individual. The child is legitimately a child; the idea that we should confer a special status on individuals based on the marital status of their parents is, well, illegitimate if we're trying to remain neutral. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The best we can say is "While divorced, Soderbergh had a relationship with an Australian woman, leading to his second daughter Pearl born in 2009." Factually true without applying any labels to question if this is moral or not. --Masem (t) 13:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Birth date - year quarter

Is the year quarter a suitable format for date of birth as in this edit at Amanda Holden? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got other problems there - sourcing problems. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. For privacy reasons, we limit ourselves to birth information already covered in reliable third-party sources, and this does not qualify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed we should not use websites like FindMyPast on BLPs per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Giant Snowman 14:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. And in principle, this particular article aside? Perhaps this is a WP:MoS question. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It is more of a MOS question - although if you want my input, I'd say "first quarter" is fine. If we can't get a specific date, get as close as we can in a simply-stated form. "Winter", "first quarter", "early 1993", "born during the 1950s", "circa June 1982" all would be fine, with proper sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help, Nat. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nat re: "first quarter", ss I've mentioned at Talk:Amanda Holden. I would note, however, that we're allowed to use WP:PRIMARY for objective facts that don't require interpretation. WP:PRIMARY states: "[P]rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." This is a straightforward, descriptive statements of fact without interpretation.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But the source used in this particular case is not an acceptable one for an a BLP. Returning to the original issue though, if the use of terms such as 'first quarter' were to be included then I agree that's something we would need to discuss at WP:MOS, since it would represent a change of policy. Also this is just a thought, but something like 'Winter 1990' could be confusing since each year is bookended by that season. This is Paul (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SEASON discourages this. --John (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SEASON eschews seasons as ambiguous, but specifically allows quarters. Using a quarter when no better date is available isn't a change in policy. - Nunh-huh 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but says nothing as to its appropriateness for describing the time of a person's birth. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why one would make that a special case. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Kidd (rapper)

I've nominated this article for AfD but when I click on the talk page it takes me to the talk page for Kidd. It's like a redirect but I receive no redirect message. Not sure where I am supposed to report that so I'm posing there in hopes that someone can either help or point me in the right place to report this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I've removed the redirect.--Auric talk 23:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Salyer

Dear God, how is it we’ve had an unreferenced BLP for nine years? Does BLPPROD apply here (it applies after a certain date, I think)? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a standard promotional article. The first edit was from an "SGSOnline" which either could be the person themselves or the organization they run Salzburg Global Seminar (that same user expanded that article significantly). GNews shows nothing usable that's not dependent. BLPPROD seems wholly appropriate. --Masem (t) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5, are you seriously shocked by this? Seriously. --Malerooster (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, WP:BLPROD does not apply. Per that page, "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." This page does have external links, ones that could be reasonably used to verify the basics of the subject's position at the organization (though you have to click the Who We Are on the page directly linked to.) That's not to say that the page should not be squished or stomped, just that one would have to use other tools to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Coverage looks marginal to me, mostly incidental or about Salzburg Global Seminar. Nominated for deletion. Shritwod (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Significant mentions in NYT. CEO of Public Radio. Looks notable to me. Collect (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that Stephen L. Salyer which comes up under a number of educational aspects in the NY area, is not the same Stephen Salyer that is associated with the Salzburg Global Seminar. --Masem (t) 16:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I spotchecked his bio on SGS, and yes, same person. That said, the article does not reflect those third-party sources of notability, and was written most likely by someone from SGS (or himself possibly?) and really should be rewritten from scratch. --Masem (t) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Simona Sharoni

Her article states... "holds a Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University - which she used wisely in dealing with her recent Lingerie joke incident."

This statement is inaccurate and self-serving. It does not represent the facts as reported and commented on in all publications. The concept of wisdom in this case is misplaced. Her actions have been described very differently as prickly and lacking in the gravitas that is needed when dealing with casual remarks. Her response and entire series of actions demonstrates the attributes that are covered in conflict resolution as required to deal with such self-serving puffery that diminishes true scholarship and concerns about serious issues concerning gender.

This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.107.149 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Over the last several days, I have been involved in a dispute at the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe with what appears to be one individual who has edited from two different IP addresses. The IP user has left a single comment on the talk page complaining about a lack of neutrality in the article, but other than that, has so far not attempted to discuss the issue. The user's changes have been marked as "possible BLP issue or vandalism", and in my view they do not improve the article. One passage added by the IP user reads, "PFS has hosted conferences featuring alt-right and white nationalist speakers such as Richard Spencer and Peter Brimelow, the founder of VDARE. He has stated that his invitation to alt-right figures was a feature of his radical conception of free speech rather than common ground in ideology. Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences, he has clearly stated his opposition to their ideals and cleared room for more libertarian speakers, including the openly gay entrepreneur Peter Thiel, in start contrast to misinterpretations of his statements regarding covenant communities." As I tried to point out to the IP user, while he or she may have added that passage in good faith, it is an example of the kind of pointed, slanted commentary that does not belong in a neutrally written biographical article. A properly written article does not list things that a person does not do ("Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences") and nor does it contain outright editorial commentary ("in start contrast to misinterpretations of his statements regarding covenant communities"). The mention of Peter Thiel's sexual orientation also appears to be completely gratuitous and unnecessary, in that the IP user has failed to explain why it would be appropriate to mention it. Unfortunately the IP user has so far failed to respond to my attempts to explain this on the talk page. I would welcome outside comments on the dispute. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem, involving disruptive editing and tendentiousnesss by an IP editor and I would appreciate some, any comment on the matter. The most recent disruptive edit by the IP is visible here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicki Clyne

I would like to request a review of the article on Nicki Clyne as one editor is refusing to acknowledge sources considered reliable, despite three parties contesting his removal of information on talk, and several others who have made various edits to the article, including a not contentious inclusion of her spouse Allison Mack, and the somewhat more contentious claims of Nicki Clyne's reported ties to NXIVM, and the claim that her marriage is an attempt to avoid deportation.

Fox News, the New York Post, People, and E! have all been cited as sources. Several RfCs in the have confirmed Fox News and People as RS in the past, which I pointed out to the editor. After that he cast further aspersions about the sources. While this is a BLP, and some of his points seem valid about the two contentious claims regarding NXIVM and the effort to avoid deportation, he has been reverting even the bare-bones inclusion of Allison Mack as Nicki Clyne's spouse. His edits are also removing another editors attempt to include NPoV about a podcast mentioned in the article (by removing the word popular). If we could get a non-involved admin to consider these sources and the various levels of inclusion, it would be greatly appreciated. I think I've spent enough time debating him myself, and want to get back to gnoming and participating in AfD, but I'm having a hard time with abandoning this article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Adam Schiff

Is the correct place to file a report about possible BLP policy violations? I have asked an editor to remove an attack on the person's talk page [26] at least twice [27][28] but he or she refuses to comply. The editor is also saying things about "out of context smear" when the content is sourced to a very reliable source (USAToday), which cites another reliable source (Washington Free Beacon). What is the appropriate remedy for this kind of situation? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In what crazy universe is this comment suppose to be a "smear" against Adam Schiff? YOU, Mr. Daniel Plainview, want to include some dubious text in a BLP article. The other editor objects. And somehow you manage to twist that up into the other person making a BLP violation? Whaaaa? I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume you just haven't read WP:BLP carefully enough, rather than that you're trying to WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The USA Today article specifically says that The Free Beacon does not provide the source of the stats. These are unverified stats claimed by the White House to smear a Congressman who is investigating the White House. Even if verified, they fail WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:BLP. BTW, if you are going to make accusations against another editor on a notice board, notify the editor. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion being made (that is being removed) seems wholly appropriate under BLP in discussing the sources, their validity, and issues related to using them on the mainspace. We have a bit more leeway in this area related to BLPTALK. --Masem (t) 18:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Tim Hayward (academic)

Please note that the tone of the Wikipedia entry for Tim_Hayward_(academic) is in total violation of the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines (see https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The entry is essentially a prolonged attack on Mr. Hayward's character and reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojito Paraiso (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Mojito Paraiso, there is a difference between NPOV and bias or balance. I have used words like "accused" and "alleged" to describe the issues reliable sources have raised about Professor Hayward. As far as know, no editor has looked into potential citations from Google Scholar where this academic's other research interests may have received more positive coverage. With many biographical subjects who are controversial, for example individuals who might be accused of being pseudo scientists, it is possible few "positive" sources exist. More generally, sometimes there are no admissible citations which are negative. Or sources at all, as you recently discovered when submitting a draft for a biographical article about myself. WP:BLP1E also applies in my case; thankfully that situation is unlikely to change. One could argue BLP1E applies to the article about Professor Hayward in its current form. I more or less raised this issue a week ago, see Talk:Piers Robinson#Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM). I didn't raise BLP1E directly because its use could have been read as insulting Professor Hayward. Philip Cross (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this material -- it is pretty dodgy stuff, quoting from individuals' blogs and the like. It should be re-added only via consensus on the talk-page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The article includes citations to openDemocracy and The Times. Professor Hayward's blog might well be admissible on its own to a degree as self-published material is not disallowed, but the quotes are properly cited to third parties. I am not sure whether Snopes is accepted as RS on Wikipedia, and HuffPost has a mixed reputation among editors. It is possible they are both in the grey area, sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. On this occasion, I felt they could be cited. Philip Cross (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The material removed by Nomoskedasticity seems to me all reliably sourced - the Times, Snopes, OpenDemocracy. Maybe HuffPo is weaker but all the rest seems fine. All views are attributed. Wouldn't it have been better to remove it bit by bit giving an edit summary explaining the removal, rather than blanket revert? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter Beard

Persistent edit warring going there, including with regard to what is or is not a BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikikoda and Bangabandhu, take note that I've listed the matter here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I support this move. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Cantwell

There are two notable figures: Christopher Cantwell (white supremacist) and Christopher Cantwell (filmmaker). I believe that it is a WP:BLP concern to have the white supremacist be the primary topic of the two because it risks potentially associating the filmmaker with white supremacy. WP:BLP says, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Furthermore, WP:BLP's note "b" says, "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page." There was an RM discussion to restore the white supremacist as the primary topic, and BLP matters did not seem considered. Bringing it up here (after restoring the disambiguation of both topics) to determine if it really is necessary to put the white supremacist as the primary topic. I believe that the disambiguation page makes it very clear that there are two very different people named Christopher Cantwell. The white supremacist is not so compellingly famous in the mainstream that it is necessary for the figure to be the primary topic. It's not worth the potential harm to the filmmaker. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Boycool (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea, IMO, as it makes clear there are two different people. It might be wise to keep some eyes on the filmmaker's article nonetheless. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears we have crossed signals here; I have reinstated the result of the move request while Erik was writing here. The move discussion did specifically bring up WP:BLP and resulted in moving the page back to where it was until an undiscussed move by User:Erik in January. As I have noted at User talk:Erik#On Christopher Cantwell(s), if the page is to be moved again this should in any case go through Wikipedia:Requested moves (or Wikipedia:Move review if there is a specific objection to my close of the discussion), rather than being done as a unilateral change after the location of the article was discussed at length by several editors. Please note that there is a hatnote on the current page pointing directly to the other article that User:Erik helpfully added in January. Dekimasuよ! 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I recognize Erik's good faith here; I recognize that he initiated discussion here, and by pointing out the unilateral move I do not intend to imply that he is simply attempting to impose the naming pattern he favors. I think the best thing to do would be to initiate a new move request at WP:RM, with any editors here invited to provide input in the new discussion. Dekimasuよ! 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuing to look at this, there are a number of relevant move discussions at Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4 that discussed the use of various possible titles (the disambiguators "white supremacist" and "activist," in addition to the possible removal of the middle initial) in a related case; there are several other BLPs associated with the disambiguation page Richard Spencer. However, again, I believe the proper venue for this sort of discussion is a new move request. Dekimasuよ! 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Ashraf Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is in violation of the criteria WP:A7 and is requested to be deleted.

The person is not significant and/or does not qualify to be of encyclopedic in nature.

The article is about a normal retired public servant which are present in thousands in the government. There are no special reasons to have this page on wikipedia. All the references are news articles while this person was a serving government officer. If this article stays, by that logic every single person mentioned in any news article's needs to have a page on wikipedia as they have got a reference.

REMOVE this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmalik007 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The submission of this article was declined eight times before it was finally accepted. It is possible that the article is a candidate for deletion, but not through this venue. Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you would like to pursue the issue further. Dekimasuよ! 17:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Billy Brewer

When updating the page to reflect his dead, I accidentally wrote Billy Brewer was age 83 instead of age 82 (diff). Before I could correct my mistake, the incorrect date was picked up by the AP [29]. (Sorry if I’m posting at the wrong noticeboard) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

David Matthews information on the Pippa Middleton page

Special:Diff/840880719/840891488

I have checked the BLP page and believe the recent edit with information about David Mattews complies.

However, there has been some reversions to the edit, hence this post to the BLP Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.20.170 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My reasons for removal are stated on the talk page, but to repeat here - the removed topic is not about Pippa Middleton - it's not even about the fellow she's married, but it's about the father of the fellow she's married. That's three steps removed from the article subject, and while it's ok to point out who the father is (which the article does) it's not necessary to discuss BLP topics about the father in an article about somebody else - who doesn't warrant an article themselves. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk

Hi, several accounts keep adding her current boyfriend to her personal life section which I have been removing because I was under the impression that partners should only be included if it is a significant relationship? She only off-handedly mentions the boyfriend in the source and I don't believe she has mentioned him elsewhere (no other sources have been provided, anyway). When I have removed it and cited WP:BLP they have just reincluded him, sometimes without providing a reason and at one point writing in their edit summary that it is a significant relationship (without providing a source). Also, some of the re-inclusions have named him – which she does not do in the source they use (she only mentions her current boyfriend being a writer on her show) so I have also been removing that due to it not being sourced. But it has gone back and forth a few times of me removing the information only for two different users and an IP address to reinclude it, and I guess that is edit warring and I wasn't sure what to do next. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

wp:BLPNAME is the appropriate policy. The questions to ask are: 1)is there a good source? 2)a is the boyfriend a famous public figure or well-known in some context? and 3)does the inclusion add significant context to a portion of the article?.

”The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.”
its very strongly recommended at wp:burden that parties working to restore omitted info to a BLP provide justification for their addition. WP:BRD is the first port of call. A request for comments may be the next Edaham (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

just had a look at the article. The current version doesn’t actually name him. Personally I don’t feel strongly about removing or including the mere reference that she has a boyfriend. It seems sourced, but is also fairly trivial and disconnected. You could be more active in following BRD rather than reverting each time. Try making mention of the subject on the talk page before taking further action. Edaham (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Tove Lill Løyte

Hei,

My name is tove lill loyte bjelland and I am writing to you because I need help with stop people putting false facts or delete facts about me. This can seriously hurt my career. Will you please help me blocking it from public writing? I would prefer to write it myself or give you the correct information. Please contact me on tovelill@live.com.

Best regards Tove Lill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3984:4900:5D5C:C61D:AF4D:C8A6 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problems with Tove Lill Løyte, although I find the "measurements" a little unusual but apparently that is a standard part of the infobox. We will need more information. Following up with email out of courtesy. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Arif Akhundov

Not a relevent person to this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor.andrei1t (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Per our guidelines for what makes a track athlete qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (viewable at WP:NTRACK), Akhundov definitely qualifies. He competed at the Olympics; despite your edit, making it to the heat at the Olympics themselves s indeed being in the competition, however poorly they may have fared. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Clive Wilkins

Could somebody take a look at this article it is a real mess of primary sources and commercial links. I am loathe to tackle it because I went to college with him many years ago. As it stands it wouldn't survive an afd and it's creator almost certainly has an undeclared conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's getting worse! Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy

Hello,

I'm a researcher and art historian who's been invited to write on Aliza Shvarts's practice. I'd like to propose changing Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy to a BLP page for Aliza Shvarts. Much of this page was written and contested in 2008, during the event’s emergence onto the stage of notability. It’s now been ten years since Shvarts came to notability as a BLP1E (the title of which was highly contested on the talk page, and the page was shortly thereafter reviewed and recast as an Event) and underwent a deletion review, and seven years since a user blanked the article’s content in its entirety, and it was restored. In the decade since the scandal, scholars and critics have written about the "controversy" not as a controversy, but as a controversial artwork, part of Aliza's larger critical and artistic practice. Because of this, I believe the page should be reclassified as a BLP, in which the controversy surrounding the artwork figures as one (substantiative) section.

Thoughts? Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a... special topic. Asking here will hopefully give you some helpful input, consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please centralize discussion in the same location: Talk:Yale student abortion art controversy#Requested move 14 May 2018 czar 01:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Prejudicial assignment of guilt at Never Again MSD

At Never Again MSD, I've tried to add "allegdly" to a claim that a living person killed seventeen people. This person is awaiting trial on seventeen murder charges and that's no coincidence. BLPCRIME is clear: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." Yet this was undone because encylopedia is not a court trial. So I tried omitting the name and that was undone because Wikipedia is not a courtroom. I finally tried explaining that I do not mean Wikipedia is a courtroom, a trial, a conviction or living person accused of a crime; these are just words in a rule about an encyclopedia (ours). This was undone by a third editor, because there is no question that he did it.

I get that this guy is unlikable and quite probably guilty as charged. But there's no exception in policy for people like that. As long as he lives, Wikipedia must (theoretically) be mindful about influencing decisions directly affecting his likely death. Especially as it adds little to understanding Never Again's gripe; it could've been any loony teenager with easy access to cheap and hyped guns and their story would stay the same. So there's no need to throw a living person under the bus, even if it wasn't against the rules.

I don't want anyone banned, blocked, warned or apologizing. I just want this noticeboard to notice (in principle, at least) there's a 3-1 consensus among rational and generally well-meaning editors for clearly and plainly violating BLPCRIME by outright stating Nikolas Cruz killed the 17 people prosecutors allege he murdered. There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone, of course, but Wikipedia is strongly suggesting to potential jurors that the criteria needed for the state of Florida to lawfully execute a living person have been met 17 times over, when they have not, even once. The trial date hasn't been set yet, nevermind a verdict. This is shady business, and a slippy precedent for prejudice toward less-universally reviled defendants and genuinely bad living people alike. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How about removing "later identified as Nikolas Cruz" from the lead since he's not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article? Or add "self-confessed" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

He did indeed confess to the crime, if that makes a difference. However I agree that mentioning the name is probably not necessary in this article, as the alleged perpetrator is discussed more thoroughly at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Shritwod (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead of that article makes IH's point, it doesn't say "did it" the same way. Slightly of topic, I think the mention of AR-15 in the lead of Never Again MSD is a little off, but at least it is mentioned again below lead (and I know AR-15/WP is a hot topic on and off WP). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The gun's a bit more pertinent, I find. The general idea of Never Again is to keep these battle-oriented types of guns from these batshit-oriented types of kids, rather than ridding schools of those types of kids. They've repeatedly stressed it's not about taking the sort of moderately powerful guns America is promised to protect itself from deer, burglars and time-travelling Loyalists. That said, I'm not married to the idea of keeping the weapon, it simply remained when I took the person out. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jessica Valenti

There's some dispute over the inclusion of this claim on this talk page based on this tweet. Seems like a clear BLP vio to make this assertion. Any input here is welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

The following statement in the opening paragraph of Ben Swann's wiki seems to violate the Neutral Point of View policy and needs to be revised.

"he began producing a fact-checking series entitled Reality Check that has garnered media attention for presenting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and scientifically-discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism."

Specifically the use of "presenting conspiracy theories." The very use of the word "conspiracy theory" implies a clear bias on whatever subject it's applied to, which violates wikipedia policy. The term is only used to discredit certain viewpoints. And the "presenting" part isn't accurate. He covers some of these things, but does not endorse the theories. For example, in his Pizzagate piece he repeated that there was no evidence of child sex trafficking throughout the segment.

It also just seems like an unnecessary dig on Ben Swann, especially being placed in the opening paragraph. Seems like it belongs in a "Criticism" section if anywhere.

People go to Wikipedia to get raw information on something or someone, not to hear about the media's opinion of somebody. But not only is it unnecessary and shows bias, but it's factually incorrect as well. For example, the Sandy hook segment he did wasn't even a part of his Reality Check series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

“Presented” doesn’t mean “endorsed”. Actually, “presented” is mild as he has questioned why there wasn’t a police investigation of Pizzagate, and has questioned CDC actions and other statements by authorities. Presumably, the sentence is in the lede as this is what resulted in Ben Swann gaining national coverage. In any case, we just follow WP:RS, and they are the sources of the term “conspiracy theories”. BTW, you really should go to article talk first. Although this has been discussed there in the past. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Asking questions is not "promoting" conspiracy theories. Asking questions is exactly what we would expect a good journalist to be doing. Conspiracy theory, according to Wikipedia, means "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy." The sources cited for the statement also do not support the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be worded a bit better, but I don't think its a gross violation. "Swann produces 'Reality Check', a series that covers the veracity of various fringe and conspiracy theories." --Masem (t) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen Reality Check. He regularly leaves the listener with the impression that something suspicious is going on and there's a government cover up. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is appropriate criticism of Reality Check but not necessarily of Swann himself, unless outside the show he acts the same way. --Masem (t) 18:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I see what is a point here that RC is pretty much his show being a news segment rather than a produced show. That ties what the segment presents closer to what he likely believes, etc. I still think that the way the lede is presented is a bit odd. Not wrong/against BLP, but odd. --Masem (t) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it was his show. When cancelled, he moved it to his YouTube channel, which was eventually pulled down after a great deal of backlash. Most of the content came from Russia Today and InfoWars. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right but for the wrong reasons. "Presented" conspiracy theories is not the right wording (it's WP:WEASEL). The correct wording should be "promoted" conspiracy theories. And it should definitely be in the lede, because it's what Swann is most known for and what he's covered for in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

He was careful to not say he believed in such. But, he used “When did you stop beating your wife” kind of wording. I agree he promoted. But, I think we have to settle with the compromise. Sometimes the weasel wins. O3000 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a necessary component of conspiracy peddling. It's a common tactic in conspiracy theory promotion to "just ask questions" and uncritically repeat false and misleading information. When someone presents false, unsubstantiated and misleading fringe content without correcting it, they're promoting the conspiracy theories. For example, if someone uncritically repeats and gives a platform to falsehoods that others are pushing about Obama not being a US citizen, when readily available info debunks Obama birther conspiracies, then they are promoting the birther conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But, we'd need lots of RS to avoid constant arguments. RS tend to say he "focused on conspiracy theories" or "veered into conspiracy theories" or "was conspiracy-minded". O3000 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Within the lede it is completely reasonable to be simple, "He produced Reality Check, a news segment and later YouTube show that often focused on conspiracy theories that drew media attention", and then in the body discuss how he approached them (with both a mix of skepticism for some and promotion for others). --Masem (t) 22:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he was skeptical of any of them and was fired for airing them. He also appeared on Russia Today and Infowars. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Was able to get the error addressed that mentioned his "Reality Check" segment on Sandy Hook that never existed, but it still reads like a hit piece to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fumihito, Prince Akishino

False information: Empress Michiko was not a follower of the Roman Catholic Religion (she attended Roman Catholic schools). Therefore, she cannot be a "convert to Shinto" since she never was Roman Catholic to begin with. This falsehood can be found under the heading "Early Life and Education", third sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.100.189.199 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the information mentioned, since it was unsourced. Anyone is encouraged to add information about Empress Michiko's religion, if the information can be cited to a reliable independent source. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rick Scott

A "Mostly True" Article by Politifact isn't FACT. Rick Scott is being defamed by a source that is not accurate. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Rick_Scott OSHAGUY (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The situation at Columbia/HCA is well-sourced in the rest of the article, as far as I can see. At no point does it accuse Scott of fraud, only indicating that Scott was CEO whilst the fraud took place. There are actually a number of reliable sources out there that do link the two things, but our article is neutral. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@OSHAGUY: What part of this do you dispute as not verifiable? Have you actually looked for other sources, like this one or this one?- Mr X 🖋 22:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality cited to source that is probably not talking about nationality?

Florence Faivre's lead describes her as "a French-Thai actress and model", and this is attributed to this review of a film she was in. The problem is, Thailand only apparently recognizes dual citizenship for those under 18 and in some cases divorcées and widows, so I suspect they were just referring to her as "ethnically Thai" (because it's relevant to the character she played?) or even just to her place of birth, even though she is actually just French. Maybe she had dual citizenship until she turned 18 and the source describes her by her former status for whatever reason. (Note that I don't actually know: she may reside in France but have Thai citizenship, and the source is just sloppy.)

I guess in this particular case a better source than some random film review could probably be located that just describes her as one or the other and it could be subbed out. My normal strategy for non-BLPs would just be to tag it and give the above problem in the reason parameter and just walk away since it's not a big issue for non-BLPs. But what's the "optimal" way to deal with situations like this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing much reliable on the WWW, a couple of varying reports as well. You could ask her on twitter, she has a verified account. https://twitter.com/Florence_Faivre I can't find a reliable source that confirms she is either French or Thai. I'd say without confirmation of either you should take both out for now. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to update, the content and the village voice supporting it has been replaced [link] by Sandstein. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, we're just echoing Village Voice by saying that she's "French-Thai". We don't know whether this refers to nationality or her heritage, and we don't say either. As long as we don't have a specific reason to doubt that Village Voice is a reliable source, I don't see a need to omit what they write, particularly not based on our own original research about Thai nationality law. Sandstein 06:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the article, in the Infobox we do state both French and Thai for nationality. The Village Voice may be reliable, but given the strong likelihood that they're discussing parentage, not nationality, this isn't particularly strong sourcing. The birthplace also looks unsourced, and is contradicted by the entries on fr.Wiki & de.Wiki. I've done some searching for sources for either nationality or birthplace, but sources on the article subject are remarkably thin on the ground; to the point where we probably don't have enough to establish notability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosmah Mansor

This woman, the wife of the just-defeated Prime Minister of Malaysia, is the target of some deep hate and fury from her country’s people. A few days ago, before the page was protected and just after the election that defeated her husband, there were several vituperative comments and nicknames inserted into the article — in Malay, of course, so they fly under the radar of English-only vandal fighters. (Google Translate is your friend!) A very nasty picture was linked to as well. There have been a few revdels already.

To complicate matters, we have copyright violations as well as the vandalism. I have asked for revdels on a substantial number of edits. Until those can happen, and especially after page protection ends in a day and a half, I hope people here will help keep an eye on the article. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Joe Carollo

Joe Carollo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Someone likely related to the biography of a living person, a politician - former Mayor of Miami - and rolled back a major update that contained significant information solely sourced from The Economist, the Miami Herald, the Miami Times, the Orlando Sentinel and the New York Times.

They didn't use the talk page.

This listing needs to be locked for at least 90 days to prevent an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spelunkingmerica:, you have actually been violating multiple policies in regards to this article. You have been blatantly edit warring for quite some time to add information that clearly violates both the Neutral Point of View policy and the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Also, if you are also the person behind the various IP addresses who have been adding similar information since December, you are possibly violating the sock puppet policy. I have reverted it to a stub that predates these additions as the last version of the article that fully complies with the Core Content Policies. Do not re-add these allegations and poorly-sourced claims without gaining consensus on the talk page for them, or you may find yourself blocked. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the editors involved, I do agree that as written the material is poorly presented for a BLP, and some of the details either need stronger sourcing to keep in or should be outright removed (eg the random claim of being racist from one person) Most of the other details are factual, but written seemingly favorably(?) towards Carollo, and needs a strong rewrite to keep to the facts. --Masem (t) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Souad Faress - False Rape Accusation removed from Wikipedia

Souad Faress - False Rape Accusation edited out from Wikipedia

Her False rape accusation is well documented....Why was it REMOVED from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C2:470A:1D00:6CEE:B0E7:8A82:658C (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, on first glance, the "reliable" (?) source does not seem to back the very strong content claim within the article. One needs substantial, hardcore proof to write: "... she had in fact just made the whole thing up." This is not encyclopedic writing; but tabloid fodder. Maineartists (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is facing a case of Disproportionate Assets but has been not convicted there are claims of political vendatta against him and a edit war is going on this section in the article on whether to have a section on the case.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course there should be a section, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There are 100s of sources on it over years; he went to jail for 16 months over it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no issue that it is mentioned in the article but over 60 % of the article including the lead deal with the case related allegations which is not proven and this has been reverted by numerous editors and raised in talk numerous times and ORTS have got over 40 tickets about the subject as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I've dealt with tickets on this as well, and it does seem to be a whitewashing case - yes, the article needs improving and expanding, but I don't think this needs removing - maybe cutting down is appropriate, but as far as I can see there are no BLP issues here. The personal vendetta claims are by POV pushers (potential COI issues here as well from my past correspondence...) Mdann52 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Sznajder

Someone seems to be interested in posting not news articles (perhaps this is not even covered by any media), but primary source court warrants and the like against this person?! Despite other editors deleting the original source, non-media postings as inappropriate. Multiple times now. On the article of Andrew Sznajder.

Smells bad. Who would even have access to these documents? This doesn't look like media being used as a source. More like COI.

Can someone please address? Maybe block out the old posts? And keep the article Andrew Sznajder on a watch list? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:E02F:5FEE:FB8B:1C75 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above concern -- not that I needed to view the Google drive documents to do so. Specifically, please could an administrator consider applying WP:REVDEL to edits like this one. MPS1992 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Candace Owens

I reverted an edit on Candace Owens that I felt was poorly sourced as she was the CEO and apparent founder of an online website (although not the editor) that had some articles that were anti-Trump (the editor especially noted an article (not written by Owens) regarding Trump's penis size and the editor believes that this is somehow important to Owens page. The author of the article at Buzzfeed has even been criticized by Vox for not doing sufficient research before posting an article. I reverted and perhaps violated the 3RR so if you have to lock me out I accept that.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News[30] (a RS) reported that Owens (who is now a diehard Trump supporter) founded a website in 2015 that frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content. Owens herself undeniably authored anti-conservative content[31] and it's undeniable that anti-Trump content appeared on the website.[32] The Hill[33] (a RS) ran a story about Owens' website, citing Buzzfeed News. Patapsco claims that the reporter behind the Buzzfeed News is unreliable and can't be trusted to get his facts right because a Vox article supposedly criticized him for poor research - this is an absurd misreading of the Vox article[34]. Furthermore, it's irrelevant given that the facts of the Buzzfeed News source have been verified beyond doubt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone could take a look at this one for me.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

Please remove the sections of him being a "Holocaust denier" and the quote about how the Unite the Right Rally had "resulted in three deaths", as its true purpose was to protest the removal of confederate statues. For people who first view the page, it's blatantly obvious that the author had meant for those things to appear first, as to slander this individuals reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.240.57 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the historical truth that millions of Jews were murdered by Hitler, he responded "I am still waiting to see those facts."

He is a Holocaust denier. Now, if you're not a Holocaust denier, why would you want to censor the fact that he denies it? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Clementine Ford sources

Regarding the article Clementine Ford (writer), I have posted on article's Talkpage five possible sources that appear to violate unreliable sources for biographies of living people.

Reason: Under BLP, none of these are sufficient quality sources. All suffer the same or similar objections to the sources apparently disqualified by Question over source validity, Killing men comment and Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech under violations of WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:GRAPEVINE. These links should all be removed as they are unsuitable sources.

Comment: As I have been accused of WP:Pointy here[35], I request that the action be engaged by another editor to avoid another possible WP:BLP violation or in being a POV-pusher. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Racism against Meghan Markle (resolved)

This appears to be a completely unnecessary article and possibly harassment. Recently created. If possible, could an admin evaluate the situation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's much more than a "New page that will need work". In its present form it is basically an attack page directed at Jo Marney, who is WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE. St Anselm (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that Marney probably is a public figure, but regardless of that, she hasn't got an article and this article is just a coatrack. So I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Vasundhara Raje

The section "Work as Minister of State in MEA" is written in a tone that is subjective and not neutral. The source cited in this section is not unbiased (being the website of the person whom the article is about). — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.raut58 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it on the basis that it's not properly sourced. Neiltonks (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yiannis Boutaris

The addition, taken from a misreported BBC article "On May 20, 2018 he has been treated in hospital after being beaten up by a group of Greek ultra-nationalists angry over his appearance at a remembrance event" is false and defamatory. The reaction came from a large group of everyday Greek citizens that were in no way "ultra-nationalists". It was NOT Golden Dawn as stated and cited, which is a legitimate ELECTED party in Greece, this is fake news/propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazucaaar (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and removed the piped link to Golden Dawn. While at least 3 RS state clearly and definately that the group that beat up Boutaris were far right nationalists in the crowd, none of them link the incident directly to Golden Dawn. Curdle (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Morag Crighton Timbury

I am a relative of Morag Crighton Timbury and Crighton is incorrectly spelt. it should be CRICHTON. I can only edit the article and not the title. Please can someone help or do this for me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judymcculloch130 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed - after verifying this is indeed the common name (google hits, was in obit and in university page).Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

2009 Roman Polanski support petition - is mention appropriate?

Lee Brush (talk · contribs) has added actors' support of Roman Polanski in a 2009 petition to numerous articles today. As many people who are not actors have also spoken in Polanski's defense, is it appropriate to add this to the actors' articles?

The editor has also, more often than not, marked the article changes as minor; I have advised Lee that doing so is inappropriate. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems inappropriate to me, as do the same editor's additions of YouTube videos. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I'll revert then. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Houseago

At Thomas Houseago an SPA keeps removing the name of his wife (or perhaps now ex-wife) Amy Bessone – info sourced to this article in the Los Angeles Times. Is there any good reason why we should not include this information in the page (not that it's particularly important to me or anything)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? I'd appreciate more eyes on it. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To address the simpler of the issues here, Template:Infobox artist (used for Houseago) has an entry for "spouse" and a different entry for "partner," but specifies in each case that only "notable" names go into the infobox. There is no entry in the infobox for "ex-spouse." So that would mean that neither his current partner Munu El Fituri, who does not have an article, nor his ex-spouse, even though she has an article, should be listed in the infobox, as far as I read the infobox policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Owlstudiosla also tried to make two constructive changes, suggesting URLs where indeed one can find material about Houseago, one of them long and detailed. So rather than simply undoing their edits, I suggest adding some info from those suggested articles, 2016 and 2018, more recent than most of the sources.

I also looked up Owl Studios in LA, which turns out to be run by Thomas Houseago. So maybe COI:N is the place to go with this. There has been no attempt at subterfuge, since they are using that name. But they clearly don't read the talk page and are NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia. OK, Justlettersandnumbers, that's my two cents, cheers. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's useful advice, all of it, thank you HouseOfChange! The spouse (whether she's ex or not I don't know) has an article but is only of dubious notability. If the username is the name of a company then WP:UAA is the place for it, I believe (already reported). Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

John Mattes

Most of this article is NOT sourced and has potentially defamatory content.

In particular, the "Current Work" section should be reviewed by admins.

Kristijrn (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Kristijrn

Well, it doesn't need to be reviewed by an admin. You are an editor, you could edit it yourself :) I see that the content has been removed. It seems that it was added by a couple of IPs from the University of Michigan in April 2017.

Is this undue criticism or not?

Consider this diff. The subject, a scholar Joanna Michlic, has been criticized by another scholar, Peter Stachura, in a letter to the editor, published (in English) in the Polish-English language, minor but nonetheless generally academic/reliable journal, Glaukopis. It seems the letter was not published in the regular journal edition, but it is hosted on the journal's website. The most relevant part of that criticism can be summed up as "Michlic [and another scholar are] perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era". The criticism is sourced to an academic publication (albeit only their website, it's unclear whether the letter publication was peer reviewed, but letters are generally not peer reviewed in either case, whether they are printed or published digitally, outside of editorial review). So the criticism seems, IMHO, to be reliably sourced. More relevant issue - is this due criticism? Her biography is a short stub, and this is the only substantial assessment of her that has been found. It's not a lengthy criticism, but even with the 1-2 sentences, it is certainly visible in her otherwise short stub. We don't want her article to be an attack page, but at the same time, reliable, academic criticism should not be censored. I am of too minds here, hence - request for input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note - Glaukopis is far from a credible source, and this letter in particular has additional red flags attached:

This is a web-based open access, so called, journal. While the Polish ministry of science recognizes it of late in its B list (and one must note the political angle of the ministry - as opposed to recognition (or rather lack thereof) by international academics), it has no impact factor[36].
Stachura himself sits on the program committee [37].
Per Glaukopis's own about - We are particularly interested in the unknown aspects of the history of Poland and the world. By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial. - which is a clear red flag.
The site itself is currently promoting a book (on the main page and in a dedicated aktualnosci(news) section - [38] (though this is not news - been released for two years) by far-right activist/historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz [39] - "Poland for the Poles!" - which covers the present and past of the Polish far-right[40]. Chodakiewicz himself being covered by the SPLC[41][42] and active in the same Ruch Nodowy movement (e.g. "In June 2014, he appeared at a rally of the far-right Ruch Narodowy party, where he proclaimed “We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!"[43]).
Some of the other people on the program committee are obscure, have red-flags or are rather unconnected to the topic (e.g. [44] Kazimierz Braun who is a playwright).
I will further note that Stachura's letter was rejected by a reputable journal - History (thrice) refused to publish this letter which includes tidbits like "where he edits the Jewish-funded annual publication, criticized the Jewish ethnic background of his critics a few times (Michlic and Polonsky), and of others Andrzej Michnik, is a former Marxist of Jewish extraction, and a number of clear WP:REDFLAGs in this regard.

It would seem that Glaukopis mainly exists to publish material more reputable outlets are unwilling to publish - due to their author being "blacklisted" or their contents. Wikipedia should not link to such content which is clearly, at the very least, labeling various Jews for being Jews (or "Jewish-funded" orgs) - on a site with several red flags which is highly questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is your take on them. You may disagree and dislike some of the people here (I am not very fond of all mentioned and criticized by you), but bottom line is, Chodakiewicz is a reliable scholar, and glaukopis is a reliable journal. The fact that they lean towards Polish right (or American, Ch. is Polish-American and associated with Trump advisers, for example) is not relevant here. We are talking about a specific sentence, and views of semi-related people are not relevant. I'll note that you seem to view describing a publication as Jewish-funded as problematic, but have no problem arguing that Polish (gov't) funded or supported sources are inferior. You can't have a cake and it it (aka double standards are not helpful). The neutral stance is to notice both type of sources have their biases. This is not a discussion about right or wrong, Wikipedia doesn't take such stances, we jus acknowledge there are sides. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz is a scholar. He is not reliable in and of himself (and this true for scholars generally, but particularly a figure like this). When he publishes in a RS - that may be considered reliable. When he published on his blogs (of which he has several) or his own open access journal - glaukopis - no. There sre several red flags around Chodakiewicz and his work has been strongly criticized - for instance his recent English book in which he called for the return of the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was described in a peer reviewed journal as "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book"[45]. Gvmt recognition of a journal does not make it reliable. glaukopis does not have a reputation for reliability and is pretty much ignored by the academic community - as are many other open access "journals" - and glaukopis has redder flags than other journals we consider unreliable.Icewhiz (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but blogs by academics are a borderline issue; that said we are not discussing his blogs so it is a moot topic. I am not saying glaukopis is an important publication (in fact, I said it before, it is pretty much a non-entity), but we do generally treat such non-entities (low impact journals) as reliable. I am afraid none of the 'red flags' you point look to me like, well, red flags. It is a minor academic journal that next to nobody reads or cares about, but it is a reliable source. That it advertises a book by a somewhat controversial (but hardly discredited - at least, so far) scholar, or has an ironic commentary about political correctness, are not red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, a single criticism from a single person in a minor journal can easily be argued to be giving undue weight to a minority view. And it's WP:PRIMARY. I would exclude it. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sterling Brown (basketball)

The section titled "2018 Milwaukee police incident" contains a biased summary of Sterling Brown's arrest which downplays the severity of the police actions against Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.42.75 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You have not raised the issue at Talk:Sterling Brown (basketball). Please do so first before coming here. You should explain in detail what specific text you think needs to be added or changed, along with supporting reliable sources to back up your changes. --Jayron 32 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sue W Kelly

Sue W Kelly is NOT Susan W Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.89.14 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm OK. But Sue W. Kelly = Sue W. Kelly = Susan "Sue" Weisenbarger Kelly, no? Drmies (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

After doing some research, I'm not seeing anyplace that refers to Rep. Kelly as "Susan". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sarek, you're getting sloppy - it took me literally 3 seconds to find this from her old University... ;) Giant Snowman 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics does. Not sure as to reliability though. Regards So Why 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Some sources referring to the COMMONNAME is not indicative that that is her full name, especially given that other sources do use a fuller name... Giant Snowman 15:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fuller names, such as "Madelyn Sue Weisenbarger"? :-) http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn2001062048/1960-06-30/ed-1/seq-2.pdf --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh great...maybe she's 'Madelyn Susan'? Have we considered contacting her office for clarification? Giant Snowman 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can take it as a given that if they added the "Madelyn" for the wedding announcement, they wouldn't have abbreviated the "Susan". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We can't assume anything... Giant Snowman 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The 1940 census lists her as "Sue", without the Madelyn. Grr. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See? Giant Snowman 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See what? It says "Sue". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't say 'Madelyn'... Giant Snowman 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

...which is fine, because we're not trying to put "Madelyn" in the article. Yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite two sources (including her former university) saying she is 'Susan'? Giant Snowman 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

They got it wrong that time, obviously. https://archive.org/stream/adytum1958adyt#page/156/mode/2up --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for the attitude. Perhaps you could email them/Mrs Kelly to confirm? Giant Snowman 16:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What attitude? If you want to change the article off what the US House of Representatives website, her college yearbook, and her wedding announcement say is her name, you email her. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And the Denison Alumni Office just confirmed for me that "In our Alumni database Rep. Kelly is referenced as Sue." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this a William Jefferson Clinton situation? 'Sue' appears to be commonname and 'Susan', legal name. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Żegota

See also Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS (and possibly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray may be relevant as well). Some editors are supporting this diff content in which 27 people are named. WP:BDP policy has us assuming people are alive for 115 years if not proven otherwise. Many of the people on the list were born after 1903.

The source in question is www.savingjews.org - this is a personal web-site by Anna Poray. The website was also self-published (publisher - A. Poray) google book entry in 2007. Google-Scholar shows no use of this work, though it has been cited in a 2016 mass market book Irena's Children (possibly a copy of Wikipedia's citation as we were citing the same URL for the same detail).

Further more, Poray is a WP:QS/WP:FRINGE source. Though she is rarely mentioned by WP:RS, a 2004 interview she gave to a right-wing Polish newspaper has gained some notoriety and is described (all be it rather scantily) as an example of propagating a myth[46], being an example of "political history" [47], and being an extreme proponent in the far-right press of " lack of Jewish gratitude" [48].

Comment from uninvolved editors welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The section names 27 individuals, making various assertions about them (some rather unencyclopedic in tone, e.g. "unforgettable director of children's theatres X"). Most of the individuals were born after 1903. We do not have sources for all of them stating that they were dead. Per WP:BDP - Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. - so - barring sources confirming the death (or birth date prior to 1903) of each and every individual named (and which we make assertions on) - this is a BLP issue.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Note, that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page - per WP:BLP - the policy is relevant to all Wikipedia pages, not just to the BLP's article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, what in the world does this have to do with BLP? If there's some hyperbolic language, then tone it down. But this isn't a BLP issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The 27 named individuals are presumed alive, per policy, and using a self-published source (in addition to other questionable aspects of this source) to describe them is forbidden per BLP policy - WP:BLPSPS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I'm pretty sure Marek is asking you what would be so controversial or defamatory about them being named in there. IN other words it's not about whether the BLP applies to these people, but about why it would apply to them in this context. BTW I agree with you on the source, but that there is a problem here needs to be proven. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the information referenced is contentious in relation to the rescue efforts which is a generally contentious subject, and per the BLP policy remove immediately policy - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion - this also applies to neutral, positive, or questionable information. WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article - which is not limited to any sort of material - just material - regardless of whether it is contentious. with the exception of ABOUTSELF - self-published sources are strictly forbidden for any material.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the simpler solution here to just ask why the article has to include a list of non-notable people in the first place? I don't think we need to get into sourcing at all, I would delete that entire paragraph and the QS as WP:listcruft.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Simon Dodd, regardless of any BLP considerations, the naming of so many non-notable people is pointless. But if the substantive content (that a letter was written which named X people, who had done Y), does not have a better source - then it is valueless anyway. Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jay Heiler

This is a really bad Wikipedia living biography, and reflects badly on Wikipedia. The most used source is "The Phoenix New Times" about controversies from 40 years ago...while the actual biography is miniscule. That paper is by all definitions (and quite literally, as I have seen it) a tabloid/gossip source. It should be obvious to any user that this is some sort of hit piece on Jay Heiler (whose real name is James...). Do better Wikipedia. Not sure if I will continue donating. Jay Heiler— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.109.35.52 (talk) 17:05, May 24, 2018‎

It may shock you to hear the, but absolutely no-one here cares one whit if you have donated money in the past nor if you continue to donate in the future. As for "do better", well, ordering editors to make improvements based on vague allegations rarely is helpful. You could always contribute actual effort by editing the article yourself (assuming you have no conflict of interest connection to Heiler) or by actually specifying the issues you think the article has on the talk page. That's what it is there for, after all, to improve articles. I see exactly no substantive edits to that talk page and one technical edit to the article in the past year. As to the substance, I see 24 citations, of which only 4 are to the Phoenix New Times, which hardly seems like a "hit piece". I hope this helps explain thinks at least slightly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Majid Rafizadeh

Need some help here. I'm about to prune, but there's also an edit war that's been going on for a while, possibly with socking (it's about the same subject matter and edit summaries and sources are similar), including a constant fight over the dude's alma mater--with one claim being sourced to this which supposedly verified a Ph.D., and the counterclaim being sourced to this obvious puff piece. If any of you can help with evaluation and sourcing, that would be great. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Now at AfD. It has a long history of COI edits (pro and con), serious sourcing problems, and some waffling about identity and alma mater. It's kind of fun, if this is your kind of fun. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Someone claiming to be Rafizadeh has posted at User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 9#RequestingBest, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Campaign Against Antisemitism / Adrian Davies

My user page Alison Chabloz describes several previous BLP violations regards my person which were resolved after I and an administrator intervened.

Today, similar BLP violations were published on two separate pages. I submitted edit requests to both. Please see:

Talk:Adrian_Davies and Talk:Campaign_Against_Antisemitism

My trial is still ongoing. Today's edits are libellous and should be rectified immediately, irrespective of links to moronic mainstream press reports.

Replies to my request on Adrian Davies' Talk page are unnecessarily rude. I am the living person being discussed here. The edits made in my regards are clearly not neutral but are intended to make me look bad before the judge in my case has even reached a verdict!

As noted by the administrator DGG who removed content previously when the CAA page was nominated for deletion:

"BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, and has been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)" [49] Alison Chabloz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not. You dislike the fact that sources such as the BBC characterise you as an antisemitic blogger. You should take this up with them, not us.

Note to other Wikipedians: A verdict on the private prosecution of Ms. Chabloz is expected May 24. Her friend Jeremy Bedford-Turner was sentenced to prison two days ago. This is on the BBC, the Independent, Court News (which reports her characterisation of Auschwitz as "a theme park for fools") The Times and many other sources. Reliable sources tend to describe her as an antisemitic blogger (e.g. "Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court, The Times).

Not our problem to solve. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I watched some of the material on YouTube (the whining about free speech on privately-owned platforms, about the Jewish media, and some of that singing) and I'm going to have a shower now. Anyway, "antisemitic blogger" seems well-verified. What's funny is that respondents on those talk pages are so polite, when they were dealing with someone who thinks the internet is there for her to spew antisemitic filth. And I see now that I have also dealt with this editor in what I hope was a polite and policy-guided edit, this one, following a comment here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Against Antisemitism. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So much for WP:NPOV. Clearly, no such thing exists!Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies removed content about you from Quenelle_(gesture). You need to learn to accept the consensus view that antisemitism and holocaust denial are shitty. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Simply a case of you and Drmies expressing an opinion.Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a "thank you" would be appreciated. Now don't you start throwing policies around that you clearly don't understand: the only reason you are here is to try and clean up your image a bit. I'm perfectly happy to protect the BLP and will do so even for Holocaust deniers, but if you start throwing any more accusations around you will outlive your welcome quickly, and a block per NOTHERE might follow. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus view of the most reliable media sources in the UK - the BBC, The Times and such - is that you're an antisemitic blogger, it's not really our job to fix that. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I was under oath in a court of law. I refer to you to (WP:BLPCRIME) which applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.

That's a very confusing statement. Are you saying that under oath you will admit to being an antisemite and a holocaust denier, but when trying to whitewash your reputation on the internet you'll deny it? That is how it reads, but I am sure you would not be so cynical. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I told the court under oath that I was professionally trained as a musician. I also disputed the cross-examination's claim regards both 'anti-Semitism' and 'Holocaust' 'denial. Again, this brings us back to BLP and unknown persons accused of committing a crime. If by this time next week I've been convicted, you will be able to gloat - at least until my appeal is heard. If not, then you're going to have some difficulty aguing that you were right whereas the court was wrong. (PS Why are you splitting up my edits - to make things more difficult for readers?) Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So am I WP:WELLKNOWN or not? Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The name was restored to the article, I have removed it, saying "you need explicit consensus to restore the name...� It might be easier to get this consensus after the verdict, which if I understand correctly is schedule for next week." DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. The same issue arises on the page dedicated to my barrister Adrian Davies where I have also posted an edit request. BLP guidelines are quite clear regards unknown persons accused of a crime. It is incoherent for editors on the one hand to demand independent reliable sources and to claim that I would not be sufficiently well-known to warrant a dedicated page whilst, on the other hand, disregarding WP:BLPCRIME. Alison Chabloz (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Rfc at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism § Rfc since this is now spread across multiple pages. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not 100% convinced that Adrian Davies actually passes notability guidelines. Although the case David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is enormously significant when it comes to the Holocaust in UK law, Davies was only involved in the appeal which does not appear to be significant. His defence of a rag-tag group of far-right individuals may also not be enough to infer notability. The inclusion of Alison Chabloz in the article would perhaps be appropriate if Davies is deemed notable, although I suggest using the word "alleged" in reference to Ms Chabloz for the time being. Incidentally, Irving vs Penguin et al does establish ground for civil action if someone believes they are unjustly labelled a holocaust denier but it does also prove in a court of law that the Holocaust actually occurred, ergo for an individual to claim that it didn't would open them up to being labelled a holocaust denier. IANAL. Shritwod (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I don't think there's a realistic chance of deletion, or I would nominate it. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should test that hypothesis? Shritwod (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that Irving v Penguin Books Ltd is a case in English law, and therefore has no legal impact on Wikipedia content. However, it is possible that some individuals within jurisdictions covered by the case might edit this Wikimedia project. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Question in the context of this complaint, has the identity of Alison Chabloz been verified as the complainant? Shritwod (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. You may want to request a block pending identification via WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually my point was that this person is making a request claiming to be Alison Chabloz, but I don't believe that we have verified their identity yet. Shritwod (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the need to block before requesting my identity be verified? Would Guy or any other person not feel somewhat bullied by such a suggestion? Gosh, WP can be quite a nasty place! Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The irony of somebody who recorded a song accusing Holocaust survivors of lying calling anywhere a "nasty place" is staggering. By the by, you may be interested to know that Auschwitz was a much "nastier" place. Be glad you only have to deal with our level of nastiness. (Translation: You aren't going to shame anyone here into complying with your demands for "fairness"). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me guess: one of your relatives swallowed then defecated diamonds whilst prisoner at Auschwitz [50], or, on liberation of the camps, one of your relatives chose to leave with his/her Nazi persecutors rather than remaining to be saved from the evil Germans by the Red Army [51]? Eventually, your relatives were made into soap / lampshades / shrunken heads to be displayed at Nürnberg in order to show how evil the Nazis really were [52]. I'm finding this debate quite enjoyable [53]. How about you, dear Inquisitors? Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Lovely. And yet you claim you have some "right" to be treated courteously and deferentially by others. It would be hilarious if it wasn't evidence of a blinding lack of self-awareness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The things that this editor enjoys provide deep insight into her character. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: If you review her edit history, you may well conclude that she is best restricted to her user space, if only for her own good. Holocaust deniers are not a popular species on Wikipedia. I would block her but I am WP:INVOLVED. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better still, why not make me wear a distinguishing badge and send me to the gulag? Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You display a quite stunning lack of insight. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Guy, that's just your opinion. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually in this case it's my opinion, but virtually none of the rest of what I have told you is opinion at all, it's documented fact. Equating the world's disdain for your incorrect beliefs with what was done to the Jews in Nazi Germany is ridiculous and frankly stupid. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As a medical professional, I think I can safely diagnose a chronic and likely terminal case of retro-crainial inversion, how's that for factual information? I'll make an honest attempt at understanding the complaint here, however: This user argues that opinions and facts that she doesn't like get handwaved away with a "that's just your opinion" but everyone else is supposed to kowtow to her own opinions, especially her opinions about how she should be presented and referred to? No. That's not how it works here, she doesn't get to dictate how the articles here treat her or her claims. This monologue of hers is as tiresome as it is useless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not even sure what the original request was, as it's buried in some sort of anti-Semitic stream of conciousness (anti-semantic?). Oh yes, being referred to in Campaign Against Antisemitism.. well, I think that's been addressed in the talk page as being a matter of fact. Being referred to in Adrian Davies (Ms Chabloz's lawyer), here is looks like the article doesn't meet WP:GNG although there's still an active AfD on it. Thank you for bringing your lawyer's questionable notability to our attention. Shritwod (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Chabloz has been found guilty so WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. As this is the first case of its kind, mentioning her in the article seems reasonable enough. As an aside, it is clear as day that Chabloz is not only an infiltrator in Britain, which her family is obviously not native to, she is not of this world. I believe she is an infiltrator from another planet sent here by her alien masters to sow discord between the races of our planet. Do we have a rule on dealing with complaints from non-human actors? Valenciano (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is a precedent for non-human complainants - the monkey selfie copyright dispute. Seriously though, does this push Chabloz into notability? Or the court case itself? Shritwod (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter Thiel and "young blood"

Is the following section and its sources OK per BLP, or not?

Jeff Bercovici wrote in Inc. in 2016 that "life-extension science is a popular obsession" in Silicon Valley and that regenerative medicine was a fad which started in the 2000s. Bercovici said that there were rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood".^[1] Rumors that technology investor Peter Thiel "was looking to harvest the blood of the young", drawing far-fetched analogies to vampirism, were corrected in Tech Crunch in 2017.^[2]

References

^ Bercovici, Jeff (1 August 2016). "Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested In Young People's Blood". Inc. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
^ Buhr, Sarah (14 June 2017). "No, Peter Thiel is not harvesting the blood of the young". TechCrunch.com. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

To see this in context, see this version of Young blood transfusion; it is the last paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you show your version of the Thiel text. This was my preferred version: The media initially reported that technology investor Peter Thiel "was looking to harvest the blood of the young", drawing far-fetched analogies to vampirism, though claims that he had links to any such schemes were later retracted. I might accept this removal but I think it gives a good example to support the preceding sentence. I have to say that removing all mention of Silicon Valley under the guise of it being a BLP issue is rather stretching things. And for context Jytdog is a rude POV-pusher in this article and has issues with most of it. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a sad state of affairs, since you both appear to accept the mainstream view that young blood transfusion is bollocks. I suggest hashing things out on Talk rather than in the body. And I do agree that it's a bit Debunkopedia now, we could certainly be slightly more measured. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't posted my position, nor my reasoning, in order to make a neutral posting. I will now state them.

In my view:

the title of the Inc piece, Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested In Young People's Blood' is a problematic thing to even display in mainspace
Actually it would be maybe OK, if that were a fact. But if you read the Inc piece, it is full of unsubstantiated gossip about Thiel, and about un-named "Silicon Valley executives"
If you read the Tech Crunch piece (the title of which makes the opposite claim of the Inc piece, and the interplay/mockery shows you how un-serious the whole "story" here is), you will see that nobody will confirm that Thiel is actually interested in "young blood". The only apparent witness to that is the apparently unreliable CEO of the Ambrosia company, who has apparently changed his story.
So why are we reporting unsubstantiated gossip about living people especially disturbing gossip like this?

What is the justification for this under BLP?

I have other issues with this per NOTGOSSIP, but I was reading the version above (which I did not write - see below), and I imagined Thiel reading it, and how we respond if he objected. I don't much care for much of anything Thiel is up to, especially not in the biomedical space, but I do care about whether our content is defensible under our own policies and guidelines.

As to the rank bullshit above that this is "my version", the article originally said (incompetently, sloppily? who knows why) that Thiel was a "prominent investor" in a relevant company (which is not in any source) and it took a ridiculous amount of effort to just get that changed e.g here to "an interest" in)...

Guy I would appreciate it if you adddressed the actual content above in light of BLP. I know you have dealt with lots of people via OTRS and i know you have dealt with FRINGEy crap. I am fine calling spades, spades, but not reporting breathless silicon valley gossip like this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet you don't in any way respond to why it's not acceptable to have a general statement about Silicon Valley. Are you after more sources for that? And more rudeness doesn't make things more productive. Constructive dialog is proving to be very difficult with you. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have said several times that the content about silicon valley is just gossip and repeating of rumor.

The Inc source is also awful - its title, and all the gossip in it. And dealing with the flood of popups and video noise when I go there (which I have to keep doing, since you keep adding it back and citing things from it) And you keep restoring it, as you did again. here. You are the one laying on constant personal attacks, and your editing has been incompetent. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Only as a comment: Never ever consider the title of any article, even if published by an RS, to be reliable or a part of the article proper. Such headlines are most often written by someone else than the original writer and meant to grab attention. No comment on any other point here. --Masem (t) 21:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Masem, no one here is considering "just the title". I am asking folks to consider the title of the piece not as a source, but something that is a) making a claim about a living person, that b) is very obvious on the page, as this is a short article; and where c) the claim is not supported. The source is crappy, the title is bad. It is unclear to me why it is so important that we use it. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"Constant personal attacks". Complete nonsense. You are the abusive, obstructive one. As for Inc. - I don't have any popups at all and it clearly links to China and Korea. But again you're spreading all your bile into yet another venue so perhaps this is something best discussed on the article talk page. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to you further. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Perhaps you'll be needing your time to continue with the other arguments you have going on across the wiki. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant here and I will still post brief corrections. And I am looking forward to feedback from others. 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we do not discount a normally good RS because the article title is crap. I haven't yet seen a case, but if a title introduced a flat-out BLP violation while the body was perfectly fine, I think we'd figure a way to censor the title in the ref but otherwise keep the necessary info for WP:V. I have no other say in the matter. --Masem (t) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog IMO Thiel should not be mentioned int hat article. It amounts to: $CRAPPYSOURCE said $BATSHITCRAZYTHING, $SLIGHLYLESSCRAPPYSOURCE said it was crazy. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I removed it and similar on Peter Thiel. The more contentious issue is whether or not the entirety of Silicon Valley can be maligned by a broad statement. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is great that you agree now, after you initially added it and have added it back multiple times. (a couple of those diffs are above) Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Thiel was my primary concern in filing this.

The content above mentions "rumours of wealthy technology bosses" who are unnamed. Their being unnamed makes the reading of BLP weaker here, but the rumors being reported, are not about little green men, but rather about what actual people are supposedly doing, so we are still in the neighborhood of BLP. There is, unfortunately, no WP:BWGN board. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out there are numerous sources talking about Silicon Valley and life extension. What do you need? New York Times? NewYorker? Wired? Smithsonian? Financial Times? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You may not have seen Life extension#Silicon_Valley. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of that trend and have edited about it on other pages. The statement in the content above is "Bercovici said that there were rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood"." Which is BWG that is making a specific claim about young blood transfusions. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Former professional positions and deadlinks

Shelley Puhak (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

General question here: I do not believe the subject is any longer employed at Notre Dame of Maryland University: there is no sourcing in the directory anymore, so the link is dead, but the Wayback Machine does have an archived version of it. I'm not really sure the best way forward with it, especially since we could be representing something false about a living person (a deadlink isn't a positive source claiming they left, but it is usually a pretty good indicator they no longer work somewhere.) Anyway, leaving this here, @DGG and Drmies: you may be interested in this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The most recent mention of her NDMU faculty position that I've been able to find is 2016, here. As a side comment notability appears to be marginal (granted this isn't my field). Even further aside, the article was drafted by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Don't ask me what all this means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What does it mean? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Man. She seems to have been disappeared, and she was there for quite a while. It's the usual problem with poets--lack of coverage. She's got two books out and has published in all the right places, so whenever we write up notability guidelines for poets, she should make the cut. (I looked at some bios for computer game players today, so yeah.) The way forward is to put her employment with ND in the preterite, and I think that's the only thing we can do. In the meantime I put out a poetic feeler about the importance of that Hecht award she won. Tony, DYK that I have had drinks with three winners of the Yale Series of Younger Poets, and chatted with another one? Fine human beings they are, and were. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I just ordered Duy Doan's We Play a Game. That Yale award needs to be written into those future guidelines; it's so big, it's almost yuge. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yuge, you say? I’m sure you’re yuger, Drmies. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  - Tony, I had a lot of conversations and drinks with Craig Arnold. I have a signed copy of Shells upstairs. The guy was fucking rock and roll and a fine, fine human being. That weekend I hung out with him was one of the most meaningful weekends of my life (I also got married as a result of it, though not with him, fortunately, cause he died), and I think of it often. Poets are special and sacrifice immensely to practice their trade; I wish the usual reliable sources would reflect that. And his fellow poet at that conference (they ran the most kick-ass poetry workshop I've ever seen) also died way, way too young--an Alabama boy, and another wonderful human being, Jake Adam York. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
something something about how encyclopedias historically avoided articles on WP:BLPs for this exact reason, and something something power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
She has a web site of her own that was updated as recently as this April so if she has disappeared, she hasn't disappeared very effectively. Her bio there doesn't list a current position but she did appear to hold a position qualifying under WP:NPROF#5 and notability is not temporary. Her News section does list appearing in the 2017 Best American Travel Writing and Best American Essays anthologies, both of which I would argue qualify under WP:AUTHOR#4. The site also lists contact information so an interested editor could ask her directly. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether to include sourced speculation in a biography?

In the article Elliott Broidy, there is a section Elliott Broidy#Hush money payment to Playboy model. The following things are clearly known: the payment was made by Elliott Broidy; Broidy confirmed that he had the affair; Cohen confirmed that Broidy was a client of his. A few columnists have speculated that the person who had the affair was actually Donald Trump, and that Broidy is fronting for him. I removed this once, but it has been readded, using four sources from two columnists. I would like an opinion as to whether the guidelines of WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE allow for this speculation to be included in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have improved the refs; one was used twice. Seems to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE, as it's clearly labeled "speculation", and there are multiple RS. If Trump has denied it, then that should also be included. He is a RS for what he says, although not for the reliability of what he says. The difference is significant. We just document his statement(s), if any. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Judith Zaffarini

re: "https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Judith_Zaffirini

This biography includes a lengthy quotation from a Letter to the Editor submitted to the Laredo Morning Times from an anti-abortion activist named Cordelia C Flores. This is the quotation that should be removed from the biography:

One of Zaffirini's constituents, Cordelia C. Flores of Laredo, challenged her support for Planned Parenthood and opposition to the bathroom bill. Flores in a letter to the Laredo Morning Times asked:

Why should taxpayer money fund the largest provider of abortions in the United States, instead of supporting the many nontaxpayer- funded ... women’s clinics that actually do offer a wider range of health care services yet don’t provide abortions? ... The political rhetoric expounded by Senator Zaffirini is profuse and focuses on patronizing extremely narrow but loud special interest groups, which despite all their arguments, cannot justify ignoring the laws of science. They also are actually hurting and not helping the very children and transgender people they claim to want to help ,,, With all due respect for the senator, she is out of touch with the majority of her constituents and with all the ordinary, hardworking, God-fearing Americans who simply want to educate ... and to protect their children and families under ... natural law.[22]

This opinion piece from someone who has been writing similar letters in opposition to women's healthcare funding to this newspaper since 2008 is in no way pertinent to a biography of Senator Zaffirini. In fact it is defamatory to the subject. Disagreements with the Senator's legislative record add nothing to her life story. I request that you correct this entry to remove this quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:680F:CD00:799A:2209:F4F7:B1B7 (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the material from the article. Woodroar (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad

This article has some clear cut BLP violation, consider clearing the violations out. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please describe or, even better, copy the BLP violation(s) here so we can evaluate them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

[BBCgallacher-1] "Kirsty Gallacher admits drink-driving in Eton". BBC News. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[Telegraph3xlimit-2] "Kirsty Gallacher claims she was suffering from divorce stress when she was caught three times the drink-drive limit". Telegraph. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[Standard2yrban-3] Kirk, Tristan (4 September 2017). "Kirsty Gallacher handed two year driving ban after being caught three times over drink drive limit". Evening Standard. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[4] "Helton, Christopher. "Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done." EN World, 1 May 2018".

[5] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/steven-soderbergh-oscar-winning-director-traffic-oceans-11-baby-daddy-lawsuit-article-1.133370

[6] ttps://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/oceans-11-director-steven-soderbergh-admits-to-fathering-aussie-love-child-pearl-ng-771ef8c6ca8bf8c9912157358600d27e

[7] ttps://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/soderbergh-fathered-sydney-child-20110204-1agvf.html

[8] ttps://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sex-lies-and-a-bill-from-his-lover/news-story/c23cde18ee872570fe593d98adb6aa93?sv=b8779df21743fcb721d895a843434846

[Inc-9] Bercovici, Jeff (1 August 2016). "Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested In Young People's Blood". Inc. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

[Tech17-10] Buhr, Sarah (14 June 2017). "No, Peter Thiel is not harvesting the blood of the young". TechCrunch.com. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]