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

Input from editors with experience in BLP, especially BLPCRIME, is sought at this discussion. GoldenRing ( talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping and possible WP:CANVASS occuring here - wrong policy and discussion is already occuring at the talk page. Twitbook space tube 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You know, I was going to suggest that someone bring the issue here. I don't see any forum shopping or canvassing in bringing it here. I certainly would like the opinion of editors uninvolved with the article. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't agree with GoldenRing's interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME, but there's nothing wrong with getting outside opinions. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

All potential BLP-violating edits are relevant for discussion here. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot over-ride the BLP policy. The alleged perpetrator would fail WP:PERP for being a non-notable unknown person allegedly involved in a crime where the victim is also a non-notable person. Neither the motivation or the execution are notable (people being deliberately run over is neither unusual or uncommon) nor (this close to the event) is there any indication this is some sort of historic event. News items about current events are WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies. The alleged perp would also fall foul of WP:BLP1E. The only real defense to WP:BLPCRIME is that the alleged perp is a public figure of some sort. Being an alleged perp does not de-facto make them a public figure. Local consensus cannot over-ride core BLP policy. So unless consensus is formed *here* that the alleged perp is a public figure, BLPCRIME applies. I support anyone removing it until such time as either they are notable (eg, an article can be written about them) or they are convicted. BLP removals are exempt from 3rr. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERP is about having a standalone article about the person: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article." (emphasis mine) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And if someone fails PERP, they are incredibly unlikely to be classed as either a well-known or public figure. There is a reason why BLPCRIME directly links to PERP. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you lost me. Nobody is suggesting that we create a separate article for this person, so WP:PERP doesn't apply. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am suggesting exactly this, please see my post below. Gaeanautes ( talk) 22:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Read BLPCRIME. What policy pages does it link to? That someone is ineligible for their own article is a clear indicator they are a low-profile non-notable person, and so BLPCRIME applies. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured.". He's not a relatively unknown person anymore. His name and face have been plastered over hundreds (thousands) of websites across the world. [1] One of the points of BLP is to preserve someone's privacy, but the cat's out of the bag. In fact, he's probably America's most infamous person right now. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant misinterpretation of policy aside, there is no reason to remove information repeated by multiple reliable sources. Twitbook space tube 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually the BLP policy says in a number of places that information may be removed regardless of it being covered by reliable sources. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth people with an interest in BLP, as opposed to an interest in the event, commenting. For my money, we've always been particularly careful with reporting on allegations against individuals who are not notable. I don't think it's appropriate to include a name in these circumstances unless and until conviction. In this respect, we apply a far higher bar than the RS we usually follow. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Dylann_Roof is a counter-example. So, for that matter, is George_Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvonn Martin. Indeed, as Zimmerman was not convicted, we are even today violating this policy. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As Dylann was convicted, BLPCRIME would not apply regardless of if he has his own article or is named elsewhere. BLPCRIME would apply to Zimmerman except his own article has been justified (by others) so editors can claim the 'well known' exemption. (Personally I think Zimmerman's bio should be nuked/merged under BLP1E). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, and I am sorry to weigh in here, but one of the hogboglins of my small mind is inching towards the notion that courts somehow define reality. While I will say that the Zimmerman article (which to me is unfortunately notable) violates the letter of WP:BLPCRIME I think it exposes a real problem with the policy, to wit: Zimmerman admitted the killing of Trayvon Martin. His defense was that it was legally justified (by self defense). I don't think it's any kind of a BLP issue to report what someone advanced in open court--indeed, an admission that was core to the court's ultimate verdict. To say Mr. Zimmerman murdered Mr. Martin would indeed be wrong, but to say that Mr. Zimmerman shot and killed Mr. Martin is nothing more than restating part of the subject's defense in court. So my confusion is as to whether BLPCRIME applies, and if so, whether it should. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite aside from the plethora of articles in the US, James Fields is the subject of articles in Great Britain, Australia, Qatar, New Zealand, Israel, India etc. The guy clearly passes WP:GNG. Yet some editors still claim he is "relatively unknown"? WWGB ( talk) 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Can we try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. If other articles deserve deletion, that's great, but it doesn't help with this discussion, which should be on the merits of this case, this individual, this scenario and not others. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Given the situation - that the suspected person was known by authorities to be at the wheel of the car when it slammed forward - and how prevalent the name is in the media, I don't think at this point BLPCRIME applies. He is going to be named as part of the situation whether he is found guilty of second-degree murder, or is charged with a lesser crime, since he was driving the car at the time of the incident, captured by a handful of videos. It is not like we're talking a suspect of a murder that had no witnesses or the like, where there is doubt the person may have even been involved and hence why we shouldn't include that name in that case. I do think a separate article is wholly unnecessary at this time. -- MASEM ( t) 15:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• BLPCrime does not seem applicable to a person who is appearing in international news sources for an alleged act of domestic terrorism, his "relative unknown" status is moot. However, the reversion also removed some material that probably should be left out, such as his HS attendance and testimony of a former teacher. Restore the name, omit the history, save that for a biography if he warrants one later on. I see no fault in the OP erring on the side of caution, for the record. ValarianB ( talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• I did not come to edit the article. I wanted to read the article. I have to read the past reversions to read the article. The alleged murderer is internationally known. Therefore, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable to excluding relevant information. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Masem, ValarianB, QuackGuru. We are dealing with an event and a person so widely known that there is no reason to exclude the information from the article. (And of course there is no reason to give him an article...) Drmies ( talk) 16:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• As stated by others, BLPCrime does not apply here. Fields belongs in the article. Enigma ^msg 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• ( edit conflict)As I said at the article talk, I don't see the mere mention of the driver's name (even if it is frequent) in RSes as sufficient. This is not a WP:NOTABLE individual, and thus BLPCRIME seems to apply. However, given the amount of media coverage this has been getting, it's very possible that this will change. Within the next few days, I will bet good money that at least one outlet will do a bio on this person. If more RSes pick that up and run similar stories, then it would become feasible to add them. But right now, adding the name strikes me as undue, as the identity of the driver really doesn't add anything of value to the article. "Somebody drove a vehicle into a crowd" and "John Doe drove a vehicle into a crowd" are functionally the same thing, when John Doe is unknown to the public at large. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He didn't just "drive a vehicle into a crowd" (allegedly)--he is charged with second-degree murder, and might get all kinds of other charges, state and federal, thrown at him. Drmies ( talk) 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Drmies: I'm not trying to downplay what happened. I'm sure you've seen me happily label myself an unapologetic liberal and Trump-hater before (if not, there ya go). Consider "Somebody violently crashed a vehicle into a crowd, killing one woman and injuring several more" vs "John Doe violently crashed etc etc..." and my point stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Fields was the registered owner of the vehicle, was present at the rally, and was later arrested and charged with second-degree murder. I'm pretty sure these are incontrovertible facts with ample sourcing. There is nothing more that needs to be satisfied according to BLP. At the heart of the matter isn't a BLP problem, it's a problem that occurs time and time again: Wikipedia editors are squeamish about calling white terrorists, well, terrorists, but rush over each other to label non-white terrorists as such, even with enough sourcing to bring down a proverbial elephant. Sceptre ( talk) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of the comments here and on the article's talk page (where the discussion began) are in favour of inclusion. Enigma ^msg 18:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• WP:BLPCRIME links to WP: NPF(for relatively unknown) which has a see also that links to WP: LPI. (Which is not policy, but policy links to it so I say it has weight) LPI, defines low-profile, and non-public figure to be the same. Further, they define Low-profile to be "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.". This person has been extensively covered by reliable sources, but have they sought such attention? So far, I haven't seen comments that they have. So it appears to me, that they are a relatively unknown person for purposes of BLPCRIME. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Read the part about Behavior pattern and activity level. It says that a person is high profile if they engaged in a high-profile activity. Saturday's attack is clearly high profile. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• One could make the point that someone who drives a vehicle into a group of pedestrians, like the recent attacks in Europe, clearly is seeking out media attention - or certainly would know that would be the result. We name the perpetrator(s) in 2017 Finsbury Park attack (in the other two ISIS-related London ones the perpetrators are dead, though may still come under BLP), so I don't see how this is any different. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Behavior pattern relies on the other four characteristics, of which he falls in the low profile portion for all of them. Further, we cannot call this a major event (yet this may change). @BlackKite, I think we would need reliable sources to ascribe such a motive. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep in mind - we have no idea yet if this was intentional or not (the possibility is there that maybe he panicked, maybe his car got out of control, etc.) The courts will determine that fact, and we do need to presume some degree of innocence without a conviction yet in place. We can't assign that same "attention getting" as the events in Europe have been. -- MASEM ( t) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• I almost always disagree with Masem (all due respect), but here I think he's quite right (though "courts will determine the fact" makes me squirm). We are early on and things are moving fast. While I think it's fine to report what allegedly occurred, we should steer well clear of mens rea and conclusory statements. Let us never forget the lessons of l'affaire Richard Jewell. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Don't feel bad about almost almost always disagreeing with Masem. I almost almost always agree with Masem, so we cancel each other out. (big smile). Great point about Richard Jewell. Anyone who thinks that a particular BLP should be an exception to BLPCRIME on account of widespread media coverage should study that case and how Wikipedia handled it in the early stages. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No bail for Charlottesville car attack suspect ***** ******. The specific details can be found in the news articles. The article is falling far behind what is being reported. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - There doesn't appear to be any justification for removing the name of an alleged high-profile murderer from the article in question. By dint of voluntarily appearing as part of a mass rally of white supremacists, the person in question surrendered all claim to being a "low-profile individual." They they proceeded to allegedly run down dozens of people and flee the scene, and have been formally charged with several felony crimes. Their identity, background and apparent history of Nazi sympathies (as per sources) are all highly relevant to the article. I agree with Masem and the above editors that we must be careful not to presume guilt and that a separate biographical article is unwarranted at this time. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Question Does your definition for low-profile individual apply to people at all protests or Rally's, or just ones from white supremacists? -- Kyohyi ( talk) 21:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No other person has been accused of an act of terrorism thus far. People on both sides who have been arrested for assault and the like will probably not warrant a by-name listing in the article. TheValeyard ( talk) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't even begin to answer the question posed. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If a white supremacist voluntarily attends a white supremacist rally and then (allegedly) murders and maims several counter-protestors using his vehicle as a deadly instrument of terror, he or she has renounced any claim they have to being "low-profile." No one thrust this person involuntarily into the media spotlight. Their choice is quite clear.

I would note that a similar example exists in 2016 Sacramento riot — an otherwise non-notable person is mentioned by name because she has been arrested and charged with a crime in connection with events that took place at the riot. If that is not a BLP violation, clearly this cannot be a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So if people you don't like, then voluntarily goes out in public and says things you don't like, then they are no longer low-profile. Gotcha. Hopefully people can see how POV that argument is. With regards to the Sacramento Riot, Yvette Felarca is no longer a low profile individual. She has voluntarily been on interviews with Tucker Carlson, and KTVU TV about BAMN. What's more, she has been providing quotes to the Daily Californian, (yes I know it's a college newspaper, but this shows a pattern) with respect to BAMN activities all the way back to 2012. She is not a low-profile individual so there is no comparison. If you're talking about someone else I apologize for this section, but please be a little more specific about who you're comparing this to. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. We should present the facts as reported widely in reliable sources, according to the prominence of those sources, according to the neutral point of view policy. As the individual under discussion is undoubtedly the focal point of vast amounts of media attention, this merits his identification in order to comply with the neutral point of view. We should take no stance ourselves on his guilt, but should also defer to reliable sources as per usual Wikipedia policies and present the facts. I think it is only a wildly overbroad reading of BLPCRIME that would argue against inclusion. Also, I strongly object to the recent closing of the discussion at [2]. Given the obvious outcome of that discussion, from a wide array of experienced editors already, this appears to be forum-shopping. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include since the person has made headlines around the globe. People who are alleged to have committed acts of terrorism, mass murder and the like lose their presumed "unknown"-ness by default. TheValeyard ( talk) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• As I stated earlier, which was cut off for some reason: I support inclusion "[o]n grounds of precedent... notability... widespread coverage in the media... the discussion above; etc. WP:CRIM allows for this, given the notability and documentation surrounding the rally itself. However, we indeed must be cognizant of WP:BLPCRIME: no article should be created bearing his name, and the presumption of innocence must stand at all times, until and unless he is convicted in a court of law. Furthermore, once the indictment is drawn up, a link to it (either through a source or an external link) would be greatly appreciated." Additionally, I now join with Sławomir Biały in registering my strong objection to the discussion being closed, given the status of the ongoing discussion. Thank you. -- Javert2113 ( talk) 22:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed the talk page discussion because it had forked. The entire discussion should be in one place, not on two separate pages. Dlthewave ( talk) 23:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

My error in comprehension, then: I took "[d]iscussion has been moved" to refer to it being moved here, instead of it having forked. I apologize. — Javert2113 ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion PLUS an independent article on the alleged perpetrator. The WP:BLPCRIME guideline does not apply in the present case, since the alleged perpetrator is not relatively unknown anymore (as the guideline requires). The present case is much better covered by the guideline on WP:PERP, saying that "...the criminal ... in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: ... [T]he execution of the crime is unusual — or has otherwise been considered noteworthy — such that it is a well-documented historic event." Now, that is the reason why we should have an independent article on the alleged perpetrator ASAP, regardless of the fact that he has not yet been convicted. (It is most unfortunate that the guideline says "criminal" and not "alleged perpetrator" at this point, but that must be the subject of another discussion elsewhere.) Gaeanautes ( talk) 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion -- not a "low profile individual" any longer, with international coverage. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Question (Restating here): How does this interpretation of BLPCRIME jive with the common practice of naming accused terrorists on related pages (e.g., 2017 Portland train attack)? We have a practice of naming the alleged attackers in other places. If this interpretation of BLPCRIME is sustained here, we'd need to scrub dozens of articles of alleged attackers. This seems like something that might be good for WP:VPP to consider as we do not follow the letter of BLPCRIME when it comes to major crimes like murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I think we might need to seriously consider taking this to VPP to make an exemption for murder/homicide. Perhaps the main criteria be that the person is arraigned if alive, or confirmed by authorities if dead. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome, we need clearer guidelines on how to describe events like this as they unfold. Talk:Greg Gianforte devolved into a similar discussion a few months ago over an assault/alleged assault/assault charge. At the very least WPCRIME should address whether or not it's appropriate to mention that someone has been charged with a crime but not yet convicted. Dlthewave ( talk) 02:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Common practice does indeed contradict the letter of WP:BLPCRIME, and I think that's a major problem with the common practice. We get it wrong sometimes – the most recent example I've been involved with was back in April when we named a suspect of the 2017 Stockholm attack in error (i.e. a person unrelated to the investigation was briefly called a suspect before the name was removed from the article). That is clearly unacceptable, and I don't think we should turn a blind eye to this. I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We have a bad track record for WP: BLPCRIME enforcement. I highly doubt that in situations where WP: BLPCRIME is not discussed we are doing the minimum requirement of seriously considering not including information suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one. The position that because it's in "reliable sources" we should or even must include certain information is a very strong position on Wikipedia. Though that isn't what policies like WP: V say. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I did a quick check of the edit history again. When can these two [3] [4] be restored? QuackGuru ( talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion His name and picture has been plastered across dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable source. [5] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral there's no good reason to include the name now, yet I don't see how it's a BLP violation to include it. Regardless, in a weeks time I suspect there will be more than enough to meet WP:PERP for a stand-alone article on him. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for inclusion. The alleged offender has been the subject of feature articles around the world [6]. He clearly passes WP:GNG, is therefore notable, and it is therefore entirely appropriate to name him as being arrested WITHOUT breaching WP:BLPCRIME. As an aside, this discussion has been handled appallingly by Wikipedia administration. The initial discussion at Talk:2017 Unite the Right rally#Identification of the driver showed overwhelming support for name inclusion, but was then summarily forked to a more obscure page (this one) and then closed. It seems that some will go to great lengths to stall a majority opinion against their judgment. WWGB ( talk) 01:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that the opener of this discussion, while an administrator, was clearly not trying to fork it as is clear from the opening comment "Input from editors with experience in BLP, especially BLPCRIME, is sought at this discussion", and as they also mentioned on that original discussion. The editors who closed the original discussion was not an admin [7], nor was the editor who tried to archive it [8] so faulting admins for those actions is just plain silly.

Since this deals with BLP issues, asking here for feedback was clearly appropriate, as already said by others.

You could try and fault those who discussed here rather than the article talk page but these matters tend to be complicated. Often what happens is someone makes a minor comment which they felt doesn't add much to the existing discussion so just leave it here, then someone responds and it sort of spirals from there. Looking at the history, this seems to be at least in part what happened here.

And funnily enough it looks to me a lot like it may have begun due to complaints about the completely appropriate request here for people to comment in the original discussion. Also I'm also fairly sure if you look at the participants, quite a few of them will not be administrators.

And even more funnily enough, you were one of the earliest participants [9] who actually started discussing the issue here as most of the comments before yours seemed to be concentrating on more general issues surrounding the application of BLP crime which were less relevant to the discussion on the article talk page and so weren't really such a big deal if they were held here rather than the article talk page. So if you did want to blame someone for forking the discussion, pot, kettle, .....

Once the discussion had been forked into two, this clearly needed to be resolved somehow, and choosing to keep the more active discussion open would be appropriate. But in any case as I already said, it was not administrators who did this.

Nil Einne ( talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Obviously. This isn't some barely notable crime. It was an attempted mass murder and the perp's name and image has been plastered across every Western news outlet there is. There's politicians local and nationally that want to bring terrorism charges. Also, the shutting down of the discussion on the talk page and forking it here because concensus was clearly against a couple people's opinions was wildly inappropriate. Capeo ( talk) 02:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion I was hesitant at first, but as time went and more publicity was given to his name have changed my mind. However, I still don't think we need to go into detail about his mother, a teacher, etc and I'm not convinced that this [10] edit should be restored. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• support inclusion' due mostly to the fact that there appears to be little ambiguity that he was driving the car ( ref) and this has been discussed in high quality sources. The content should be as careful as the NYT was there. This is not a case where there is a lot of dot-connecting detective work. Jytdog ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr.M.Mohan Alva is founder and chairman of Alva's Education Foundation.He has received lots of awards and under his institution more than 26000+ students are studying , he is also providing free education to lots of students and as a student of alvas i want to create an article about my chairman so please guide me what and all information i have to take and how to submit and get approved by wiki? ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek Nanda ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You can start by creating a draft at your WP:SANDBOX. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Could someone who is more familiar with the topic area review this for BLP issues: I can across it randomly while doing NPP, and I'm not nearly familiar enough with Israeli politics to be useful, but the title has issues for one, and I'm assuming most of the content should be cleaned up as well if it is notable at all. Thanks to all. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Is 'high end' a descriptor for people? AFAIK its for manufactured goods for sale.... -ninja edit- Well High-end redirects to luxury goods, so unless we are talking about political figures being luxury goods, I will probably move that in a minute. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Help a brother (sister/other) out. "High level". —DIYeditor ( talk) 04:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

On a basic level, there are a number of semi-related corruption investigations regarding senior political figures in Israel - its not a bad approach to have them summarized in one article. Haaretz has been covering them, and that ends the extent of my knowledge. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to start a discussion, regarding the above article, which is focused on the lives of two individual people, both of whom work in a partnership involved in filmography. The trouble is, the article incorporates information about both of their early years, while not containing much on this subject. I am concerned that this may not be the correct standard for an article, in correspondence to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Apart from a few other minor issues, which are not mainly relevant and are concerned over editing issues, the primary question I have to ask is this:

"Does anyone know of an article, in which the biography of one person, is merged with that of another - in short, does anyone know of an article consisting of the biographies of two people or more?"

GUtt01 ( talk) 10:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde and Brothers Grimm come to mind, but there are more. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 11:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The difference between these two examples is that Bonnie and Clyde combine two biographies in the same article; while Brothers Grimm also link to two existing biographies already created on WP: Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm. B&C ended their "collaboration" together and can forever be linked in an article. The Grimm Brothers have their own separate articles in addition to an article that focuses on their "creative output." In regards to Lloyd and Miller, they do have notability as a "creative team" presently, but at some point they will either separate or work on individual projects (not to mention gain enough notability to require more personal life and other sections separate from the other). This will be a nightmare to decipher and select if separate articles are not assigned to each subject at some point. IMHO. But to answer your question: this is not uncommon; but will be problematic as their careers grow. Maineartists ( talk) 12:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wachowskis, The Duffer Brothers, the Coen Brothers. -- MASEM ( t) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Straub–Huillet too. /wiae  /tlk 18:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A political POV pusher keeps removing (also here) Labrador's No one dies from not having health care comment -- a comment which thrust Labrador into the national spotlight (ie what Labrador is notable for) and which is well referenced.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's laughable. The man is a member of the house. He was notable before making an ill-advised comment on healthcare. Its certainly WP:UNDUE to have half the lead of his biography being concerned with one comment made in May 2017 - news sources being primary sources at this point and certainly no indication of any lasting notability of the comment. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes he was notable for simply being one of the 435 members of the house; but after he said No one dies from not having health care he's known around the world as the insensitive heartless unintelligent guy who said that. It's who he is, and it summarizes a general perception of the GOP.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, he was notable for his political positions and held offices before that point. That comment shouldn't be removed but it shouldn't be in the lede, that's a tonal bias affecting the article that, as OID points out, doesn't seem to have had a lasting impact here. It can be in the body in regards to criticism of his policies. -- MASEM ( t) 13:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel you are over-estimating how much the rest of the world cares about US house of reps. Suffice to say, this close to an event all news sources are primary and are not an adequate means of assessing the lasting notability of an event. There is nothing preventing it being listed in the body as a BLP issue (its sourced correctly), but the lead of an article is a summary of the body of the article. Unless the body of the article was substantially about this one event, I wouldn't expect it to be in the lead, let alone nearly 50% of it. Hence UNDUE rather than a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Google "Raul Labrador" with quotes and his Nobody dies... comment keeps coming up again and again; it's what he's known for, and it belongs in the lede section.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"this close to an event all news sources are primary and are not an adequate means of assessing the lasting notability of an event." Its like you didnt actually read anything I wrote. The lead is a summary of the body. Unless the body is nearly 50% about that one event, it is undue to have 50% of the lead concentrating on it. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course I read what you wrote, but my sense is that most of the article is advertise-y like promotional garbage. If the article were to be written impartially, from an unbiased viewpoint, it would be much much shorter, and yes the Nobody dies comment would loom large, and yes it would be mentioned in the lede section. When people think 'Raul Labrador' they think 'nobody dies...', and when they don't see that in the lede, they'll roll their eyes, and think the whole article is garbage.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM. That's what he may be most known for now because it happened in the last few months on the eve of the attempt to pass health care reform. But what about a year from now? Five years? Well after he has died? Given how little further reaction the comment has received, it's definitely not appropriate for the lede. -- MASEM ( t) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

'Nobody dies...' will be on his tombstone. The Democratic party is planning to use the 'nobody dies' heavily in advertising for the next election cycle to illustrate unintelligent callousness of the GOP. And look at the rest of the 'lede' section: politician of Puerto Rican descent, who has been the U.S. Representative for Idaho's 1st congressional district since 2011. He is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) and a member of the Republican Party. Labrador previously represented District 14B in the Idaho House of Representatives from 2006 to 2010 -- is any of this junk notable? His religion? His previous appointment 2006-2010? his being of Puerto Rican descent? That's not what he's notable for. I suppose we have to say RL is a member of the GOP.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review notability is not content. Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yolanda Montes (vedette) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article sounds like an ad for the subject, making insupportable assertions (such as she is one of the most famous dancers on the American continents), and is written in very bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caractecus ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The page definitely needs some attention. I'll go through and make some improvements and neutralize. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This user 2601:58C:4201:D9C0:59F0:FB0D:5028:467C wrote defamatory information on this page on August 11, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisdip1 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the edit was already undone by you I posted a notification on the IP's talk page. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Tom Solomon (neurologist) article contains a conflict of interest, as a living person has edited their own Wikipedia article.

User Tsolomon ( /info/en/?search=User:Tsolomon66), who is likely Tom Solomon, has been editing his own article based on the page history. Further to this, the page was created by member titled "Encephalitis Society". This user is named after a UK-based society which Tom Solomon is a key figure within. Regardless of whether this was Tom Solomon himself or a colleague, this further poses another conflict of interest based on the Wikipedia conflict of interest criteria outlined here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

It would seem that the bulk of this page was created by Tom Solomon himself, or by a close colleague. It therefore seems appropriate that it is reviewed or removed.

I would further recommend you perform IP checks on those who have edited the article, as it is possible alt accounts have been used to further edit the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway6212 ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Throwaway6212. This is a very strange request. The article was created and reviewed using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. User Tsolomon66 has edited only once. Conflict of interest is not a reason to remove an article if the subject is notable. If the subject is a key figure in the Encephalitis Society that is probably more reason to keep the article. StarryGrandma ( talk) 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma. The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page explicitly states that the page's subject, and employers or clients of said person cannot write or edit their own page. If I created a small foundation or society myself, would that entitle me or one of my underlings to create my Wikipedia page? No. The entire point of Wikipedia is to provide an unbiased and objective account of someone or something -- this page does not embody that. I did say review or remove the article, certainly the former is more sensible. However, the entire backbone of the page was likely created by the page's subject or an associate. I lack the experience with how to deal with this, but I am simply stating that it does pose a genuine conflict of interest. -- Throwaway6212 ( talk) 16:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a likely conflict of interest here. Two accounts have declared themselves to be the subject of the article, RunningMadProf and Tsolomon66. And the user EncephalitisSociety has a username connection as well. I have marked the article and talk page with relevant COI notices. The conflict of interest policy discourages people from editing articles about themselves, but currently there there is no policy that says someone "cannot write or edit their own page". There does appear to be a bit of puffery in the article, but that can be cleaned up with appropriate editing. Personally, I don't think deletion is warranted, but you can take it to WP:AFD if you wish. Deli nk ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Tom Solomon meets the criteria for an article given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Conflict of interest can be troubling on Wikipedia and can involve editors who have a negative relationship with the subject as well as those who have a positive relationship. There have been cases of companies removing negative material from their own articles while adding such material to those of their competitors. StarryGrandma ( talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Throwaway6212 also has an undisclosed COI, or otherwise has a problematic editing history. That is a very curious username. Where else have you edited? Ladyof Shalott 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

LadyofShalott: the user called Throwaway6212 has never edited anywhere except here! Neiltonks ( talk) 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Neiltonks, that is true with that username. My suspicion though is that there are other (sockpuppet) accounts for the same person. Ladyof Shalott 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My problems: 1. Gorka's mother. The actual text is just libel: "Susan worked as a translator with David Irving, the discredited historian described by a judge as a "Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism". False and what has the judgement of David Irving from 2001 got to do with Susan Gorka of 1981? She was an INTERPRETER in 1981, when David Irving was writing a book about THE REVOLUTION OF HUNGARY IN 1956. She helped him with the translation during interviews with refugees. "On a practical level it would have been impossible to encompass the work and produce this history without the efforts of my interpreters Erika László, Susan Gorka and Carla Venchiarutti, and of Dr. Nicholas Reynolds who conducted some of the preparatory interview" Irving's own book: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Uprising/intro.html Now, the current text gives the impression of her as a Holocaust denier.

2. The Order of Vitéz section: The actual version of the text is neither in chronological, nor in logical order. The whole thing is some confusing mess. I tried to clarify things. Both my edit on Susan Gorka and on this thing were revoked ^[1] - without explanation.

3. The Hungarian Guard section: I tried to put Gorka's support in context by citing Gorka's own words, from the source Volunteer Marek himself used - but he/she deleted the most important parts - the reference ^[2] to the anarchy in Hungary

Now, we have an article, which focuses more on the criticism of Gorka than him, and he and his mother are completely mixed up with nazis. This is argumentum ad Hitlerum fallacy, guilty by association fallacy, POV pushing, and lack of Neutrality.---- Ltbuni ( talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the part about his mother, as it doesn't belong in his biography. Its not libel however in relation to David Irving as thanks to his own ill-judged libel case, he has been found in an English court to be 'an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.'. It is a BLP violation to smear Gorka by association like that though. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good removal. That part is reliably sourced (to a Guardian article about Sebastian) but it does seem pretty WP:UNDUE. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!-- Ltbuni ( talk) 10:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

4. My other problem is that the supporters of Gorka are described with negative adjectives, while the opponents seem to be impartial. For example, in the Controversy section:

"Reynolds (he was previously described as professor) described Schöpflin as "an extreme right wing Hungarian Member of the European Parliament who recently advocated putting pigs heads on a fence on the Hungarian border to keep out Muslims." Both Mr. Andrew Reynolds (political scientist) and Mr György Schöpflin have their own wiki-articles - I think, that their ploitical stances should be inserted there. What is more, it is not neutral, if we call Mr. Reynolds a professor, but we omit that Mr. Schöpflin is a professor as well. So, either we refere to both of them as professors, or just link their articles.

The same problem occurs with Tibor Navracsics: the excessive use of adjectives: "member of the Hungarian Fidesz political party and former colleague of Gorka" (Section The Historical Order of Vitéz)

And my favourite: The Buzzfed describes him: "The same article describes him as being viewed in Hungary as a peddler of snake oil and a self-promoter" Last sentence of the Creditentials section.

5. The section "Historical Order of Vitéz". There are discrediting pieces of information there:

" It is claimed that his father was never a member of this order" - this order was disbanded in 1947 ^[3]. Gorka's dad was 15 then. He COULD NOT be a member of this group." My father was 9 when the war started" ^[4] This original group was listed by the The US. But the Historical Order of Vitéz is NOT. It is not clear in the present form of the text.

It is mentionned at least three times, that Gorka's dad received his medal in 1979 - it is unnecessary.

There is a text, saying: Democratic Senators Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security requesting that the DHS look into whether Gorka "illegally procured his citizenship" by omitting membership in Historical Vitézi Rend, which could have been grounds for keeping him out of the country. That is OK. Unfortunately, two days later Gorka issuead a statement, in response to this, in which he denied that he has ties to nazi things: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/donald-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-denies-claims-has-links-hungarian/. This was also removed by Volunteer Marek, see this, in line 96

6. Support for Hungarian Guard. The article now says, that he wanted the Guard becuase the military of country is sick, etc. It is quite blurred and inaccurate. He, himself said in the interview of the Forward, that "If we look at the Swiss or Israeli example, when it is about a country, that is small and doesn't have a massive military, then a system can be based on a territorial defense ... In Amercia, the state supports them, giving old arms ... After the disturbances of Hungary, last Year, a need has risen, ... storming of the TV station (CUT, not understandable sentence)" Even though I refuse the Forward as a reliable source, because the original video was 11 minutes long ^[5] - and now it is purposefully cut to 2 minutes - so despite all of these, We must NOT neglect, that he refered to the Riots of Hungary in 2006, and he cited Swiss, Israeli, American examples, where there are civil militia " to supplement the official military" ^[6]. Dropping out the context is pretty important here. In the current version, we basically do not know, what he really ment, only that the Guard was later banned. I tried to insert this, but also was first undone ^[7], then a cut version was inserted ^[8]by VolunteerMArek

-- Ltbuni ( talk) 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Would other individuals consider looking at this article and the recent removals/reverts in light of WP:BLPCRIME? I have commented on the AfD already in favour of deletion, so I would prefer if someone else could offer a third-opinion between the two editors in dispute. I do personally think that some of the wording is a bit UNDUE, but welcome the thoughts of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBallioni ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content as it violates WP:BLPCRIME. There are criminal implications in the scandal, the subject (a priest) is not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN and there is no indication that a conviction has been secured. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 12:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Collect ( talk) 14:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. Thanks to all for additional eyes. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if experienced editors here could look at recent edits to that article and comment on the article talk page. Essentially, Shane is a former entertainer, long retired and in obscurity. Her (a transgendered person) recordings are about to be reissued, and the record company has interviewed her - the results of which are not yet published. It is claimed that much of the current article, based on generally good sources, is inaccurate, but the allegedly accurate story has not yet been published. Any advice? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

aprendan vigilar gente de mucho riesgo y no coman  leña luego diere mas  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
64.237.226.237 (
talk) 
20:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 

En inglés, por favor. O, si no, en español correcto. Y tambien, sin la palabra "cabron". -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We're seeing a problem with WP:UNDUE in the article Dana Rohrabacher (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I pared back an unencyclopedic WP:UNDUE statement in which an exchange of views over one question Rorabacher recently asked during a session of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology was presented verbatim and given undue weight over the rest of Rorabacher's activity on that House Committee, User:Tomwsulcer reverted the change for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dana_Rohrabacher&diff=794980837&oldid=794932776 - his edit summary read "Rv as per WP:MOS the lede section is supposed to summarize subjects main points which should not be buried below.". The change wasn't in a lede paragraph. User:Tomwsulcer is referring to another discussion on that article's talk page which also has relevance to this issue: /info/en/?search=Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Lede_paragraphs. In that section, he told another editor "this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried" which seems to show he wanted the change to create WP:PROPAGANDA.

I have no problem with Rorabacher's embarrassing stands being mentioned in the article with due weight with other information about him, but an encyclopedic article ought to summarize this information with inline citations to allow the reader to find the source material in greater detail. It should not reproduce information word-for-word with accompanying white space from the source document, in a way we don't see in encyclopedic articles. I'd like other editors to examine the specific change I mentioned at the top of this report and the entire Dana Rohrabacher article in general to see whether or not my impression that the article presents information damaging to the subject with undue weight, creating WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP concerns, is valid. Thanks. loupgarous ( talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern was not with Vfrikey's change (which will be restored) but with a previous POV editor, who removed swaths of referenced content. We're trying to keep the article balanced.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that the article makes a point of highlighting what appears to be a simple slip of the tongue -- saying "thousands" instead of "billions" See the "Space" section. Here is what was said:

The congressman continued: "Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?"

"So, the evidence is that Mars was different billions of years ago. Not thousands of years ago," Farley said.

"Billions, well. Yes," Rohrabacher said.

The fact that he asked about ancient civilization on Mars is significant. The thousands/millions error was the verbal equivalent of a typo that was quickly corrected. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit is really all I need to see. Tolkienwarrior is WP:NOTHERE. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 03:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomwsulcer and Guy Macon, for addressing the problematic "Space & Question on ancient civilization on Mars" heading and resolving that potential [[WP:BLP] and WP:UNDUE issue with reproducing source text, white space etc by another editor. And for the discussion, which resolved the proximate issue with WP:UNDUE presentation of content. I'm striking through my comments regarding WP:PROPAGANDA as not WP:AGF. Apologies for the misunderstanding. loupgarous ( talk) 22:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhuru Kenyatta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently elected, temporary page protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purtier ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pending changes protection has been applied. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ewen Southby-Tailyour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is posting incorrect statements about one of my clients - named above. They have been removed four times but keep on re-appearing. The simple fact is that the articles imply that my client was involved in a fraudulent company. When my client was involved both artists and the investors were happy as a number of joint exhibitions showed. When the company was eventually 'hijacked' by a criminal team my client was no longer involved as he had already been sacked to save his reputation. Any suggestion otherwise is libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F ( talk) 11:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F and welcome to WP. I presume that you are referring to this contribution at said article: [11]? First of all, it's important to note that your editing at this article is a conflict of interest due to your ties with the subject. See: WP: COI. However, you do have a right to bring these concerns to the article's Talk Page here: Talk Page and start a discussion about a possible BLP violation. I do see that the sources used (Telegraph) in backing the claims for this content are not reliable WP:RS and can / should be challenged. Furthermore, the content itself mentions other guilty parties: "The previous directors Christopher Sabin and Tobias Alexander Ridpath both now facing lengthy prison sentences for their involvement with Imperial Escrow Limited". This has nothing to do with the subject and leaves a bad association. The quote "Tailyour stated that he was only a Chairman in face and not involved in the running of the business although it is his position and the use of his face in marketing and events that many saw as a sign of a safe investment" is vague and someone misleading by speculation without proper reference quoting. If you have sources to back your claim, please open a discussion and present them on the Talk Page. In addition, there are other BLP issues that might need addressing: mentioning of non-notable children by name, occupation and location in the section Personal life. These need to go. Good luck. Maineartists ( talk) 11:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I noticed in the edit history that you have now used 3 separate IP accounts. This can be seen to be what is referred to as "Sockpuppetry" WP:SP. However, it is most likely "good faith" WP:AGF on your part. It might be best if you set up an actual account and log in with Wikipedia so that you will be taken seriously at noticeboards and on Talk Pages; since this issue will most likely become a discussion with a debate due to contested challenges for content. Just a suggestion. Maineartists ( talk) 12:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Editor assistance requested at Ewen Southby-Tailyour. Not only contentious material of a BLP but numerous IP accounts: [12]. Attempted to start a discussion on Talk Page, which no editor has wished to partake. Latest removal of COI tag by suspicious SP [13]. Extra set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

To attempt to summarize the edit history (most recent at the top):

[14] [15] claims that he wasn't involved in this fraud, but has no references.

[16] claims he was involved in the fraud. Until it is discussed on the talk page, it would be a BLP violation to restore this controversial claim. Of the 4 references, the only one that mentions Ewen is [17], and it doesn't claim he was involved in the fraud.

[18] disputes claims regarding Ewen's actions during the Falklands War.

The page is being mostly edited by IP users and single-purpose editors; I'm requesting page protection. That may be sufficient to solve the issues. The IP editor acting on behalf of Ewen Southby-Tailyour should Contact OTRS if they see further problems. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected for one week but the sourcing is dire and that needs sorting out. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• There is still a need for editors to take a look at this article given the paucity of sources, which are imo insufficient to support a BLP. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Input from editors familiar with WP:BLPCRIME issues is needed at Talk:2017 Barcelona attack#Is the Suspects section in violation of WP:BLP? (note: the section in question has since been renamed "Police operations"). TompaDompa ( talk) 11:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph contains a personal opinion that should be removed. I do not feel comfortable removing it myself. Here is the offending opinion. "Mr Serpico gave a speech and stood with NYPD police officers on 19 August 2017 in New York on the bank of the Hudson River at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge in support of former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, who was ostracized by the NFL governing body for heroically taking a moral stand against rampant police brutality, and street killings."

There is no factual evidence that he was ostracized by the NFL governing body, nor is there any fact that this was a heroic moral stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaryu ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your right this was very blatant bias, I think I fixed the worst of it with this edit [19]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions of veracity or verifiability of the text (even as amended) aside, it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the lead section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It has since been entirely removed from the lede, and rightly so. Maineartists ( talk) 23:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A few editors have been editing his page and attempting to paint him in a negative light, which I believe violates wikipedia's neutral tone. They changed his Early Life to Early and Personal Life, which I think is another violation. (I edited it back). His Early Life no longer has a neutral tone, when you look at the blue, hyperlinked words. These words only have to do only with drug use. I believe one of these editors is paid, since he seems to edit pages of subjects and companies that have the ability to pay him. I know wikipedia is not supposed to be involved with gossip. This editor has tried linking this person to a very bad person. The editor edited his page in a way that links negative, gossipy sources as the first reference. I'm trying to bring some neutrality back to the page. Any help or second sets of eyes would be useful. This editor tends to have issues editing other pages as well. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord ( talk • contribs) prev) 23:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I just read the entier article, I see no major neutrality issues with the article in it's current state, any POV there is in his favor, but overall the article seems decent, (there are some instanced of poor writing/grammar and formatting, but I don't see any major POV issues). Tornado chaser ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'References' section has a Korean website listed for Glaser's 'books' and 'poetry'. There's some kind of block, which limits who can edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.239.77 ( talk) 00:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Japanese, not Korean; but yes, references are no longer there. I'll add deadlink tags and we'll hope for an archived copy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone changed the his official name to include "EPCOT died under my reign" as his middle name. This should be corrected.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists ( talk • contribs) prev) 21:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Britney Spears (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it acceptable to describe someone having a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice? I would've thought it quite obviously is not, but two seemingly experienced editors ( Flyer22 Reborn and FlightTime) disagree. Flyer is willing to discuss on the talkpage at least, but FlightTime is edit-warring to restore the label: [20] -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 14:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Softlavender recently reverted you at that article as well, and may also have something to state about this aspect of the revert.

I'll repeat what I wrote on the talk page: "'I don't view stating that Spears had a public meltdown as a WP:BLP violation; it is well-documented as a public meltdown. Furthermore, stating 'was inspired [by] the singer's public meltdown' is specific while 'was inspired by Spears' is vague. But I don't strongly object to this (your) wording. [...] As for using 'public meltdown' in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps you would be interested in this RfC at the WP:NPOV talk page, where a number of editors are clear that we follow the sources with WP:Due weight and often do not need WP:In-text attribution. Furthermore, Spears has commented on the breakdown, or rather 'the breakdown years'; she acknowledges it. She does not disagree that a meltdown/breakdown occurred at some point. So, no, given that and the sources that cover the matter, I can't view it as a WP:BLP violation. Either way, I've already noted that I'm not strongly opposed to your rewording on that bit." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment: EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the matter a WP:BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Ed's opinion was more in relation to the edit being exempt from 3RR: "I don't see that calling Spears' behavior 'a very public meltdown' is a violation of BLP, certainly not for the purposes intended by the BLP exception to 3RR. The 3RR BLP exception is intended for things like unsourced defamation where the offending material is so flagrant it needs to be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion. In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute and the only question is how to give it the most apt description, which is a matter of WP:UNDUE. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 15:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions partly concerns whether or not something is a BLP violation. If "meltdown" was a BLP violation, your reverts on that aspect would have been justified. Liked EdJohnston stated, "In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute," which is similar to what I stated. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should both disengage here. Perhaps there are experts in mental health issues here who might have information about professional use of "meltdown" as a descriptor. Personally, I haven't seen it in any textbooks. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 16:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You can ask at WP:Med, which is a WikiProject I'm a part of. But in terms of sourcing, I do not think that WP:MEDRS sources, or a review of medical sources for "public meltdown" or "meltdown," are necessary in this case. The issue is here whether or not there is a WP:BLP violation. I am fine with ceasing commentary and letting others weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's some good advice Flyer22 Reborn, but in my POV, it is not a simple question of "sticking to the sources"; the term "public meltdown" seems pretty informal, too colloquial, just take a look.." The Sun" or " Daily Mail", some sections of the Spears article seem to be an "E! News report" at times; I think some copyedit (as Hillbillyholiday did) is really good to make the articles more encyclopaedic and less tabloidy. FinalPoint1988 ( talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

What does tabloid sources using the term meltdown have to do with reliable sources using the term for Spears's case and/or Spears acknowledging that a breakdown/meltdown occurred? That non BLP-compliant sources use the terminology has no bearing on whether or not the there is a WP:BLP violation in this specific case. Non BLP-compliant sources use a lot of terminology that BLP-compliant sources use. So what? Also, E! News is a BLP-compliant source. I understand that you like Hillbillyholiday and think that Hillbillyholiday is doing a lot of good, but my views on Hillbillyholiday's editing does not align with yours. Massive cuts are not copyedits. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Antinoos69 continues to edit war on the Kim Davis article insisting that he has a consensus to place in the infobox as the lead photo an image of Kim Davis in which she partially obscures her face with her hand and to add insult to injury, the image has a different person more prominent than the subject of the article. While there is no objection to placing the image in the article in the section discussing her refusal to issue marriage licenses to LGBT people, user:Antinoos69 has been continuously edit warring to re-insert the image into the infobox, after being told several times that the photo is not reasonable for inclusion in the infobox (see big long discussion in article talk page. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Commented. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation. It is you who lacks consensus for your proposed edit. Only one other editor, of five or six, has agreed with you. You must achieve consensus for your controversial edits. That's how Wikipedia works. Until you achieve that consensus, I will continue to revert you. Antinoos69 ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do not make statements that other editors can easily refute. Maineartists ( talk) 22:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Felix Sater currently gives Sater's name as "Felix Henry Sater (born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky; Russian: Феликс Михайлович Шеферовский; March 2, 1966)". As far as I can tell from English language sources, this is not correct. The New York Times gives Sater's birth name as "Haim Felix Sater" but notes that he "Americanized it" to Felix Henry Sater" in the 1990s. That's what our article said up until May when it was changed to the current version by User:Wikimandia, using a Russain language source. I have found other places that use the Haim Sater, but no other reliable sources that use "Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky". Sater's father is Mikhael Sheferovsky AKA Michael Sater, so the Mikhailovich makes sense, but I am unable to confirm it. I am reluctant to change the birth name since I can't read the Russian source. What should I do? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• @ World's Lamest Critic: It's not possible for his birth name to have been Haim Felix Sater. They do not have middle names in Russia; patronymics are required by law on the birth certificate. Your middle name is your father's first name plus the suffix - ovich/evich/etc for males and -ovna/evna/etc for females. In the 18th century it could have been possible for Jews and other ethnic minorities who spoke other languages such as Yiddish to not follow that custom, but it would not have been possible in the Soviet Union in 1966, when he was born, especially in Moscow. (And it's also extremely unlikely his birth name would have been Chaim (Haim), as discrimination against Jews was immense at this time, and even Christian names such as Kristina etc were not really an option in the Soviet era.) I don't know what the NYT's source was as to that being his actual birth name, but it was probably Felix himself. Given that he is a convicted fraud and was eager to not be associated with a father who was an infamous capo for Semyon Mogilevich, it is not surprising he changed not only last name but also his patronymic, essentially erasing his connection to his father. Any claims in the article that are sourced directly to him should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, his history as an FBI informant against Italian organized crime is no secret, but in interviews with Russian press he claims this is not really true and that the FBI sent him on top secret assignments in Afghanistan where he was posing as an arms dealer while hunting Osama bin Laden, which is completely absurd. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • PS OK, the Russian-language BBC service did an article on Felix in July and they discussed the changing of the name. The author is Russian journalist Vladimir Kozlovsky who has been covering him for 15+ years or something, and Felix was absolutely not born Sater, because Kozlovsky mentions how many years ago he was confused by his new last name, and asking Felix at the time why he started calling himself "Sater" and his reply was that the family's name used to be "Satarov" once upon a time. He came to the US via Israel so he would have had a new passport issued there that would have allowed him a religious first name such as Chaim. Kozlovsky has been covering the Russian mafia since the early 1990s and is a respected journalist. In the BBC article, he explains that Felix's next name change, from Sater to Satter, was to prevent business cohorts from finding about his criminal past via Google. He talks about his name change a bit more in that he was charged as "John Doe" because he was an informant etc (I believe he is discussing it in the light that legal documents need to be brought forward to confirm what his name and aliases are, like in the court cases against his dad) and he also mentions that his sister was not using the Sheferovsky/Sheferovskaya name either. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 03:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @ Wikimandia: notwithstanding that the Haim Felix Sater name is "not possible", what does the Russian source actually say about Sater's birth name? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 14:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, the main point of the article is reminiscing about Trump's cohorts in the Russian/former USSR criminal underworld all the crap that went down in the 1990s with Sater's now dead (supposedly) dad Mikhail Sheferovsky's criminal activities in NY until his arrest in 2000 for extortion (he includes screenshot of court case). So anyway Kozlovsky says he remembers talking to Mikhail Sheferovsky around this time and asking him why he has an alias of Sater. And Mikhail claims the family used to be Saterov, and Kozlovsky says Sheferovsky's daughter is now Regina Sater, and that Felix was named Felix Sater when he emigrated from Israel as a little kid, but that he's also gone by Satter for the Google purpose I mentioned above. Unfortunately the name thing was just a sidenote, and at no point does he say flat out he was born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky, because it's a Russian article so obvious because Mikhail Sheferovsky is well known and Felix is his son, so patronymic is obvious. But he doesn't actually use the patronymic because you only refer to patronymics in very formal speech when either writing formally or speaking formally to someone/about someone who is your superior/your elder, ie your teacher, your coach, your esteemed shirtless leader Vladimir Vladimirovich. Sorry for rambling. I see a bunch of new articles about Sater since I worked on his article so I will try to find one something resembling a factsheet that actually says what his real name at birth was. (Btw I love your user name. Hah.) —Мандичка ^YO 😜 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Sorry Wikimandia, I was asking about this source from New Times, not the BBC one. Google translate was enough for me to get the gist of that one. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
          • @ World's Lamest Critic: Oh I apologize, I didn't know you were talking about that one. That's also by Vladimir Kozlovsky, after Trump won the primary. It's similar to the BBC one but goes into more detail of their arrests, Sater informing on the Genovese crime family, etc. There is no mention of "birth name" but just a quick explanation with the same anecdote, that Sheferovsky told Kozlovsky that the name Sater is derived from Satarov, which could be possible, but of course they don't go into when they changed the name from Satarov to Sheferovsky, or at what point they became Sater. The court case of the father shows that his name is Sheferovsky and Sater is an alias. Both of Kozlovsky's articles mention that Sheferovsky is well known and NY everyone knew him as Misha Sheferovsky. It's possible they started using the name Sater because it's simpler than Sheferovsky and they wanted to assimiliate outside the Russian community in the business world, but it's also possible Felix and his sister became Sater because the Sheferovsky name became notorious. Unfortunately the court documents about Sater are all classified, so his legal name isn't clear, but there is a lawsuit (I think from WaPo or NYT) to get them unsealed. I have not been able to find any naturalization records for them in the USA, which should be available, since they arrived in the 70s. Those forms typically have three questions as to the name: 1) Your birth name; 2) The name you used when upon first entering the USA; and 3) What you would like your name to be changed to (optional). "Who exactly exactly is Felix Sater" is actually a very interesting idea for an article and I wouldn't be surprised if something like that comes up, with someone digging into the records in Russia, Israel and NY. As for his article here, I just tried to leave it as basic stub, since pretty much everything available goes into his mafia connections, arrests for fraud and assault, and all the different versions of what he claims he has been doing at Bayrock and for the Trump organization. So I have left the article alone. Sater is a very key part of the Russian investigation by both the feds and NY state, and I think we are going to get more and more about him, since The FT reported last month that he cut a deal and is cooperating with the international money laundering operation. I try to avoid all Trump things on Wikipedia so I'm not sure what discussions there are about all these figures and the investigation outside the Russian interference election, and the investigation into the criminal activity and money laundering. So, to get back to his birth name in the article here, I will keep looking for another source about his full birth name, and if I can't find it, we might also contact some people from Wikiproject Russia for their input. I feel like any mention of the Haim Felix Sater name (which originated in the 2007 NY Times article, when he was trying to pass himself off as a legit businessman) is a problem because we would have to note that this is so dubious it's false, either through a mistake from the NY Times, or because Felix told them that and he's a liar. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 03:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
            • DUH!! I am so sorry, I forgot I am the one who added the New Times article as the source. I am completely drawing a blank as to why I did that, especially since Press Reader is annoying and that article is available in normal format here, unless maybe it wasn't available in normal format then. I am so sorry for all the confusion. I may have chosen the wrong URL and to use that article as a citation for something else. I will get back to you. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@ World's Lamest Critic: Found it! If you search for "урожденный Шеферовский" ("born Sheferovsky") there are quite a few hits. I chose the two best sources to include - the first the famous post-election interview [21] "Феликс Сатер, урожденный Шеферовский" ("Felix Sater, born Sheferovsky") and second one from Gazeta.ru - they misspell it as Sherefovsky but it's clearly a mistake as you can see if you google that spelling [22] "Феликс Сатер, урожденный Феликс Шерефовский" "Felix Sater, born Felix Sherefovsky). Hopefully this suffices. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See:

• Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists
• Academic genealogy of computer scientists

These two articles are both almost entirely unsourced. Not everyone is living but some are, and these appear to be massive BLP and WP:OR violations.... what should we do with these? I kind of think they should be deleted. Jytdog ( talk) Jytdog ( talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have to say I agree. I know deletion is not cleanup, but I'm questioning the notability of these. It appears to be WP:OR entirely. I can possibly see the point of Academic genealogy as an article, but not spinoff articles. Is there significant coverage to support the existence of the articles? I also notice that the article Academic genealogy only exists on other-language wikis in Bulgarian, Esperanto and Portuguese, and seem to be basic translations of the English article. I point this out because scientific articles on notable topics always have articles in dozens of languages because science is universal. The lack of other articles makes me a bit skeptical as to how notable a topic this is. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 15:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary and questionably sourced phrase: "a liberal / progressive"

The sources for this characterization are 1) Reddit, and 2) a self-published blog post by self-described ethicist Jack Marshall, "president and founder of ProEthics, and personally develops its original training programs."

Anonymous Comments on Reddit Are Not Reliable Sources' The Reddit citation refers to an entire thread, not a specific comment. Uses of the word "liberal" is used by anonymous commenters, not Bazelon herself. There are no uses of "progressive" on the thread. What are the liberal/progressive label based on? Do anonymous Reddit comments qualify as reliable sources?

Source Has Questionable Credentials and Relies More on His Assumptions, Not Facts Jack Marshall labels Bazelon a "liberal" based on her mischaracterization of a New York judge. His draws this opinion from her unsupported accusation that the judge was a "conservative judicial activist." As a blogger, Marshall does well-enough, but as a ethicist his judgement is hasty and relies on his questionable authority as an ethicist. Is he an authority on journalistic ethics?

Emily Bazelon may very well be a liberal/progressive, but the inclusion of this label leads the reader to question her motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4000:39EE:5554:257D:3B03:F11E ( talk) 18:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree and removed it. The sources are ridiculous, plus it's WP:UNDUE for it to be included in the lede. Not even Bill Maher has political viewpoint in the lede. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 19:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entire section is original research sourced to primary sources, court documents hosted on the website of a subject of the lawsuits. I have tried to remove it twice and have both times been reverted. Can a senior editor take a look? 173.165.156.203 ( talk) 03:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Please, remove the picture depicting Bill Nye from this wikipedia page at the request of Nevin Carr. I have edited the page myself several times to no avail. This adds no value and does not adequately depict the individual to whom it relates. Please, respect my wishes and take this picture off of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldingb ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Fieldingb: Wikipedia does not normally edit articles to match the desires of their subjects. (That's assuming the request actually came from Carr—we have no way to verify a request made by an account.) The image is free, and if the community decides the image adds value to the article, I don't see any violation of BLP to include it. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Duncan Macmillan (playwright) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've made recent detailed edits to this page which are being repeatedly reversed by someone claiming falsely that the information is inaccurate or personal (it is all sourced from reputable sources online). Trandodit ( talk) 19:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And you have repeatedly reinserted them, Trandodit, which is edit warring on both your parts. Please use the article talk page as the first place to discuss such issues. There has been no such discussion on the article talk page as yet. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Elisa_Jordana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains misinformation and whenever it is corrected the changes are undone. Correct birth year (1982) and reference to a Playboy pictorial are called disrespectful by the fan who then deletes them. Wikipedia is not a press release and the self-aggrandizing elements that I removed should remain out or the article should be marked for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterned ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• The page was full-protected on 20 August for two weeks (until 3 September) following a report at WP:AN3 . -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Nnamdi Kanu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we please have additional competent eyes on this BLP article that has become the play-ground for this IP editor (and this one, probable the same person) who keeps on adding unsourced material into the article while at the same time removing sourced material from the said article? This person doesn't reply to well-meant messages left on his talk page. Reporting him to WP:AVN resulted in me getting blocked :) even though I used Exemption no. 7 of the edit-warring policy. Additional info on the subject matter can be found here. I simply don't have the time to keep on reverting the disruptive edits on the said article. Thank you. 89.14.255.174 ( talk) 10:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

First off, I have no vested interest in the subject nor do I know him personally. I'm responding to a pattern of vandalism that appears racially motivated by a particular editor ScrapIronIV. Multiple edits to this living poet's biography are being altered and reported as Sock Puppetry and COI. I would like to report this to an Administrator.

Shankar's contributions as a reviewer and editor are crucial aspects to his bio. As is his experience with the NYPD. If the criminal accusations (again according to my research he was only ever convicted of two MISDEAMENORS, so alleged crimes should not have a place) are allowed to remain, his experiences with the cops should be especially since he sued the city of New York and won a settlement and statement of wrongdoing. All of this is well-sourced (via Rediff, NPR, Hartford Courant). Additionally other primary source documentation from the New York Times, Best American Poetry, Open Magazine (India) is continuously being removed and called whitewashing for personal reasons.

Additionally my research has indicated that Shankar was never accused of "theft of school funds." This is something that FOX news reported a Politician as saying, which is not the same as fact. Such allegations never took place and cannot be listed as fact according to Wiki policy:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

I believe that if ScrapIronIV continues to persistently violate this policy, his editing privileges should be suspended. Additionally research has indicated that this editor is racially motivated and does not possess a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literarybiographer ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This apparent sockpuppet has been reported to WP:SPI. The sooner that gets addressed, the sooner an appropriate response can be made here. Being accused of racism is no small issue to me. I would like to see the "research" that indicates that I am "racially motivated", as stated above. Scr★pIron ^IV 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about racial bias, but it does seem like legitimate primary source material continues to be removed for no apparent reason and relevant bio data continues to be suppressed by the same Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerribleTowel ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Both of these editors are confirmed sockpuppets of the same sockmaster, and have been indefinitely blocked. This issue can be closed now. Scr★pIron ^IV 12:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article requires action to remove a WP:LABEL violation, however due to the editing status of the article (admin-only) I am unable to remove it myself. Specifically, the article uses the an extreme, contentious, and value-laden label when referring to an internet podcaster Stefan Molyneux in passing, referring to him as alt-right, i.e., a type of white nationalist.

There is a discussion raging on the talk page here, and the user who added the value-laden label in the first place ( User:Volunteer Marek) is apparently the only user in support of keeping it --- not surprising given that this user's last 500 edits appear to be obsessed with attacking right wing politics. -- Nanite ( talk) 17:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Blah blah blah they won't let me push my POV in peace blah blah blah". The information is well sourced and pertinent and most of the objections come from single purpose newly created or sleeper accounts which have descended upon this article like it always happens with anything related to tech and "men's rights" (sic). The actual problem on the article is the overwhelming sock and meat puppetry from these accounts, who, it looks like are trying to find a new venue to re-litigate the whole GamerGate fiasco. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek WP:SPI exists for a purpose. If you are so certain that myself and every person that disagrees with you are sock puppets, go check. I asked on the talk page. If you won't do that, then you need to stop lobbing this baseless accusation. Skimming the talk page over the last few days when asked why the term "alt-right" to define Stefan Molyneux has encyclopedic value you're argument is basically to accuse the person asking of being a sock puppet. - Scarpy ( talk) 22:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Scarpy, first, I never accused you of being a sock puppet. I specifically enumerated the accounts I was referring to - those with very few edits and a ... single purpose. And SPI only works if you have persistent sock puppetry with a sock master which can be identified. It's useless in cases of throw-away, fly-by-night, disruptive accounts which are created solely to brigade some votes and articles, then abandoned once the purpose has been served. And that's a huge problem on Wikipedia particularly on certain topics. Like anything having to do with American politics or "man's rights". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I don't have time to go edit for edit, but I will say while I did see you name some accounts specifically I also remember you making some general comments about people that disagreed with your POV there. It comes down to this--even if I grant you that there is a flood of SPA accounts appearing every time there is an article relating to American politics or "man's rights," that doesn't automatically invalidate the points made by any of those accounts. It's irrelevant and without evidence just pointlessly reduces the civility of the conversation. - Scarpy ( talk) 16:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not automatically. But it does add a ton of noise to the discussion and basically short circuits the consensus building process. Which is sort of the purpose of these accounts. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know nor have an opinion of who is right or wrong here, but this all reads like repeating what brought the GG case to ArbCom, and there's clear lessons learned on all sides to avoid behavioral problems here. -- MASEM ( t) 17:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I share Nanite's concerns. Molyneux's article doesn't label him alt-right but attributes it to WaPo and Politico. (There's some edit-warring at that article which I haven't followed closely.) The Google article under discussion instead calls him alt-right in wiki voice. There is also a thread at the NPOV Noticeboard about "alt-right" and similar ambiguous labels. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting proposal but I don't think it's necessary and maybe doesn't do what the proposer really wants. WP:LABEL already says "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", where I'm adding stress on the "widely". In this case we can look around at stories about Molyneux and see that he's variously referred to as "right wing", "libertarian", "podcaster", etc. but that "alt-right" is certainly not widely used. -- Nanite ( talk) 03:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but I have opened an RfC on the talk page. Kingsindian  ♝  ♚ 03:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Another good point. And thanks KI. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Durgesh Kaushik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Issue: Non-notability of the living person on whom the article is based; Sources appear to be promoted and non-objective in nature; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashanksingh.1102 ( talk • contribs) prev) 15:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Now at AFD, so nothing more to do here based on the concerns listed. MPS1992 ( talk) 20:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My talk page got hit with the following request regarding Buddy Fletcher: Can you take the name of our daughter out of his wiki page? She has been the subject of several threats and I'd love to keep her anonymous on the internet as much as possible. Thanks. Ellen Pao -- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Non-notable minor removed per WP:BLPNAME - the daughter's full name has literally no bearing on the understanding of the article subject and so the presumption in favour of privacy comes first, doubly so since they are a minor (as far as I can tell). Given the parents, legal issues shall we say, no need to cause more harm than necessary. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thx.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Recently,I have created an article about a living person who is a famous celebrity in south Indian television industry.But just now I have gotten a notice that the article created by me will undergo for deletion.kindly help to get rid of this trouble.Thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokiridebba468 ( talk • contribs) 06:28, August 25, 2017 (UTC)‎

@ Pokiridebba468:, I am not an admin but I believe I can help. The article you created on Rahul Ravi was marked for deletion because you did not initially provide enough material for the other editor that reviewed it to determine if the subject passed the guidelines for inclusion. You should not remove such tags yourself from articles you created. I see that there is now possibly enough material to justify notability but removed much of your text to comply with the policy on biographies of living persons. Please read that policy for more information. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ed Seeman

Hi, Sorry if this is the wrong place for this. I have found a possible future BOP policy violation here: here The attached PDF, which is clearly a violation, is being asked to be uploaded to wikipedia.

I think the page in question, Ed Seeman should be placed under creation protection to pre-emptively stop this violation.

TrueAnorak ( talk) 18:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw that Mr. Seeman was having problems building a page and not comprehending the Wikipedia rules. This is not a case of someone trying to gain fame, but rather an already notable person who wanted to get the ball rolling on his own. I have not been hired by Mr. Seeman but have volunteered to help him do what he is not allowed to do under Wikipedia's rules. I am working on the article now myself, intending to fully follow Wikipedia's rules and listening to other editors' feedback. Please contact me if you have any concerns. Jacqke ( talk) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. He was noted only for 1 event. Violation of WP:BLP1E

2. A relatively unknown person. Violation of WP:NPF

3. More than half of the article is unsourced. Violation of WP:GRAPEVINE

4. This is more of self-publicity even when no reliable source is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bansalprakhar ( talk • contribs) 15:43, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

@ Bansalprakhar:, it is not clear what you think should be done with this article. If you think the article needs trimming or improvement, you are free to do that yourself. If you think that the article needs to be removed, then you should review the instructions on nominating an article for deletion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

John Cline (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Irrelevant information to Mr. Cline's facts which defame his accomplishments seem to get inserted without citations or verifiable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeywrangle ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a Notability template to this article but it was removed with the justification There are very FEW articles and statements other than the pertinent results specified...which is where the notability lies. Presumably the editor means that the two external links which are the only sources provided -- a Facebook page and a usacycliing.org profile -- are the only significant public coverage of this person, and that the various achievements listed (3rd place in a particular velodrome in 2014?) prove notability on their own.

Could anyone assist with this please? MPS1992 ( talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just want to say, about our former Governor Weicker, he never said in his campaign that he would not implement an income tax, he said he didn't want to. The other two candidates (Rowland and I can't remember) said they would not. Weicker put CT in the black for the first time in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.138.158 ( talk) 23:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Larry the Cable Guy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to official government records, Larry the Cable Guy's full REAL name is "Daniel Dale Whitney." The story about his middle name being "Lawrence" as an explanation of how he came up with the "Larry" part of his character's name is not backed up by official records, nor is there any indication that it was it officially changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.16.159 ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back this claim other than stating "official government records" here? WP would require those sources cited to back the claims. It might also be a good idea to bring this to the article's Talk Page and see if it can be confirmed. Thanks! Maineartists ( talk) 01:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am all out of reverts, and could do with someone sensible looking at this mess. To those who are unaware of Amanda Bynes, briefly: she was a promising actress who stopped work due to severe mental health issues. Her breakdown over several years was very public and leapt on by the tabloid press in a most unedifying way. Bynes hasn't acted since 2012, I think. This recent article gives an overview of the saga:

In the Twitter age, her breakdown was the first that occurred almost entirely in the public eye, with updates coming on a minute-to-minute basis. In 2007, when Lindsay Lohan was arrested for DUI, the news took days to reverberate—seven years later, news on Bynes took only seconds to devour. There were more impulse reactions, less perspective, and in the race to provide content on Trending Topics, levity was the default. Bynes was mocked and frequently called “crazy,” as if the word didn’t have any serious implications. The actress’ struggles, in no part helped by the fact that she wasn’t working, were a tiny snowball at the top of a mountain, and with every snicker and decision to funnel uncomfortable concern into a funny list about her “craziest tweets,” it grew bigger and raced down the slope at an unstoppable velocity.

There's also this, "Amanda Bynes and the double standard of mental illness":

Bynes’s life is proof we still gawk and grimace at those who suffer in plain sight.

Sundayclose and RektGoldfish have both repeatedly added the following material to Byne's biography under the heading "Legal issues":

In March 2012, Bynes was stopped and ticketed by police for talking on a cell phone while driving. ^[1] A month later, she was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) after side-swiping a police car in West Hollywood. ^[2] On September 4, 2012, Bynes was charged for two alleged hit and run incidents, one occurring in April and the other in August. ^[3] The hit and run charges were dismissed in December 2012 following a financial settlement between Bynes and the victims. ^[4] On February 24, 2014, the DUI charge was dropped and Bynes was sentenced to three years of probation for reckless driving as part of a plea deal. ^[5] Bynes' driver's license was suspended some time before September 6, 2012, by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. ^[3] On September 16, Bynes was cited for driving with a suspended license, and her car was impounded. ^[6] In May 2013, Bynes pleaded no contest to the charge, and was sentenced to three years' probation. ^[7] Her license was restored in April 2014. ^[8]

On May 23, 2013, Bynes was arrested at her home in Manhattan for criminal possession of marijuana, attempted tampering with evidence, and reckless endangerment. ^[9] According to a prosecutor at Bynes' arraignment, police observed Bynes throwing a bong from the window of her 36th floor apartment. Bynes claimed that the alleged bong was actually a vase. ^[10] Following her arrest, Bynes underwent a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital before she was processed at the police station. ^[11] The case against Bynes was dismissed in June 2014. ^[12] On July 22, 2013, Ventura County sheriff's deputies detained Bynes in front of a stranger's house in Thousand Oaks, California, where she had allegedly started a small fire in the driveway, and had her hospitalized under a 72-hour mental-health evaluation hold. ^{[13] [14]} Bynes' parents filed for conservatorship of their daughter shortly after her hospitalization began. ^[15] On August 9, Bynes' mother was granted a temporary conservatorship over Bynes' affairs, including her medical care, as well as control over her finances, after the judge agreed that Bynes had a "lack of capacity to give informed consent to medical care." ^{[16] [17]} On September 30, Bynes was transferred from UCLA Medical Center to receive "specialized treatment in a private facility outside of Los Angeles." ^[18]

In December 2013, Bynes was released from treatment to her parents. ^[19] On September 28, 2014, Bynes was arrested for her second DUI. ^{[8] [20]} On October 10, 2014, Bynes was hospitalized in Pasadena, California, and placed on a temporary psychiatric hold after she made accusations via Twitter that her father sexually abused her as a child; shortly after she tweeted that her father had not molested her, but she claimed he implanted a microchip in her brain that forced her to make the accusation. ^{[21] [22]} Her psychiatric hold was later extended. On October 22, Bynes' mother received conservatorship of her daughter once again; on October 30, Bynes left the psychiatric facility early. ^{[23] [24]}

References

A blow-by-blow and primary-sourced account of her troubles, with no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career. No decent secondary sources. The article as it stands just reflects the callous disregard shown by many media outlets. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is filled with those who follow the precepts of the unnamed editor quoted in User:Collect/BLP and such material is, in my opinion, detrimental to the encyclopedia ab initio. That editor's claim is: "My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Y, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion." To which dirt-flinging principles I specifically demur. Collect ( talk) 12:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Huh? I think what has been written is a decent summary. It's certainly not a blow-by-blow - go to TMZ or Perez Hilton and look her up - there are about a million bizarre incidents, dancing bizarrely in that store, starting the fire in someone's driveway, covering her poor dog in gasoline, saying she wanted Drake to "murder her vagina", etc. And yes, tabloids covered her breakdown, but so did mainstream media ie CNN, LA Times, etc. It is not our place AT ALL to "add perspective" ( WP:OR) or weave it into "the story of her career." Her illness does not belong in any "story of her career." She retired from acting because of health problems, the end. The opinion piece in Macleans is not about Amanda Bynes' life but how perception of mental illness but how Twitter makes it easier to make fun of people. It belongs belongs nowhere near an encyclopedic entry on Bynes. The columnist who wrote it is not a qualified expert (ie psychiatrist, sociologist, etc) just a fairly insipid columnist who hates all Internet meanies and wants people to stop insulting horrible politicians but also feels strongly that people should stop saying flattering things about Justin Trudea's yoga pose. I've seen better opinion pieces in college newspapers. So to sum up, Hillbillyholiday, there is a good reason why you keep getting reverted. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Having read through all of that, I agree with Hillbillyholiday. By all means, document she has mental health issues - it explains why she hasn't continued her career in earnest, but to go into the bit-by-bit detail is just far too close to a tabloid newspaper. The basic tenet of WP:BLP is "do no harm", so a trim is absolutely necessary in this case. PS: It turns out I pretty much said all this before at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Amanda Bynes/1 anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie and Collect here: I restored the removal of the legal issues section, as there appears to be at least a working rough consensus at BLPN that as it currently stands, it should not be in there. Specific instances can be restored if consensus is gained for their inclusion, which per WP:ONUS is how it should be anyway. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Concur with User:Ritchie333's statement "By all means, document she has mental health issues," which I would presume would include the public-record arrests, but without extraneous details. There's not really that much. There's a little the overdetail, which I blockquote below, that I think can go: We only need to say she was arrested for such-and-such and this date, and the charges were dismissed. It's immaterial that she threw a bong/vase out the window or had a psych eval — especially in light of the charges being dismissed.

According to a prosecutor at Bynes' arraignment, police observed Bynes throwing a bong from the window of her 36th floor apartment. Bynes claimed that the alleged bong was actually a vase.[10] Following her arrest, Bynes underwent a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital before she was processed at the police station.[11]

We also don't need "after the judge agreed that Bynes had a 'lack of capacity to give informed consent to medical care.' " That's essentially the reason for any such conservatorship, so it's redundant and unnecessary.

Finally, the following is also clearly violative of WP:BLPCRIME, since the father, a private citizen, was never charged with anything. We don't print allegations without formal charges. This is so violative it needs to go immediately and I am removing it under BLPCRIME: ", after she made accusations via Twitter that her father sexually abused her as a child; shortly after she tweeted that her father had not molested her, but she claimed he implanted a microchip in her brain that forced her to make the accusation.[21][22] " -- Tenebrae ( talk) 13:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see all of this section was removed. No: When formal charges / court orders for a public figure are filed, and then reported in multiple WP:RS sources, we include them. It is whitewashing not to do so. Any responsible biographer writing a book would include these things. I've noted what seems like overdetail and BLPCRIME vios. Otherwise, the material is written in straightforward, reportorial, non-sensationalized fashion and is a pertinent, vital part of this public figure's biography. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae: yes, if you see my edit summary and reasoning I am actually not opposed to including some of the material. I removed it because it had all been challenged above and there seems to be an agreement here that it needs to be toned down. Combining the BLP principles with WP:ONUS we should work towards agreement on including specific instances and then restore those. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And I think being ticketed (the first sentence) can go. Being ticketed is extraordinarily common and non-notable. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The question here that is probably the most pressing is how to deal with all of the dismissed charges: the hit and run and the bong incident both appear to have resulted in dismissals. She is a public figure, so BLPCRIME is a bit more lenient here than it otherwise would be, but without convictions she is assumed innocent of them. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• @ Wikimandia, Ritchie333, and Tenebrae: I've restored some of the content that from this discussion it seems everyone would find uncontroverial to include: things with secured convictions that aren't petty (no tickets or suspended licenses). I've left out anything that did not secure a conviction or have direct relevance to her hospitalization. I think we probably need additional discussion before deciding what to include, if anything, on those. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not too comfortable with that. While the choice of sources are not downright awful (CBS and People, mostly), I wonder if we could just make an effort to see if the major broadsheets (eg: New York Times, Washington Post) have got anything, and try and get something out of them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and Drmies may also have an interest since they were involved and the discussion is happening here rather than the article talk page. —DIYeditor ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Ritchie, some of the sourcing is to the LA Times, which while not the NYT is a significant enough paper that I think its justified. People isn't the Daily Mail, but it certainly isn't my favourite source. If someone wants to do a news archive search, and go about it like you suggested, I'd also be fine with it, and fine with the reversion of that section until we can find a consensus version. I was attempting to see if we could get agreement on what to include as a minimum, and have no problem with it being taken out per BRD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm fine with TonyBallioni's changes as a start. My main objection was to Hillbillyholiday's removal of almost the entirety of the "Personal life" section with no attempt at discussion and no effort to simply trim the information. Sundayclose ( talk) 16:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent job, TonyBallioni. I would suggest two reinsertions (one of them only partial)

On September 4, 2012, Bynes was charged for two alleged hit and run incidents, one occurring in April and the other in August.[3] The hit and run charges were dismissed in December 2012 following a financial settlement between Bynes and the victims.[4]

and

On May 23, 2013, Bynes was arrested at her home in Manhattan for criminal possession of marijuana, attempted tampering with evidence, and reckless endangerment.[9] The case was dismissed in June 2014.[12]

The reason is that these were formal charges that resulted in formal, legal resolutions. (They were also so widely reported and highly publicized that it seems futile and unencyclopedic to ignore.) -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to this: I've been busy with other things, and meant to get back. I was reminded by RektGoldfish's reinsertion of the material above and some additional material about another DUI. I'm very skeptical of the inclusion here of this material: it was all dismissed and as TIME magazine pointed out at the time, she has effectively been a private person since 2007. Yes, she is a celebrity, so she isn't entirely private either. I think this should be taken into consideration when weighing how we present information, re: BLPCRIME. I'll ping @ Ritchie333 and Tenebrae: on this matter. Sorry again for not coming around to this until now. All of your thoughts are welcome. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Naw, it's fine. I wasn't in any rush. I can say that, journalistically speaking, it's important to have an accurate record of arrests of public figures, which she is, in order to write accurately and to give any article a proper and ethical context; an encyclopedia, along with all the other research tools we use, helps with that, and it seems to me that that's part of this encyclopedia's mission. But I'm glad we can discuss this like mature and civilized beings — and I'm glad in retrospect that we were allowed to touch User:Hillbillyholiday's edits at all, since User:John at WP:ANI appears to be threatening discretionary sanctions against anyone who dares do so. Things have reached a fever pitch there and have devolved into harassment and threats. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've trimmed the "legal issues" section a little bit more. We don't need specific dates, and the DUI claims can be trimmed back to say the same thing without needing to be so specific. I'd like to see one more good-quality source about the DUI / plea bargain, but I'm not sure where to find one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a new wiki editor but remember the Amanda Bynes incident. My vote is to include the content about her mental breakdown & bizarre behavior on her article, but perhaps re-title it to Health, under Personal Life, and not give it undue weight. But I've read that you have to be careful about causing harm to a living person. If reading about her breakdown everyday causes her harm then I would re-think including it in such detail. I actually saw her bio, and read it and was shocked that that incident wasn't included. I was interested in learning how she's doing now medically and I didn't see that info either. Settherecord ( talk) 02:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

None of these were convictions, and she is a semi-private person (in the weird space of having formally been public but who now is now completely retired and has been for a decade). We don't report on things simply because they were reported: we respect the privacy of the person and balance it with our policies on living people. The current version is a trimmed down version that several experienced editors have collaborated on getting into shape. I think we're at a good place with where it is right now. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I just re-read her bio. It said she announced in June of 2017 that wants to return to acting. Settherecord ( talk) 03:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If you check the source you will see it notes that it was her first interview in 4 years and that she was discussing future minor appearances in TV shows that she wasn't the star of as a possibility. It also said that she was focused on school at the time. She isn't a private person by any means, but she also really isn't that public either. Its a weird spot to be in. If she was a private person we'd be much stricter than we are, but she also does have some expectation to privacy. Finding the correct balance here is difficult, but I think the current version is headed in the right direction. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Lyndon Martin W. Beharry A self-aggrandizing article of no merit, featuring an unknown person, at /info/en/?search=Lyndon_Martin_W._Beharry

Deleted long ago (and adding a date stamp so this will get archived) -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I get a show of hands as to whether this lengthy news post is suitable to cite in the article? It goes into far more detail than what we have, but I'm not sure where the New York Post sits on the scale of BLP sources - a rough finger in the air suggests it looks similar in quality to the Daily Express, which rings alarm bells. Obviously Casey is no longer living, but her immediate relatives very much are and her dad in particular is scheduled to have a cup of tea and a sit down with Sadiq Khan at some point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The BDP is a trainwreck. The person is primarily noted for her being an heir, but not for much of anything else. Celebrity gossip is, IMHO, evil per se, and where the person has little else to be notable, it should be removed. Collect ( talk) 13:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert H. Abel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

deceased, unfortunately. April 14, 2017, hadley, MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:837F:BF59:ED7E:63CE:D034:C76E ( talk) 12:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• The only source I can find is this one - not the best. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the site of an actual funeral home, and does not strike me as likely to be faked or mistaken about their client's names. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks a rather minor writer, so we may never get a "proper" obituary. Edwardx ( talk) 11:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I traced the obituary above to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, or rather I found the Daily Hampshire Gazette website and followed the the obituaries link: Robert H. Abel Jr. (1941 - 2017), 'published in Daily Hampshire Gazette on Apr. 18, 2017'. I think this is as good a source as we are going to get for now. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Meredith Russo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Me. Russo has been the subject of many controversies. These were included in her Wiki page with credible sources cited. This is relevant and encyclopedic information. Even if the sources cited do not prove Russo's guilt it is consistent with Wikipedia to include relevant controversies that have had media and legal involvement. Wikipedia does not exist as an advertising outlet and public figures' pages typically include relevant controversies. Me. Russo's friends have repeatedly removed this information but Wikipedia does not exist as a debate page for friends to defend controversial public figures. Russo's friends who have removed this information have accused "transphobic hate groups" of publishing the information. While I can not speak for anyone else, i can assuredly say that I am not a "transphobic hate group" but an individual who finds this information relevant to the public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.57.84.193 ( talk) 17:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, statements about living persons require the highest quality sourcing. Also, I see no discussion whatsoever at Talk:Meredith Russo by any of the parties involved in the edit war. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Taylor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.255.154 ( talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

As of today (in TV time), it's both. Right match, wrong slot. Still possible with shenanigans, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Tina Fernandes Botts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have nothing against her. Botts is a fine assistant professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno. I have seen her give talks and she is good at her job. However she is an assistant professor of philosophy, and she has not done any major contribution to any other field, nor is she an important public figure. We can't have wikipedia pages for every assistant professor in every field... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.139 ( talk) 22:23, 28 July 2017

Joel Osteen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With the effects of hurricane Harvey still raging, there have been several attempts at smearing this BLP subject as a hypocrite for failing to open "his" church as a refugee center. Whether or not that is true, this needs to be done in a manner that is consistent with BLP policy and fairness. Junk sources like the NYPost should be avoided and responses from the church defenders should be included. At the heart of the matter is a Twitter journalist has been "calling out" Osteen because "his" church hasn't opened up for sheltering refugees. Said journalist has shown pictures proving the church isn't flooded. What is implied is that Osteen et al are hypocrites for not helping the needy. Responsible journalism (the kind we like to use, right?) would mention things like even though the church isn't flooded, the immediate surrounding area is. As an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be making inferences -- even if dubious sources are. Please keep an eye on this. Thanks. -- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 13:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism comes from Newsweek and ABC too, but yes, Osteen's rebuttals should definitely be included. ValarianB ( talk) 14:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it fails WP:WEIGHT and shouldn't be included at all. Zero ^talk 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not hard to see why people in the media are making a fuss about it, but it's not the sort of thing that merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

\Osteen may be an incarnation of Elmer Gantry but using Wikipedia as a bludgeon about his church, where USAToday and other media have now shown images of water within the building, is silly and pernicious at best. It does not even merit inclusion in the Daily Mail. Collect ( talk) 23:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Bob Mahoney (director) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've attempted to clear this to the last acceptable version, but can not do so without edit warring with COI accounts. What we have is an unsourced resume. Help appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't take admin action on this as I am involved having done some clean up work on the article when helping out the editor who created the page but yes, this needs looking at (I think also it is debatable whether the subject passes WP:GNG). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this has been adressed, the current version has almost no cantent at all. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, all. We need opinions on this matter at Beau Brady (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Should it be removed? For now, I've requested semi-protection of the page. Oshwah and I have been reverting the removal, but we should closely examine the matter. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference for the removed content seems to be a reliable source and even though there has been no conviction according to the source, a guilty sentencing has been issued so WP:BLPCRIME should not be an issue, therefore unless a more reliable source can be presented to contest the information sourced by The Daily Telegraph (Australia) or a solid argument is presented at the talk page of the article showing that the information is not accurate, there seems to be no reason to justify the removal. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 15:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of removing the section, which as it stood was utterly WP:UNDUE, taking up a significant proportion of this very small biography. It would seem a minor and relatively inconsequential matter, and as a recently reported event we have no idea yet of the one thing that might make it worth mentioning -- the effect on his career. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 15:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday, you are currently involved with me in a WP:ANI case about your extreme BLP views. And it's clear that a number of editors, including me, do not agree with your extreme BLP views. That's even more apparent by SNUGGUMS, Tenebrae and Rivertorch weighing in on your invalid Uma Thurman removals. So you should know that it is highly questionable for you to take the liberty to remove this material. It's not surprising that you did since, like past editors I've had a heated history with, you seem to want to stay in my orbit. But it is highly questionable. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get too personal. You have restored this totally undue section, Drug possession, three times.

WP:BLP states:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

And WP:NOTNEWS states:

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source.

If you felt the need to bring it up here, then why didn't you exercise some caution by leaving the material out pending discussion? -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk)

Hillbillyholiday, if "Let's not get too personal." must be kept in mind, then it seems you should have kept that in mind from the start. There is no need to cite BLP to me. And, indeed, I kept reverting the blanking. So did admin Oshwah. And I explained why at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: "[T]he editors removing the content, who all seem to be the same person, were not providing valid rationales. Oshwah and I were reverting blanking. Although I decided to take the matter to the BLP noticeboard, I still felt that the blanking needed to stop in the interim. If editors agree that the content should remain, it's clear that this one person won't agree. [...] And here is a clear legal threat (or statement of taking legal action)."

What we had here was a WP:Conflict of interest editor repeatedly blanking non-BLP violating material with no valid reason given. That is why I restored the material. That is why an admin semi-protected the article. And I brought the material here for obvious reasons. And we already have Crystallizedcarbon stating "there seems to be no reason to justify the removal." You feel otherwise, but, again, that is no surprise. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I notice that Nomoskedasticity has been reverting you. Nomoskedasticity, are you willing to state your view on the matter in this discussion? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the "weight" concern, and so I restored it in a more condensed form. Our policies allow material of this sort. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the material is pure "celebrity gossip material" and anyone who thinks it is proper to use it under WP:BLP for a person not known for the accusations is off the mark utterly. I would note further that inclusion of such material requires a positive consensus in the first place. Collect ( talk) 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Specifically WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." - I have yet to see a credible argument why a TV soap actor's weekend entertainment habits are really relevant. There is no indication this is some sort of extended drug issue that has affected his art. Its a dude partying. Pure gossip. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday is correct. Having an entire section on this issue clearly places UNDUE weight on the topic. The subject is an actor, and the section about drug possession makes it seem s though he might be notable for this, but that is not the case. It skews the neutral point of view of the article. Furthermore, we have no obligation to report the news as it happens. Whether the allegation is true or not, it does not belong in an encyclopedic article. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 18:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's possession, not really a big deal and is more fodder for the tabloids than an encyclopedia. If it was something big like a ring bust or a distribution felony, that would be probably be news, or if it becomes a repeat performance and affects his career like Robert Downey Jr.. At present, no, no inclusion. TheValeyard ( talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Can I insert the following text in bold into the "credentials section" of the Bio of Sebastian Gorka: "one of the referees, George Schöpflin, former professor of London School of Economics had published with Gorka previously -- a breach of conventional academic practices. He is identified in the original source, but presented only in negative terms: as nationalist, radical etc. It would be cherrypicking, if we present Gorka's referee only in negative light and unfair to Gorka himself if we neglect that one of his supervisor is hard to ignore. Even though we have sources like this this or this or this, that he is/was professor of many high ranked institutions. Dropping this is contrary to the requirement of Neutrality of the Wikipedia.

2. Can the source for this controversy be regarded as reliable source?

a)It appeared in the Haaretz, OPPINION pages. According to the guidelines of " reliable sources" Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

b)There are no independent sources where we could check who he is talking about: "Two of the three referees did not even have a Ph.D. One was the U.S. Defense Attaché at the American Embassy in Budapest at the time, while the other was employed at the UK’s Defence Academy and just had a BA from Manchester University awarded in 1969." They had nepotistic ties, they were friends etc read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.785733 Who are they? What proves that they have "nepotitistic ties" etc

c)Contains bias and factual error: "Both Schöpflin and Gorka’s father fled from Budapest to London in the 1950s and both moved in exile right-wing nationalist circles read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.785733 " False. Schöpflin's dad was an anti-nationalis, pro-left man for all of his life- for his career: read more here. He left not Budapest, but stockholm where he worked at the Hungarian Embassy, and not in the 1950s, but in 1949, and he translated jewish liberal authors, like György Konrád and Miklós Haraszti from Hungarian into English It is higly improbable that right-wing nationalists could accept a former communist clerk, with this background. Andrews failed to give his sources on this issue as well.

d) Argumentational error: Gorka earned his phd in Hungary and we do not know whether it is acceptable there to have referees there who have practical experience rather than purely theoretical knowledge. He could be called phd if he fulfilled the requirements of that University. Criteria may differ from each other in different continent. For example in Europe the candidate must be able to speak at least 3 languages. I am not sure, that it is required in the US. Despite this, we do not question the validity of an American phd.

3. Can I put this text back to the Credentials section? I find it is appropriate there, it is sourced as well.-- Ltbuni ( talk) 22:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

On 1) I'm not clear on what the issue is. The sentence does say that TWO out of three, with the third being Schopflin had BAs not PhDs. Is it just that you want to name the third by name?

Name and rank. I did it and it was removed.

On 3) I agree with Nomoscedastcitiy that this isn't an issue of credentials. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Point of information on 1): He was never a professor at LSE (except in the non-British usage of the term), but a lecturer and moreover does not possess a PhD either (see recent dicsussion on the talk page of the article).

(Comment) on 2 a and c) That is generally true, and he may not be reliable for elements of G.'s biography, but if he's an expert in the same field as the PhD itself (i.e., he has a PhD himself and has published widely in it), then his comments on the thesis ought to be reliable in principle--though it wouldn't hurt to back it up with further evidence.

On b) It would help if he identified who they were, but some sources were found confirming Schop doesn't have a PhD weren't there (talk page)?

On d) I would not call that an error. There is no university in the world where people with only BAs are qualified to judge whether a thesis is good enough to award someone a degree which is two levels higher than their own. They may well teach and publish and be called whatever title they are called, but never Doctor, and it would be absurd for them to be called to critique and debate with a doctoral student. I know of a medievalist at Oxford who has been in residence for decades with only a BA and he is a very fine editor and academic, but I cannot see him being permited to supervise a thesis, since he's never had to produce one himself (even though the body of the work he has produced over his academic career is probably about equivalent).

On 3)You already did put it back and it was removed again for the same reasons: it wasn't relevant to that section since none of it was talking about credentials. There's been discussion on the talk page already about this, I'm not sure why you think you're going to get a different result here. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 01:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Elmer Jamias (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article began as a draft from an acknowledged paid COI editor, Rearm21, who admitted that they got the draft text from Elmer Jamias himself (Rearm21 said Jamias is their boss and that he instructed them to create a Wikipedia article about him). I informed Rearm21 of WP:V and WP:BLP (and WP:COI and WP:PAID) and made sure they understood that only material which they or I could find WP:RSs for would be able to be included in the article. I found what I considered to be adequate sources to support WP:N and built the article with Rearm21's assistance. When the sources ran dry, I let Rearm21 know that the information in the draft which we couldn't find sources for could not be included in the Wikipedia article, and I thought that would be the end of it.

A week ago, a new account, Miracle223, created their user sandbox with a version of the Elmer Jamias article virtually identical to the original draft Rearm21 had said came from Mr. Jamias. (I noticed this when I checked the contributions of the user who had made this edit which removed sourced but unflattering information about Mr. Jamias.) I left a message on Miracle223's talk page letting them know that they should read and comply with WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:BLP, etc. but to date have received no response.

A day and a half ago, an IP user, 202.90.136.142, began adding some of the same unsourced material to the Elmer Jamias article. I have reverted these additions twice now, and don't want to fall afoul of WP:3RR. (I also left a message on the IP's talk page.) Meanwhile, Rearm21 has begun editing the article again, despite my having told them that it would be more appropriate to propose changes on the article's talk page; I make no assertions about the identity of the IP editor but I think the recent edit history of the article speaks for itself, specifically the edits up to and including 03:20, 30 August 2017 and the edits beginning 03:39, 30 August 2017‎.

I am frustrated with this situation, because I collaborated on the article in good faith to help a COI editor comply with our policies in such a way that the topic they chose could have a Wikipedia article. (This is not the first time I have helped a COI editor with an article whose subject I found to be actually notable; that's one of the things I do here.) I can't (and shouldn't) be the only editor watching the article and guarding against these inappropriate additions, though. I'm aware that it may seem like this is a WP:OWN situation on my part, but I have no objections to properly-sourced material being added to this BLP — only unsourced (or improperly-sourced) material or other policy violations. (For anyone who thinks the solution is to delete and salt the article, I don't think that's appropriate as the subject does meet WP:GNG.) Thanks in advance for your help. — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question is definitely adding stuff that is unsourced and quite obviously produced by the subject himself. From your description, there may be some puppetry issues going on. I don't really see any blatant BLP vios, though, so you may have better luck at ANI.

From reading the article, I can't see any indication of his notability. In other words, I can't tell from reading the article why I would want to bother reading it in the first place. I may be wrong, but it seems that his only real claim to fame is having a movie made about him, so perhaps it would help to add something which explains what he is notable for. Otherwise people may come along and claim WP:BLP1E issues. Other than that, the only thing I see which concerns me BLP-wise is the name of his wife. In view of WP:BLPPRIVACY, this information should not only be sourced, but should be widely sourced enough to be able to infer that she does not object to being named in an encyclopedia. (In most cases, unless the spouse in notable of her own right, there is no need to name them at all, because it provides little encyclopedic value to the definition of the subject. Simply stating he's married is usually enough.) Zaereth ( talk) 22:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth. Even though I've been working with COI editors for a while, and I've been editing for years, I've never had to take anything to ANI before and wasn't sure this situation merited it, so thanks for giving me the push. I'll admit it's a marginal case, but he's notable for 1) killing the criminal who had killed six police officers, 2) having the movie made about him, and 3) being the one who stood up to the Philippine VP in that fracas. That meets WP:N by my reading, but YMMV. I had forgotten that the wife's name was still in the infobox; I'll take it out, though I won't be surprised if that starts another round of edit skirmishing. Thanks again! — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I see in the article that he did those things, but no further explanation as to why that in itself makes him notable. The reason I bring it up is because I would rather avoid having someone come along and tag it for speedy deletion under WP:A7 (no indication of importance). Since he had a movie made about him, I get the feeling there is more to the story than the article is telling me, which is what readers will want to know. Does that make sense? In other words, correcting this is likely more a matter of the writing than the sourcing. Zaereth ( talk) 00:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: Don't go over to ANI with vague claims and expect everyone to interpret what you think is going on (not to imply that you did so here, just trying to improve your results). Be direct, as in "I need admin action because I believe this user(s) is..." Zaereth ( talk) 01:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I got what I think is a good result at ANI — both named accounts blocked, and the page semi-protected for a week to keep the IP out — even though I didn't see your response here until I had already posted there. I'll take your tips under advisement for if I ever have to initiate at ANI again, though. I'm used to scrupulously following AGF, which is at odds with making bald accusations, but I can see how admins would probably rather people didn't pussyfoot around.

I'd love to expand the article beyond what I already have done, but unfortunately most Philippine media sources from 1999–2000 are not digitized; I've really included just about everything I could find sources for. I could probably expand the paragraph about the confrontation with the VP, but 1) even after reading a bunch of articles about it I'm not sure I would be representing what really happened in an impartial manner if I included more detail, and 2) I worry about giving WP:UNDUE weight to that incident relative to everything else in the article. I had told Rearm21 that print sources were usable if Mr. Jamias had clippings from that time period, so long as the publication title and date were known, and I was hoping we might be able to add more information that way, but unfortunately our collaboration went the other way. Well, you win some, you lose some... Thanks again! — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it wasn't one of those long, drawn-out ANI things. I understand about the sources, so perhaps it would be better explained like this: Instead of simply saying "Elmer is a police officer who did this, that and the other..." try something more along the lines of, "Elmer is a police officer who became famous in the Philippines for doing this and that, about which such-and-such a movie was made." That way it is apparent this is not some regular police-officer going about his daily business, but something noteworthy. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth ( talk) 23:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Vic Moore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need help with this page, in particular the "Speed Test Drill and Controversy" section. Basic issue is that apparently Bruce Lee told Vic Moore to block his punches, but Vic Moore was unable to do so. Vic Moore claims that he managed to block all the punches except one which did not come close to hitting. Yet others claim that Vic Moore is lying. The section is in my opinion pretty bad, especially the sources, which barely satisfy WP:RS. What is a good way to handle the Lee / Moore dispute? Banedon ( talk) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• *Wave* Banedon ( talk) 23:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lexi Fernandez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has no reference from ABS-CBN about being confirmed cast in La Luna Sangre and have exclusive contact with Start Magic and performed on ASAP that shows misinformation. Also, she already quit showbiz last 2016 for having two mental disorders (anxiety and depression). Please take this action, wikipedia. Thanks.
Reference: Ilaya, Felix (April 27, 2016). "Why did Lexi Fernandez quit showbiz?". GMA Network. Retrieved August 27, 2017.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joongjul ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Olayemi Esan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pls Help remove Speedy deletion Tag on Olayemi Esan. We have edited the errors. Please remove deletion tags — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pye Olayemi Esan ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The article is now at AfD where the community will discuss whether the subject meets criteria for an article in the encyclopaedia. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some BLP specialist help at this AfD, whether you opt for delete or keep. The AfD has been running a long time with little participation. Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Meeks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This version? Or AnonUser1's version? -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 16:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What part of the article violates WP:BLP and what part of the policy is relevant? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You tell me. I'm apparently incapable of knowing what's what when it comes to BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not a fishing expedition! Unless there is a credible argument that something actually violates the policy, its not a BLP issue. As it stands WP:BLPGOSSIP applies to mainly the bottom section, however we would a)include details of a significant relationship in a biography (marriage/children etc), b)include brief non-salacious details if it ends, so it could be re-written in a more encyclopedic style. Some of the rest is tabloid/celebrity watching but that is not by itself a BLP issue. It may be an UNDUE issue depending on the content. There is the basic issue that an ex gang member/felon turned catwalk model is going to be covered in magazine-like media. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I might be mis-interpreting your argument, but tabloid/celebrity style writing is definitely a WP: BLP issue. It's laid out in the third paragraph of the policy. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Then feel free to go remove content from an article based on it being written in a tabloid style and see how far it gets you. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If your suggesting I'm mis-interpreting policy, feel free to show it. If you're saying that broad practice is not in agreement with policy, then we either have a problem with policy, or a problem with practice. If that's the case one or the other should change. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So to explain in a bit more detail - the lead of the BLP policy is like all other leads, a summary of the body. The specific part of BLP that would apply in this case is as I noted above WP:BLPGOSSIP and to a lesser extent, WP:BLPSOURCE. The problem of an article *written* in a tabloid style containing tabloid-attractive factoids is only partly covered under BLP. As the way the article is *written* can be amended to make it read less like a tabloid but still contain tabloid material. WP:BLPSOURCE says that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." however no one is actually going to get anywhere trying to remove personal information given in an interview by a male model to a major fashion magazine - it would pass most RSN tests. Likewise WP:BLPGOSSIP says "even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The underlying problem in removing gossip is that it becomes a consensus discussion rather than an outright 'This is a BLP violation it has to stay out' - and there are just too many editors and admins who, to take an example entirely at random, think that the reception of Uma Thurman's breasts is relevant to her biography, so in most cases the actual spirit and intent of the BLP get outvoted. You want to tilt at that windmill, fine, I am more than happy to support removal of gossip and tabloid-level crap from all biographies. No doubt Collect will show up too. Its just not got a chance of succeeding while those parts of the policy are 'should not' rather than 'must not' this is the problem with the policy. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with interpreting policy like we interpret articles. I see them as going the reverse where the lead of a policy dictates the general purpose and scope, and the body details specific applications. And to that end just because something isn't detailed doesn't mean it's not covered in the general scope. Ultimately it seems you are of the opinion we violate BLP in terms of tabloid writing and gossip, but general consensus is to ignore it. To me, this suggests we should either amend policy, or enforce policy so behavior changes. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh no we dont ignore it, you can find plenty of arguments in favour of it. Some even on this board right now without dipping into the archives. Its just when it comes to a high profile subject its almost impossible to remove gossip that is well-sourced regardless of its triviality, unless it also pings one of the more strongly worded sections of the BLP, because there are more people who are interested in gossip. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you pointed to a revert I made, I will go ahead and note that I was not arguing for the inclusion of breast material, and made this edit right after that. But if breast material is relevant to Thurman's public image, it should be included. Other than that, I agree with you that what belongs in a BLP article is often debatable. The recent ANI case proves that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So Uma Thurman's breasts are now relevant to Jeremy Meeks? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I doubt it. Was simply responding to Only in death's example. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Flyer22, this was not aimed at you specifically, it was the material, yours was the last diff that demonstrated the problem. (I have no idea who put it in originally, if you can find that I am more than happy to alter the diff) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Only in death. I wondered if that was the case. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Regent College, Leicester (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is one article to keep an eye on. I just deleted a lot of hoax stuff, including BLP violations, from the article. More can also be deleted. I don't trust a thing in this article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And we're right back to the hoaxing, this time by the BurnBbzBurn ( talk · contribs) account. Widr, any thoughts on what should be done in this case, since you blocked the previous account? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Deor and NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for your reverts at the article. NinjaRobotPirate, I intended to remove more, but I figured someone else would do it. The hoax stuff started with this edit. So maybe we should restore the article before that point? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking, but when I did a Google search, I had some trouble finding sources to verify the history. Maybe I just didn't try hard enough. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The entire article is unsourced, I would recommend not expanding the article in any way unless the new material can be properly sourced, as restoring the pre-hoax material would basically be a giant addition of unsourced material. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A few things here that I want more thoughts on: I found the article on NPP as this version. It makes the claim he died recently without providing sourcing. I removed it pending confirmation, and also moved the title to a simple name without a middle name or "Jr.", but when searching for more information on the man, I discovered that there is apparently a terrorist leader who gets a lot of coverage that also shares the name. Since this is a (probably) recently deceased person, I thought it worth getting thoughts on whether it would be better under BLP policy to move it back to a disambiguating title.

I'd also appreciate thoughts on usage of this source to confirm basic biographical details would be appreciated: its a promotional fluff piece, but its the only thing I can find that verifies he was the first leader of a regional assembly, which by other sourcing does appear to be true. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I reached out to Alternativity for help finding sources, and they suggested an urgent move to Ismael Abubakar, Jr. (which I just did), and that the official bio would be good for confirming facts. Leaving a note here as well since I asked for feedback at this board. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• • I can't be absolutely sure about this, but I ran a google search for an obit of Ismael Abubakar, Jr. of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and instead saw news articles about the death of Commander Bongos of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), who also apparently used the name "Ismail Abubakar." I am almost certain these two are not the same person, despite the name similarity, but I wold have to do a double check. (At the very least, if they were the same person, I'd have expected the media to explain why an ARMM official is in the BIFF. It's just not plausible. But the thing is, I had not heard of Abubakar Jr. of the ARMM until today, so I can't be absolutely certain.) I suggest caution when confirming edits, due to the very similar names. On top of which, some of the information on Commander Bongos is likely to be sketchy or speculative, given the nature of the BIFF. (Media outlets will likely use intelligence data provided by the Armed Forces of the Philippines.) So that's a double-layer of caution needed. I can't even tell if the name "Ismail Abubakar" is a birth name or another Nom de Guerre. - Alternativity ( talk) 17:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Scratch that. There's just NO WAY it's the same person. - Alternativity ( talk) 17:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Update: Okay, I think [ THIS article] settles it. The Bio of the first individual and the bio of the second individual are too different. (The second individual's death is noted [ in THIS article], which doesn't have biographical information.) One other possibility is that they've somehow both recently passed away, but I have not seen or heard any news to that effect. As far as I know, the first individual, who is the subject of the current article, is alive and well. - Alternativity ( talk) 18:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I can't read the first article for some reason, but it claims the death was in June 2017 (and the username might be a family member). Regardless, we shouldn't be publishing any claim of death of a plausibly living person unless we have absolute proof. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Huh. That's a bit strange. Anyway. Here's a similar article from CNN Philippines: http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/04/15/BIFF-gets-a-new-leader.html - Alternativity ( talk) 18:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We have confirmatin of death by an organization that he was on the board of. The user that created the article is removing negative information and asking that the article not be edited because he is related to the individual. I've already reverted twice, so other editors being involved here would be appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Allan_Russell

Biased entry - Particularly the parts about the "Superior Striker" business. Claims that he is "widely recognised as the world's number one striker coach" are unsubstantiated. The whole section on it references a page that makes no mention of the company, and the homepage of the business itself is listed as a source. Can you please check? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.113 ( talk) 22:31, 1 September 2017‎

I just removed some puffery, diff [23]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

JimmyJoe87 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting various information to many bio articles and lists that people are in prison. There is nothing in the articles or citations to indicate this is true. Please have someone check on this. Editor is persistent and not stopping. Thanks Hmains ( talk) 02:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Lawrie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.64.142 ( talk) prev) 06:20, 3 September 2017‎

@ IP editor:, that is not even an attempt at providing a deletion rationale. Please read the deletion policy and explain in a new section at the appropriate article talk page why you think this page qualifies for deletion. The unexplained statement, "Not notable," is not sufficient for other editors to discern why you feel they are not notable. In the meantime, I've removed the incomplete AFD template due to insufficient explanation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)