This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Talk:Malik ibn Anas

One editor named MezzoMezzo has repeatedly claimed that a living scholar named Gibril Haddad is a "pathalogical liar" and "fantasist" on this talk page. I asked him on a number of occasions (e.g. [1], [2]) to provide evidence of this and he has been unable to do so.

Gibril Haddad is a Senior Assistant Professor of the Sultan Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Centre for Islamic Studies. This institute collaborates with other well known academic institutes such as Georgetown University and the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. He has also made contributions to The Oxford Amnesty Lectures published by Oxford University Press.

The unsourced claim that Haddad is a "pathalogical liar" and "fantasist" is a violation of the following WP:BLP policy, "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

WP:BLPTALK makes clear that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."

I am therefore requesting that the claims that Haddad is a "pathalogical liar" and "fantasist" be removed from this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.129 ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Malik ibn Anas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnuniq ( talk) 22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, why wasn't I informed about this via Template:BLPN-notice? And why do I have a random editor insulting me on my talk page despite no prior involvement with a dispute between myself and an anonymous IP address?

Regarding the dispute, then the process of bringing evidence of G.F. Haddad's academic dishonesty has begun. That rabbit hole goes deep, and to be honest, for the IP address to troll the talk page, attack me personally, and then run here four days later isn't the sort of prior discussion that would render the claim with which he contends "unsourced or poorly sourced." Evidence on the talk page will be brought, section by section, and the user is going to have to get used to waiting more than four days from time to time. That this was even opened implies that the opener is simply trying to squash the discussion and prevent it from happening. I hope I'm wrong. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:BLP where it states that, "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." So yes, the false claim that you have made that Haddad is a "known pathological liar" and "academic fraud" requires evidence without waiting four days at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.129 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: You have been editing for a very long time. Perhaps you are not aware that in recent years BLP is strongly enforced. You must find another way to phrase your comments about a living person. It's pretty simple, just say "whose conclusions have been found to be incorrect by X and Y". That has the added advantage that you would have to specify who X and Y are, and give a reference so others could, at least in principle, check the claims. A random editor saying that someone is a liar is not helpful for others trying to assess the situation and a more coherent explanation needs to be given. I guess the situation may have been boiling for some time in which case you could link to an explanation previously given. Johnuniq ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Johnuniq: Not boiling so much as established. It’s been years since myself and a number of other editors have noticed that Haddad is unreliable, both due to dishonesty and in some cases fabricating citations. This is why I didn’t (and still don’t) feel my language was slanderous, but I can express it in different ways in the future.

Slowly, I will continue inspecting his cited work in the article, which was the issue: nobody has verified it yet, and that needs to happen because he’s the only source cited on a subject for which he’s known to be an extremely biased writer. That’s what this all boils down to. Verification will happen in public, with community input, and even with moderated language on my part, but this issue opened by the IP address doesn’t seem like one opened in good faith - especially since that IP has literally been insulting me personally for every step of the way and providing ‘’nothing’’ constructive as actual editors have been trying to compare sources. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 02:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand that some sources are inherently bad—a few of us worked on removing dozens of edits based on a very weak "Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units", and a team tried to undo damage from an enthusiast who used boosterism websites (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). However, things have to be done in a way that does not lead to distractions such as this BLP report. That means Gibril Haddad must not be referred to in a negative way. Regardless of how obvious things may be to you, your second sentence above is unnecessarily inflammatory and may lead to sanctions if noticed by an admin. If simple evidence is available where an authority has written something that makes your point, it would be fine to say "X found that Y's work is unreliable with many claims being totally incorrect [link]". If evidence is not available, a completely different approach would be needed. For example, there might be a report at WP:RSN where reasons are given for disputing the reliability of the source. If consensus agrees, the archived discussion could be linked to in the future. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Johnuniq: I'm glad that there has been some benefit to come out of this. I'll keep in mind what you said regarding the tone of comments, in addition to what you pointed out creating unnecessary distractions. I'm personally prepared for the long haul in regard to cleaning up this article and the sections sourced solely by Haddad; while I don't think I can top the Jagged 85 cleanup you posted (holy moly), I was involved in the slow cleanup of a few articles which had similar issues of hostile IP addresses attempting to prevent change. It doesn't go fast and it doesn't need to, so I'll take things one step at a time and choose the presentation of my views more carefully. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, you don't seem to understand that your personal views regarding Haddad are irrelevant (as are the alleged views of other editors). Wikipedia does not work off the personal views of editors, it works by using [WP:RS reliable sources]. I have asked you on at least 5 occasions (e.g. [3], [4]) over the course of the last 10 days to provide evidence from reliable sources that Haddad is a "pathological liar", "known academic fraud", "fantasist" etc... You have provided no evidence whatsoever from reliable sources for this. Making claims like this without evidence is slanderous and goes against WP:BLP. I will once again reiterate that Gibril Haddad is a Senior Assistant Professor of the Sultan Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Centre for Islamic Studies. This institute collaborates with other well known academic institutes such as Georgetown University and the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. He has also made contributions to The Oxford Amnesty Lectures published by Oxford University Press. These are not the credentials of a "pathological liar" or "academic fraud".

I am therefore requesting that administrators remove the slanderous claims made by MezzoMezzo that Haddad is a "pathological liar", "known academic fraud" and "fantasist" from the relevant talk page. It is absolutely unsuitable for an encyclopedia and clearly violates a number of BLP policies.

I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous, or if you really don’t get it. I’ll spell it out for you here on the board so it’s known that you’re aware of the situation now.

Haddad is a professor. That doesn’t mean he’s incapable of lying - for example, fabricating citations, which professors ‘’are’’ capable of doing.

Here’s the thing, though...you keep complaining about the number of days, yet there’s no policy basis for your complaint. In fact, there are benefits to taking these things slow, because my claims ‘’do’’ require a careful look, the topic ‘’is’’ delicate, and the community ‘’does’’ need a decent amount of time to discuss this. And if my claims are accurate, then verification checks would be required on the fee articles in which Haddad is cited as a source (it isn’t a lot because, historically, most editors in this topic area seemed to understand that he’s unreliable). That’s why I’ve only started a verification check for one of the subsections tagged in the article; it would be rushed and disorganized (and unreadable time-wise) to just dump everything onto the talk page all at once.

You, on the other hand, insulted me personally and questioned my intentions from your very first edit. Every single day you troll that talk one with insults and taunts, never asking any specific questions or even asking me to moderate my language before you ran to this noticeboard without informing me. You’ve contributed nothing constructive at all and are refusing to even make a specific, executable request in terms of my wording or actions. Your contribs speak for themselves: every commit is just a pedantic insult demanding to see evidence but not specifying where or on what topic. There are numerous ways you could start contributing, but even at the time of your last comment here, you refused to participate in the ongoing discussion of the first subsection under verification and chose to insult me again in a separate section.

Do you see, now, why your comments aren’t helping? Do you see how the evidence you’re demanding is actually in the process of community discussion, and without you by your own choice? Do you see that there are actually a few ways you could positively contribute, such as discussing the issues on the talk page and not implying that I somehow want to present a one-sided view in an article which itself already displays a one-sided view? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 02:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read my comments above? If not, I'll spell it out to you once again:

• You have labelled Haddad as a "pathological liar" and "fantasist" in addition to other negative things
• Making such unsourced claims is a violation of the following WP:BLP policy, "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
• It is irrelevant whether such false statements are made in an article or on a talk page. WP:BLPTALK makes clear that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."
• The policy states that such material needs to be removed immediately, not after 11 days.
• You have provided no evidence that Haddad is a "known pathological liar" and an "academic fraud" from reliable sources.
• I have asked you a very specific question to provide evidence that Haddad is a "known pathological liar" and an "academic fraud" on at least 5 different occasions over the last 11 days. You have provided no evidence for this. I will once again ask you the very specific question: What evidence do you have from RS that Haddad is a "known pathological liar" and an "academic fraud"?
• The new discussion you started has nothing to do with whether Haddad is a "known pathological liar" or not. The discussion is regarding the content of the article. This is a completely separate issue and editors are free to disagree on content. Editors are not however allowed to make false slanderous statements regarding living people. Read WP:BLP.
• To date, you have made the following personal attacks against the living scholar Gibril Haddad:

"known as a pathological liar"

responsible for "inventing "fantasies"

"known liar and academic fraud"

and yet you accuse me of making personal attacks.

• It's not a personal attack to ask you for evidence that Haddad is a "pathological liar" or an "academic fraud". On the contrary is is necessary to ask for evidence otherwise it fails WP:BLP. FWIW another editor (MPS1992) has actually asked you not to make personal attacks on me. Maybe read your own talk page.

I would suggest that the entire section be removed permanently from the talk page, as it is potentially slanderous and in direct opposition to WP:BLP. Can this be done and who exactly has the authority to do this? 78.144.68.129 ( talk) 12:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I did read your comment, and I’m assuming you read mine if only to react without considering it. You’re just repeating the same points regardless of what I actually type, so there isn’t much more to add (aside that I’m not concerned about what the editor said in my talk page considering the fact that you answered on their behalf when I pinged them. You know what I’m referring to).

Either what I said needs to be removed, or it needs to be substantiated. It can’t be both ways. This is why I believe your behavior is more about personalities than policy.

If you simply want the section removed, then stop launching personal attacks on me and my intentions - which are clear in the section for all to see. The lowercase sigma bot will archive the discussion and we can all continue the process of inspecting Haddad’s claims, tagged section by tagged section. Your input could be helpful if you’d choose to participate; I have no desire to dominate any given discussion, and I wish we could actually move on from distractions and give the Malik Ibn Anas article the tune-up it sorely needs. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 02:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am having to repeat the same points again and again as you are not answering them. I have for example, repeatedly asked you for evidence that Haddad is a "known pathological liar" etc.. for the last 12 days now and you have provided no evidence from RS. To make such a claim without evidence is a personal attack on a living scholar and a violation of WP:BLP.

This is why I am suggesting removing the section entirely from the talk page as this is what WP:BLP demands (it states that contentious material should be removed immediately - not after a number of days).

Content disputes are a secondary issue. Editors are allowed to debate content. They are not allowed to make unsourced personal attacks against living people.

Are we therefore allowed to remove the section entirely? I (or another editor) can delete it if this is allowed. 78.144.68.129 ( talk) 07:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I did answer your concerns, but you're not listening. Slowly, more of Haddad's work will come under verification, and you'll see this borne out.

If you're asking about the talk page section, then like I mentioned, it will be archived eventually anyway. Per WP:TALK, you technically could have removed it yourself from the beginning, and your familiarity with site policy makes it difficult for me to believe that you didn't already know that. That last fact, coupled with your insults and battleground behavior from the very first post, gives me the suspicion once again that this isn't about policies, but about personalities. And that's been my biggest single dispute with you from the very beginning. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 10:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you haven't answered my questions at all. I am not talking about Haddad's works - I am talking about Haddad himself (the person). This is what WP:BLP refers to. This policy states that "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."

It doesn't make a difference if such statements are made on a main article or on a talk page. It is still not allowed. WP:BLPTALK makes clear that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."

It is valid for editors to disagree about the reliability of a source (in this case Haddad's works). It is invalid for editors to make personal attacks on living people (in this case Haddad himself) by falsely claiming that they are a "known pathological liar" or "academic fraud" unless there is evidence from reliable sources supporting this. You have provided no evidence from RS for this.

According to WP:TPO we cannot just delete talk page comments. That's why I was asking for administrator guidance. So can somebody with experience indicate how this talk page section can be removed because of a WP:BLP violation? 78.144.68.129 ( talk) 11:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You can keep repeating it, but that doesn't make it true. In this case, I don't think anybody will buy your argument of your questions being unanswered even if they agree with your sentiment about my comments, so it's a moot point.

Regarding TPO: I don't know if you're actually reading what you're posting, and I'm almost embarrassed to be quoting directly from something you posted. The lines about removing prohibited or harmful posts are high up there under appropriate editing of others' comments. I'm not sure if you're so upset by our exchange that you can't be bothered to read what you quote from, or if you've misunderstood the guideline. Or if there's a third explanation that's escaped me, but I can't imagine what it would be.

You do realize, of course, that you ran to this noticeboard without informing me, made two contradictory requests as I outlined above, and never actually tried asking me if I would adjust my language. One editor did, but not you. So I'll repeat again: I have a strong feeling that this is about personalities, not policy, and you're more concerned with creating distractions than actually working toward progress on the talk page. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 12:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue (as you should know by now) is that you have made personal attacks on a living person which goes against WP:BLP because it is not sourced and potentially slanderous. You didn't answered the fundamental specific question so I will ask it once again: Where is the evidence that Haddad is a "known pathological liar" and an "academic fraud" from RS's? If you have evidence then provide it. The question is as clear as it gets. You did not provide an answer despite being asked over 7 times over the last 14 days.

If you have no evidence for this, then the material needs to be removed according to WP:BLP which states that, "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be +added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Since you didn't provide evidence I suggested removing the entire section from the talk page and wanted to make sure that it was allowed. Now that you agree also that it should be removed I will remove it. 78.144.68.129 ( talk) 17:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I won’t respond to your attempts to distract from what the actual issue is anymore. I have a feeling that you understood the answer I gave you, and that you probably realize now the contradiction in your initial demands, but it’s neither here nor there now: the main point from the beginning is underway despite the bad faith accusations you made against my intentions in your very first comment.

I wouldn’t have opposed removal of the initial section in question if you’d asked from the outset because the ultimate goal has already been reached: verification is underway on the talk page for the Malik Ibn Anas article. That’s a point that you might not have understood immediately, but I eventually did repeat it enough that you must have gotten it.

Everyone is free to contribute, as you more clearly have an understanding of, and I wouldn’t be opposed at all if you decided to suddenly start actually participating in those discussions. A lot of time could have been saved with clearer and less combative communication. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The ultimate objective has indeed been reached, namely that the false slanders against Gibril Haddad have been removed and WP:BLP is now being adhered to on the talk page. If you hadn't made these unsubstantiated claims of Haddad being a "academic fraud" and "known pathological liar" in the first place there would have been no reason for me to go to the noticeboard. It would have been better if you had removed the claims yourself.

As an editor, you are free to disagree with Haddad or other scholars. You are not allowed to make personal attacks on him or other living people unless it is backed up by RS's. 78.144.68.129 ( talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Chris_Packham#Personal_info Jytdog ( talk) 21:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am the subject of this BLP Neal D. Barnard and would like to suggest edits to keep it objective and useful to readers. May I please list those suggestions here? I am posting on the BLP Noticeboard rather than the article’s Talk page because of what appears to be a pattern of reversion of even neutral well-cited edits, as well as Talk-page comments suggesting strong bias. Also, as one who is new to the Wikipedia editing process, I see that it is advisable to place a template on the Talk page indicating that this article may be discussed here, but I apologize that I could not quite see how to place the template. I value your guidance if there is a better way to handle this and am grateful for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.128.2 ( talk) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You can go ahead and address your concerns on the article's talk page given your conflict of interest. Meatsgains ( talk) 18:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

David Duke

It has come to my attention that labeling Dr. David Duke as a "white supremacist, holocaust denier, convicted felon, antisemetic conspiracy theorist" at the very beginning of his introduction, and not what his actual profession is, would be highly libelous. I am sure that you don't put convicted felon on every single person who has a felony charge on Wikipedia.

Aaron Hernandez for example, was the tight end of the Patriots, but his article does not start with "convicted felon" in his opening line. If anything, for Dr. David Duke, I would suggest having a smaller section stating the felony charges, and the holocaust denial. Otherwise, it seems to look very politically charged, immature, and unprofessional. Dr. David Duke was the former Rep for Louisiana and a presidential candidate, as well as a political activist and theorist. I would suggest that the following edits should be made. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.104.210 ( talk) 21:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No. First of all, read this policy. Making legal threats, or even the appearance of making legal threats, will result in indefinite blocks, whether using and IP address or registering for an account. Stating an article is "highly libelous" is covered by that policy. Secondly, libel doesn't mean, "something unflattering the subject would rather not have said about them," as you seem to be perceiving it. Under the United States Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and succeeding opinions, which law applies to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation (this site's owners), libel of a public figure such as Duke requires "..that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false..." Truth is an absolute defense to libel and Duke has a documented history of these positions, as the sources in the article demonstrate. These sources are in keeping with our policy on biographies of living persons. As for Hernandez, what happens in other articles does not control what happens in Duke's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn ( talk • contribs)

I do not see a legal threat, the whole purpose of the noticeboard is to remove libelous content. I also agree that the label "convicted felon" for BLPs should be consistent throughout Wikipedia. For a politely worded inquiry, the response was jarring. -- RAN ( talk) 13:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That certainly strikes me as a legal threat under WP:NLT, especially 'Perceived Legal Threats.' In no way do I think the editor should be blocked or censured for this edit, but I do think it is in his or her best interest to adjust the terminology. The response was not warm and fuzzy, but it struck me as comprehensive as to libel and the issues presented. As a wise man once said: "whatever." Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP editor. Putting aside any personal opinions on Duke, I do not believe that it is standard practice to give such prominence to criminal convictions in the lead. In Duke's case it isn't even relevant to his notability (or notoriety). I would also suggest that there are too many categories realating to his conviction. Does Category:American government officials convicted of crimes even apply? As far as I can tell from the article, he was never a "government official". Similarly, although he was elected in 1989, he was not serving at the time of the offense, so several of the other categories seem to be a stretch. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 22:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@ World's Lamest Critic:, I'm perplexed as to how a person who is elected to serve an official position in government is not a government official. That said, I can find only one other member of that cat who was clearly not holding an official position at the time of their crime ( George H. Battis) so removing the cat is likely consistent. BLP, however, does not require that we be neutral but that we be right. If the sources are there to characterize a BLP subject in a non-neutral way, that complies with WP:YESPOV. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

To me, "government official" means civil servants and bureaucrats, not elected legislators. The definition found in Category:Government officials is "This category is for officials who have held a civil office in government without being elected. This includes both people who have been appointed to serve or are part of a civil service". I assume that would hold true for the sub-categories as well. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the felon bit from the lead. His felony conviction was tax fraud and mail fraud. The way the introduction was written seemed to connect the felony to the other things. Obviously the rest of the stuff about being a holocaust denier, white supremacist, etc. should stay assuming that those specific terms are supported by reliable sourcing: its kinda what he's known for and why he is notable beyond your typical person of his electoral success. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that it's acceptable to include the fact that he's a felon in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lede. His criminal record is not what he is known for. – dlthewave ☎ 00:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Would people be willing to weigh in on the article talk, there is currently a dispute there about my removal. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is a BLP violation. My preference is to leave the felony conviction out the lede, but this discussion should not be used to override the article's talk page. – dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the remainder of this discussion can be differed to Talk:David_Duke for convenience, where edits to the article lede are currently being undertaken. For editors who come across this page however, it should be noted that:

• "convicted felon" is a readily sourced term describing the subject and while the use of the term is certainly debatable, its original use in the article was not in bad faith, but merely a repetition of reliably sourced information.
• The offence for which he was convicted was not a random offence such as a traffic violation or drunken assault, but a direct result of the miscarriage of his professional activities and status. It's highly related to the subject and it definitely is something for which the subject is notable in coverage. Again both inclusion of the term, and the debate regarding its removal should be taken in good faith and with the aim of improving the clarity and quality of the article.
• Although his career is not as a criminal, there's no Wikipedia policy or guideline which directly states that information regarding the criminal status of a person be (or not be) qualified in any particular way. The issues being raised are those of editorial discretion and do not fall within WP:BLPREMOVE, which allows for the swift removal of defamatory material or attack pages. The information is sourced, relevant, builds on context and a decision sould be made on how and where to carefully and appropriately include it, not whether or not to exclude the term from the article. The relevant questions to ask regarding this content inclusion based on policy are:

1.  is it unsourced or poorly sourced?
2.  is it a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)?
3.  does it rely on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source)?
4.  does it rely on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards?

There may be numerous other reasons to improve the article by removing or moving this content and we should discuss them on the talk page of the article

Edaham ( talk) 06:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a load of bullshit (with a bonus helping of pedantry). Duke is known for being a white supremacist and Holocaust denier, not for having a felony conviction. We wouldn't even be discussing this if it were someone less odious. We don't throw unnecessary negative qualifiers like "convicted felon" in the lead sentence of biographies, no matter who that person is. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 14:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a violation of wp:civil with a bonus helping of wp:notforum based opinions unfounded on any kind of policy. Please maintain decorum cheers. Edaham ( talk) 00:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are a few people we note are convicted felons. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone involved, I think we've clearly steered in to territory here better dealt with at the article's talk page. I also happen to know that this is a much-discussed issue there, and I'm sure there are others who would chime in. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I've created "Bir Abu Matar" based on a book in Hebrew I own and on the Wikipedia article in Hebrew on the same subject. The article was tagged as a "Biography of a living person", I'm guessing by a bot and by mistake. This is NOT the name of a person but of an archaeological site in Southern Palestine. Could someone please removed the "Biography" tags or let me know how I can do it? Khayyam 77 ( talk) 12:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Khayyam 77: Done, take a look at the project template I added (ie click edit. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: Thanks! Khayyam 77 ( talk) 13:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Nicole Krauss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Harperbooks ( talk · contribs)

Two questions about this, the first of which is whether the subject essentially waived her expectation to privacy when mentioning her relationship status in an interview. The second is whether the account removing the sourced content, presumably at the subject's request, has COI and username issues, as it appears to represent the author's publishing firm [5]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it for a couple of reasons: Firstly we generally only mention partners if they have a significant impact on the subject's life. Boyfriends/Girlfriends when they are long-term - not just any old relationship. Secondly - she cant waive his right to privacy. As a non-notable person his name would generally not be included per WP:BLPNAME unless there is a very good argument he is significant to a better understanding of the subject. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a valid point re: his right to privacy. However, their relationship has been long-term and is not insignificant, based upon the Elle interview: Since her separation from Foer, Krauss says, she’s been in a relationship with 32-year-old Israeli journalist and novelist Gon Ben Ari, whom she met during the Jerusalem Writers Festival in 2008. “It turned into a long-lasting friendship, as I spent a lot of time in New York for my work, and she in Israel for hers,” Ben Ari writes in an e-mail. “My appreciation of her writing just grew as I saw her take larger and larger risks with it.” Krauss says that Ben Ari has been one of her first readers for the last decade: “Daily, I have conversations with him that are, I don’t know”—she searches for the word—“an expansion.” 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

However much she expressed enjoying conversations, that is non-encyclopedic until we have secondary reliable sources that reflect on the influence he has on her work. It is unsurprising and in fact expected that creative professionals talk about their creative work - that doesn't by itself make it notable. You are correct that the username is almost certainly outside policy and likely implies COI so I have dropped a uw-username on their page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not strong on including personal content in bios to begin with, but was curious about this situation. Given the long-term nature of the relationship and the fact that both are published writers, I'm not convinced that such mention is inappropriate. I'm also in no way inclined to re-add it, unless there's a consensus to do so. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is 'Do they have a Wikipedia article?' - if the answer is no, they will almost always fall under not public figure, non-notable individual. So we would generally not mention them unless there was some evidence of impact on the subjects life - children for example. If they do have a Wikipedia article, as a notable individual - you can generally include the relationship as long as its a longer stable one rather than a brief liason, and is reliably sourced. Which when two notable individuals are in a relationship, can often easily be found. This area of the policy is deliberately not set in stone 'this must be obeyed' because there is a wide variety of circumstances to take into account. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

While clearing up a baseless talk page accusation on Talk:Austrian People's Party, I checked the IP who placed it. [6] The IP is a single-purpose account obsessed with mentioning on articles about living people that they were mentioned in the manifesto of terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, a very serious form of guilt by association. To imply that the words of Australian prime minister John Howard or Japanese prime minister Taro Aso led to a grown man butchering children is moral panic not unlike Marilyn Manson and Columbine.

The IP's talk page rants show that they have a political motive and are WP:NOTHERE. [7] slippery slope fallacy.

I didn't know where to come for this report. I didn't know if I could tag an IP as an SPA, nor if this was a topic for ANI. And I don't know if BLP policy means these edits or talk page posts about living people can be deleted by admins: it's true that Breivik mentioned them but it has very little to do with the people themselves and his post on the John Howard talk page suggests the IP is editing to try to convince people that conservatism leads to terrorism. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP talk page does not seem to have received any warnings about this behavior yet, which is both strange and unfortunate. Regardless, perhaps someone should block the IP for a month or so and then see what happens after the block expires. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This profile has been created in malice, the sources linked have also been falsified. The whole profile has been created as an online taunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcherwacky ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Wikiwatcherwacky: What should his career stats be? I didn't completely vet the numbers, but I saw the stats page exists. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, good catch. I just saw the subtle stats vandalism. Cricinfo shows 1 wicket, 46 runs; [8] I'm changing the article to that. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent allegations are being fought over by new editors--part of the problem is the placement and phrasing of those allegations. It needs experienced editors, and it would be a good idea if 0ver C00ked and FollowNPOVandBLP stayed away. Drmies ( talk) 00:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done on the semi-protection. Added to watchlist. -- John ( talk) 00:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. FollowNPOVandBLP ( talk) 00:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

note:this comment has been moved from BLPN talk. Fyddlestix ( talk) 01:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm delighted to stay away. 0ver C00ked ( talk) 01:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate and the context in which these inaccuracies occurs is defamatory. I will allow Wikipedia until Monday, Oct 23, 2017 to delete this article. If this is not done by this deadline, civil action will follow and those who have edited it will be named as defendants. The clock is ticking. If I see the article still there on Monday, these actions will follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.184.154 ( talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell us what is inaccurate in the article? It is quite short.

Please also be aware of WP:NLT. Making legal threats often makes it more difficult to fix problems with articles, rather than achieving the desired effect of particular changes or deletions.

The article could possibly be deleted if it does not meet WP:GNG -- WP:ACADEMIC may also be relevant in this context. I know relatively little about this and it's not clear to me that Shaw fails notability guidelines as an academic. MPS1992 ( talk) 20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You can see why he wouldn't like it. I've had a look at the sources, and in my view they stand up, supporting the claims in the article. I've put it on my watchlist. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist) excellent example of the Streisand effect either purposeful or accidental. -- RAN ( talk) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also come to the same conclusion when I looked at the article in response to a helpme by an ipv6 user, who also issued a legal threat. My guess is he didn't anticipate that Wikipedia articles are warts-and-all. — Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Former president Barack Obama is replaced with "terrorist muslim". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.35.19.162 ( talk) 06:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Jundo Cohen article has only 2 references, one to the subject's own website, the other to material he wrote about himself on another website.

He also links to his other wikipedia page: Treeleaf Zendo. That page is referenced to his website, and to expired web links.

I assume all of this goes against Wikipedia policy.

I am not confident enough to change the pages but wanted to bring it to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puthujjana ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Per WP:BLPSELF I've come here seeking some assistance with this article. While I'm not the person the article is about, I know the person and I don't want to violate WP:COI by making major changes to the article.

I would like to help improve the article by resolving the issues mentioned at the top. I'm looking for sources for some of the things mentioned in the article to resolve the primary source issue. I don't think I can resolve the close connection issue, and so I've come here for some assistance.

Could someone please make some suggestions on the talk page about what the article needs to resolve the issues? I'd really appreciate it.

Caeruleus pungens ( talk) 20:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I am copying this request over to the article's talk page, where it is more likely to be seen by those who have tagged it. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

When I viewed the page (on 22 Oct 2017), King Felipe VI of Spain was described as an "Inbred Beard Model" and his prime minister was described as a "parcel of cat feces." I imagine that these pages will be vandalized frequently until Spain recognizes Catalonia as an independent state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.250.147 ( talk) 19:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been the only recent vandalism. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please verify the sources and content on Pooja Jain. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 14:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The director James Toback is a subject of sexual harassment allegations today in the Los Angeles Times. More eyes on the article are required. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I got eyes on it. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, and the list will be growing, given that we are in the midst of a feeding-frenzy. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

C. Marcella Carollo - citation added 22 October 2017 does not list name of this person. Repeatedly added by various users. Potential vandalism.

GalilaeusGalilaeus ( talk) 20:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted and protected by Favonian. The next time you see this, instead of continually reverting the BLP violations, you can ask for Page Protection at the Requests for Page Protection Noticeboard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Favonian and Eggishorn: See [9]. Perhaps the news could be incorporated into the article in a more neutral way? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 00:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Mike Peel:, a blog that refers back to the original blog post as its sole source doesn't inspire great confidence in BLP compliance or RS status, to be honest. Thanks for the ping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Graduate of New York Law School not New York University— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.210.21 ( talk) 12:11, October 24, 2017‎

Article updated. Thanks for the note. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A series of editors with direct conflicts of interest (first the subject herself, then a person who clearly identified himself as a personal friend of hers, and then an anonymous IP number) have persistently been making edits to Nancy Nash over the past two years. The situation is that the Juno Award nomination that she received in 1994, the sole reason she qualifies to have a Wikipedia article at all, ran right into a brick wall of controversy around allegations that she didn't have the moral rights to even record the song she got nominated for. (Bonus history lesson for anybody who thinks cultural appropriation is a new thing that people never argued about before the 2010s!) But even though I was extremely careful to be as fair as possible to both sides of that dispute within the bounds of what could be reliably sourced, Nash appears to be determined to ensure that the article reflects her side of the story only, by adding unsourced and unverifiable and very non-neutral claims that she was 100 per cent in the right and her accuser was just an asshole — for one thing, her version completely wipes out any acknowledgement whatsoever of the properly sourced fact that the single biggest part of what got her accuser's dander up in the first place was that her PR at the time was explicitly claiming that she was the adopted daughter of his dead father (she later went even farther, claiming that he adopted her in a dream.) Instead, she now turns it into an unsourcable claim that the accuser adopted her as his sister himself — which is not what she or any known source about the controversy said at the time — and then turned on her for no discernible or justifiable reason whatosever.

For comparison's sake, this is the last version before her most recent takeover attempt. But having been dealing with this for two years now, I'm getting quite tired of it and would like to ask if somebody unconnected to the dispute can review the prior version and the current one, and figure out how to get back to some semblance of properly sourced neutrality. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 03:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Bueller? Bearcat ( talk) 16:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Patric Gozzi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does not meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleRaisin ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The information on the wikipedia Michael Cadnum page looks accurate to me--Michael Cadnum. So the cautionary template can be removed. If there is any problem, leave it. But really it may clutter and mislead, since it cautions unnecessarily. Or so it seems to me. Thanks for your help, everyone. MC

The information on the page may be accurate but needs additional reliable sources to strengthen verifiability. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is a pure self-advertisement about a living person /info/en/?search=Alexander_Haditaghi who is trying to gain some revenue from his popularity. This article existed before and was removed, however it's back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.234.2 ( talk) 18:27, 24 October 2017‎

The page does need some trimming. I'll go through and remove some of the promotional tone but additional eyes would be appreciated. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced or unsourced statements about alleged crimes are repeatedely added to the page in violation of WP:BLP. Ulner ( talk) 06:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I PROD'd the page since it is a BLP with no references. Meatsgains ( talk) 18:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

meatsgains ( talk · contribs), Ulner ( talk · contribs) - someone added a reference and de-prodded (as they were perfectly entitled to). However there's nothing in the article to suggest he's notable in Wiki terms - he seems to be simply a working journalist and author. I can't find any better references, though naturally these may be in Swedish, which I don't speak. I'm taking it to afd - perhaps someone there can investigate whether there are better Swedish references. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond on the AfD. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to report several people who have Coup d'état this page to spread misleading information about Baked Alaska. If a person is to correct the article, they immediately revert it to their bias version with no explanation whatsoever, completely ignoring the neutral point of view policy. Even though Baked Alaska have denied all the claims himself, tabloid propaganda articles are still being used as valid sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikicreamdaddy ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read this policy on sourcing and this policy on Biographies of Living Persons. Attempting to remove sourced citations to reliable sources will be reverted with no explanation because it is a violation of those policies. International Business Times, Business Insider, and GizModo are not tabloid sources. If Gionet denies these claims, and there is a reliable source that reports those denials, then that can be added in the article but removing the claims simply because of a denial is not accepted. Note that "a reliable source that reports those denials" is, generally speaking, not the subject's social media accounts. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is acceptable where an allegation has been made to use a primary source to express the position of the person/company the allegation is made against. Primary sources are reliable for the position/thought/opinion of the subject. Regardless of if other people have covered it. Note the use of 'position' there though. Its fine to briefly say 'Company A have denied these allegations' sourced to their website/PR. Its not ok to say 'these allegations are wrong because the company/person said so' sourced to same. Although this isn't what happened here - what often happens is you get some piddly little tabloid gossip inserted into a biography, followed by an extensive rebuttal by the subject sourced to multiple primary sources - resulting in bloated controversy sections over minor stuff. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Got another interesting one for an experienced editor: much of the article reads like a hit piece, other parts read like fluff, and I just blocked a bunch of COI socks. Article needs attention; the lead is already undue. Drmies ( talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

On initial inspection that looks like it will need to be pared back to a stub. Will hope to have time to contribute. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@drmies and @ryk72 , can an experienced editor please get involved and make this article more neutral? The article is completely skewed against the subject. A handful of editors have made a concerted effort to ensure as little exculpatory information as possible gets in.

Shia LaBeouf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently my edits were reverted at this article by Sundayclose, FlightTime, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Flyer22 Reborn. I asked why on the talk page but, after two months, have not received a reply.

The subject has been struggling with addiction and a declining career for several years, and has been trolled by /pol/ members over his involvement with the anti-Trump HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US project, which may explain how this article has gotten so out of hand. (Or it might just be the fluff accretion one often sees with GA/FA celeb bios.)

Most pertinently the Legal troubles and controversy section is huge, currently consisting of ten paragraphs. Maybe these three minor events should be chopped:

Early in the morning of November 4, 2007, a security guard asked LaBeouf to leave a Chicago Walgreens, which LaBeouf refused to do. LaBeouf was arrested for misdemeanor criminal trespassing. The criminal charges were dropped on December 12, 2007.

In March 2008, police issued an arrest warrant for LaBeouf after he failed to make a court appearance, which had been in relation to a ticket he had received for unlawful smoking in Burbank, California, in February 2008. When neither LaBeouf nor a lawyer appeared at the court at the 8:30 a.m. hearing, a $1000 bench warrant was issued for his arrest. However, the court commissioner in California recalled this warrant on March 19, 2008, after the actor's attorney arrived a day late to plead not guilty on LaBeouf's behalf, and a pre-trial hearing was set for April 24, 2008. The charge was dismissed, after the actor paid a $500 fine.

In the early hours of February 5, 2011, he was involved in an altercation with another patron at the Mad Bull's Tavern bar in the Sherman Oaks neighborhood of Los Angeles, which resulted in the actor getting punched in the face. Both LaBeouf and the unnamed patron were placed in handcuffs and questioned by a Los Angeles Police Department officer but later released with no arrest being made. In 2014, LaBeouf was banned from The Local Peasant restaurant in Sherman Oaks after urinating on the wall.

As per usual, the whole section is almost entirely cobbled together from primary sources such as People, TMZ, etc. Really, it should all go until decent secondary sources are found.

The relationship section is also overly detailed, poorly and primary-sourced (including multiple Daily Mails, and the Mirror's 3AM column), and full of tabloidy tidbits such as "I still love her. I think she's a fucking awesome person and an incredible actress. We're still pals. I wouldn't take any of it back, and I don't think she would either. It just ran its course." and In June 2011, in an interview in Details magazine, he claimed that he and Lucas were "philandering around" before the accident occurred.

There's also an inconsequential section about his support for Jeremy Corbyn, and a section heading titled Sexual assault which, on first viewing, may give the impression that Mr LaBeouf was the perpetrator of said assault. Someone might want to reassess this article's GA status. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes, but the article still needs attention. Don't none of y'all go revertin me, y'hear? -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I totally support the removal of the unlawful smoking, failing to leave Walgreens, and not-being-arrested-after-a-fight incidents. Especially if the fellow has plenty of other more interesting controversies. I do have a soft spot for the "we're still pals" quote, but perhaps only because my sense of encyclopedic tone is rather off. (I think such quotes add color and make for a more interesting read -- perhaps put it in a quote box and make the body text more professional.) People, TMZ and Daily Mail are not primary sources, but of course they are not generally considered to be strong reliable sources. MPS1992 ( talk) 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

His bio isn't "colorful" enough? And I think you'll find that those People, TMZ and Daily Mail reports were published at the time of the events to which they refer, and so are generally considered primary sources. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's important to you and it's actually relevant to what content gets included in the article, feel free to argue that out at WP:RSN. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Argue what out? You're not trying to divide us, are you? -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Dividing by one wouldn't achieve much there, so serious commentators would avoid discourse with you altogether. Go argue with yourself, if you like arguing so much. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, excuse me, but I'll do the trolling round here thank you very much. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 23:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha, all right. I won't drink to that, nor drink with you, nor actually drink at all, so you'd better have two. (I watched Patton (film) earlier this evening -- oh my, what an excellent maniac he really was.) MPS1992 ( talk) 23:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

MPS1992, per this RfC, I don't consider People as being in the same category as TMZ and the Daily Mail, but, yeah, if there is a stronger source than People, I would go with that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Shia LaBeouf discussion might have stalled because we were all involved in an ANI manner on the same day. In that discussion, a number of editors agreed that it is often that such big deletions should be discussed first. At the article's talk page, I noted that "trimming is not an issue, but some of it should probably remain. When I get some good time, I will assess the content and give my opinion on what should be cut and what should remain. At the moment, I am busy with other matters on Wikipedia." I obviously did not get around to doing that. As for sourcing, editors have also been clear that some of the things Hillbillyholiday is requesting secondary sources for don't need secondary sources. If The Guardian reports on something about Shia LaBeouf, we don't need a book source noting that The Guardian reported this, for example. Furthermore, as has been stated before, the vast majority of reliable sources for celebrities are going to be media sources, not book sources or whatever other type of source Hillbillyholiday considers to be a secondary source. Most book sources on celebrities are self-published sources, unauthorized biographies or tell-all books. Unless they are historical and/or political figures, it's only occasionally that one will find one or more decent book sources on a celebrity. Even with as famous as Michael Jackson is, most of the sources in the WP:FA Michael Jackson article are media sources. They are also usually the best sources, given some of the books out there on Jackson.

Anyway, I agree that the Shia LaBeouf personal life material needed significant trimming and that the article's GA status should be reassessed. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Aww, thanks. Apology accepted. -- Hillbillyholiday ( talk) 22:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL, well, I'm not going to claim an apology in this case since I do keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind, which means that I look to see if anything should be retained, especially when a deletion involves the removal of a lot of text. It's often easy to replace a poor source with a better source, for instance. But, yeah, looking at what you removed in the case of this article, I'm not yet seeing anything that should be retained. Not unless some of the things should have a brief mention. Also, it seemed that FlightTime agreed with you, but simply wanted you to discuss first. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Then again, FlightTime might have been agreeing with my "should be discussed first" stance. I would ping FlightTime for clarification, but FlightTime was clear at WP:ANI that he or she didn't want to be pinged about this and closely related matters again. Also, FlightTime is surely aware of this thread via the ping above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a new editor adding highly critical content to David Levy (chess player) which I feel is a serious BLP violation because of its poor sourcing, reliance on original research and primary document, rather than on reliable independent sources. Additional opinions are welcome. Gnome de plume ( talk) 16:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the addition of BLP violations to Roy Moore, again. Ideally the article talk page will be sufficient for discussion. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My father died on February 10, 2012, yet you continue the falsehood that he is alive. Also, the end of your article says he is teaching acting, but includes a reference to a totally different "Reuben Greene." Please remove your article or be prepared to face legal action.

Ruben Green, Jr. Philadelphia, PA16:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC) 159.63.4.3 ( talk)

Unfortunately, it is not all that uncommon for people to falsely or incorrectly claim that someone has died and change Wikipedia articles accordingly. Therefore Wikipedia tends to be careful about allowing such claims and generally expects some type of reliable source to verify the claim before it can become part of the Wikipedia article. For now, I have removed the statement about him currently teaching and removed the age from the box. The article should now be not making any claims either way about whether he is living or not. Also, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:No legal threats and withdraw the legal threat if you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia. Gnome de plume ( talk) 16:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, don't try and sue the WMF, you'll just get blocked from editing permanently and the article will never be fixed. While this source is not great, it simply describes him as "sadly obscure", with no mention of "late" or "sadly missed" etc that you might expect to see. Even notoriously obscure people such as J. D. Salinger and Syd Barrett have full obituaries written about them, so to have a seemingly notable person vanish off the face of the earth completely is somewhat unprecedented. There must have been at least one local news report, surely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much, likely), searches for both Reuben Green and Reuben Greene fail in standard newspaper databases like Lexis-Nexis and Newspaper Source Plus and Proquest for any time after 2010 for this Reuben Green(e). There are some results that are obvious false positives (a teen from North Carolina accused of killing his father, a judge in Georgia, an Orthodox Jewish elder from Cleveland, etc.) but nothing that resembles an article likely about this person or the claims made on the article talk page. Similar searches in the Social Security Death Index for the 2010-2013 time period are also negative. As far as documentary evidence is available to me can demonstrate, Mr. Green(e) disappeared. That some-one involved in such a landmark production leaves so little evidence behind after a certain point is itself a tragedy. Unfortunately, that does not help the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Mika Brzezinski

Footnote 24 ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/30/trump-kushner-never-blackmailed-scarborough-source-says.html) cites an unverified source. This news story, posted online by Fox News, has neither a named author nor a named source. Fox News' reporting consistently demonstrates conservative bias; for evidence of this claim, please see the Wikipedia page on the matter ( /info/en/?search=Fox_News_controversies). Unless Fox News can offer evidence that the claims made in this article are true, the article is inadmissible according to the policy on the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons", under "reliable sources" and "challenged or likely to be challenged" (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons).

Regardless of what news outlet reports this, there's no reason to refer to an unnamed source here. Donald Trump and Dylan Howard denied the claim. That should be mentioned instead. "A source familiar with the matter" could be just about anyone. Nblund ^talk 01:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Article is full of libelous and off-topic content. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14d:8000:7644:fc6a:502b:ec2b:5b75 ( talk) 23:21, October 26, 2017‎

Already fixed by Marquardtika Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, there is an ongoing vandalism issue happening at the Steyer page right now. I just filed a report at WP:AIV. Marquardtika ( talk) 03:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Erik blocked that address, although it would be good for us to keep an eye on since vandals can use different IP addresses. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting a pattern of vandalism with respect to this page. There is a continual removal of sourced notable links about this figure and a suppression of positive information, and an insistence on negative information continually made by the same editor User:ScrapIronIV - the history of this page shows that this editor lacks neutrality and objectivity and seems intent on suppressing relevant information. I would suggest another Wiki editor look at this page to insure that the correct information remains and would also look at the aforementioned editor's editing privileges as he/she seems to have a personal vendetta against this subject.

SiphoB ( talk) 04:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Tend to agree based on User:ScrapIronIV editing history. Seems to lack neutrality. I have just added some notable sourced information (Best American Poetry Blog and Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism Artist Fellowship). Let's see if these get vandalized or not.

Change was made to page of Mark Halperin immediately following his sexual misconduct allegations labeling him a "conservative author" instead of simply "author." This violates the biographies of living persons policy because the claim as to his political orientation is unsourced and controversial. The timing of this edit and lack of supporting evidence would appear to be politically motivated.

Fixed issue. Philip Cross ( talk) 10:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Benjamin A. Kraus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is not worthy of a wikipedia article. It's just someone writing about them self.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.138.162 ( talk) 18:36, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

I have to agree completely. The only reliable source, an article from Business Week, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Not only that, it does not even mention his name. The article is written like an ad (more for a company than the subject). It's basically "Subject works for this company, who does this that and the other thing. Previous to this he worked for... and prior to that he worked for." No real information of any substance. I recommend it for speedy deletion for no indication of importance. Zaereth ( talk) 18:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Although it probably qualifies for CSD, I nominated it for AfD out of an abundance of caution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This report relates to Manny_Lehman_(disc_jockey).

The page is not neutrally composed and reads as a sales pitch from a publicist.

I have edited the page to remove an incorrect life achievement. The page listed that he made chart topping remixes for Madonna for the song "what it feels like a girl"... but when you look at the officially released remixes for that song on the wiki page... he is not listed.

He did produce unoffical and unreleased remixes for that song as shown at ^[1] but they were UNRELEASED... so didnt top the charts.

There are only 5 references throughout the entire page and so the whole page needs a vast amount of citations and verifiable evidence of the information stated there.

Have trimmed all the uncited stuff. Not much left. Will nominate for deletion. Edwardx ( talk) 23:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that the Controversy section that has been added to Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy's biography is full of inaccuracies and has been deliberately placed to cast aspersions on her character. The links that have been placed as 'proof' of the controversy are selective and of dubious extraction. Please contact me if you require further information at <redacted>.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameirk ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sameirk. Please do not post your email address here. We rarely conduct Wikipedia business by email unless matters of personal privacy or security are involved. Please discuss your concerns, in detail, at Talk: Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy. I will take a look at that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sameirk, I agree with your reversion of the content about the Twitter/Facebook "controversy", which violates the neutral point of view and assumes facts not in evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Ames (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone should check the sources for the accusations that were just added. Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

They actually wrote that stuff. Zoiks. Jytdog ( talk) 01:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon is a highly controversial figure, subject to tidal waves of abuse, and we are trying to rewrite that page according to WP:NPOV, which I take means also scrupulously documenting everything, even negative, said of him in WP:RS. Sources of this kind are abundant.

WP:BLP states

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Despite this unambiguous rule, some editors are insisting that a a blog on an activist antifascist advocacy website written by Nick Lowles can be used as a sources for Atzmon’s views, and wish to retain this article hosted on Hope not Hate, where the blogger is an executive. In defence of overriding WP:BLP's on blogs, WP:NEWSBLOG is cited. But Hope not Hate is not a newsblog.

The argument over this can be read on the talk page here. Third party independent input would be appreciated. Nishidani ( talk) 12:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Another point, while waiting for a reply to the above.

Is Jewcy RS for a WP:BLP article? Nishidani ( talk) 17:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Should the above article by subject to BLP policies? If so could someone place the appropriate notice on the talk page? There has been repeated insertion of the same unsourced content (from 3 different IP addresses) in the last week. I wonder if someone could take a look and evaluate.

diff1, diff2, diff3.

Thanks. MrBill3 ( talk) 08:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The BLP applies to any information about a living person on any page on ENWP. So the article itself may not be, but any information about living people on it is. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Tony Podesta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody familiar with BLP policy please check the Tony Podesta article? I've tried to fix up some issues, but Certified Gangsta keeps reverting them, claiming I'm POV-pushing and " WP:OWN"-ing the article, to say nothing of the BLPCRIME issues. ^Falling _Gravity 03:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Anybody here? ^Falling _Gravity 17:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. I don't really see any BLP issues at first glance, which is likely why no one has replied so far. What I do see is some warring over adjectives such as "lucrative" and "allegedly". I agree that when describing a possible crime that is still under investigation, but no outcome has yet been reached, then "allegedly" should probably be used. The issue over the word "lucrative" is more of a content dispute, although is seems unnecessary to me. (Seems like it was added for peacock reasons, but adds no real value.) These are things that should be discussed on the talk page of the article.

As it stands now, those adjectives have been eliminated, and since we are no longer describing the allegations, "allegedly" is not necessary. It's not a BLP vio to simply state that a criminal investigation is taking place and leave it at that. However, it does leave the reader wondering why, and, for that matter, who this Mueller guy is since the article now only mentions his name once in passing. (If he's not notable enough to have his own article does mentioning his name add any value to this one?) It seems to me like a little more detail is warranted to make the information coherent and flow nicely, just not so much it off-balances the article. Once again, this is stuff that should be worked out on the talk page rather than doing a hatchet job to each others ideas on mainspace. Zaereth ( talk) 18:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added some tags to the article based on the concerns you've raised. ^Falling _Gravity 00:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

The picture is of Michael Finney the ABC7 BayArea Consumer Specialist, but the text is about a magician who moved out of the State of California in 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.143.67.158 ( talk) 01:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Finney's page does not have an image. What are you referring to? Meatsgains ( talk) 02:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You must be referring to the Google Knowledge Graph that pulls some content from the Wikipedia article Michael Finney about a magician, and combines that with two photos of the San Francisco TV and radio consumer reporter of the same name. Since I live near San Francisco, I recognize the reporter This is an error by Google's bots, not by Wikipedia. Report the problem to Google. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ingrid Detter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone repeatedly amends this page which should read:

Ingrid Detter met her future husband Louis Doimi de Lupis Frankopan when they both studies at Oxford University. The Doimi de Lupis family reverted to the name of Frankopan and title of Prince, after the fall of communism in Croatia in 1991. The Court of Perugia, having previously examined the genealogical tables of the family and the grant of the title of Prince by King Sigismund in 1425, with sanction of anyone who disputes this, confirmed right of the name and titles of the Doimi de Frankopan family, as Princes Frankopan, Counts Doimi de Lupis, in a judgment in 2007. The judgment has executory force in all jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere. ^[1], The Doimi de Lupis family was also granted a knighthood by Emperor Franz Joseph I in 1855 and 1865 when Croatia was under Austrian hegemony. ^[2]),

Instead, the editor changes this to:

Ingrid Detter met her future husband, Louis Doimi de Lupis (who later controversially added the name of Frankopan and title of Prince, having previously adopted the title of Count; ^[3] the Doimi de Lupis family were however granted nobility- in the form of knighthood only- by Emperor Franz Joseph I in 1855 and 1865 ^[4]), when they were both studying at Oxford University (see below on the history of the family name). They married in 1968.

The revised entry is not adequately resourced: the note to Daily Telegraph shows that the newspaper did not suggest that the change of name would be 'vontroversial' but the editor added that. the note to the book about the Frangipani shows unequivocally that the Doimi de Lupis family is a branch of the Frankopan family and has the right to the titles, Princes Frankopan, Counts Doimi de Lupis.

The addition of the word 'only' to the grant of a knighthood is unprofessional and disparaging. ^[5]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saluspopuli ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone repeatedly amends this page, recently renamed as 'Frankopan' from previously House of Frankopan where a section now reads 'controversially name claiming':

The entry should read, changing the title 'controversial name claiming', to 'living members of the Frankopan Family':

The revised entry is not adequately resourced and refers to tabloid gossip, an 'open letter' by an invented 'cousin', and several disparaging newspaper articles and numerous offensive and irrelevant remarks.

The original entry, repeatedly removed by this editor, refers to official court documents and published authoritative material. Saluspopuli ( talk) 16:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard Ayoade (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, we have a problem on the above page where trolls are repeatedly miscatorising the ethnicity of Richard as being English. The article states he is of Norwegian and Nigerian ethnicity, but in the first paragraph some user is repeatedly using the term English to refer to his Ethnicity. Can someone assist as this is grossly inaccurate and can only be trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A subject's ethnicity is not mentioned in the opening summary, only nationality; it helps prevent ethnicity being used pejoratively. So the mention of Richard Ayoade's Nigerian/Norwegian ancestry there is inappropriate. (Wikipedia has a long running editing issue over British/English, the later being technically inaccurate, but that is beside the point here.)

Wikipedia does not normally add links to headings, which I why I modified your entry. Philip Cross ( talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context for the established policy. Philip Cross ( talk) 13:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just to expand a bit further on (almost entirely correct) by Philip above. Its not an ongoing issue with British/English, its British/Scottish, N.Irish, Welsh, English. Essentially the compromise over time is while the Nationality (read:citizenship) of any of the above will always be British, where they have expressed a preference, or have a strong connection to a particular nation (as many sportspeople do), they are listed as that instead. Sean Connery is a Scottish actor, Benedict Cumberbatch is English, Gavin Henson is Welsh etc. AFAIK as I know, Ayoade has not expressed an particular preference (he might have) but he is very 'English' in manner and upbringing. None of his roles are really 'English' like say Cumberbatch's Sherlock. You could argue it either way, personally I would use British unless someone provides a primary source/self published statement. The key item is that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants in the UK almost always identify with the Nation (capital N this time) rather than the individual country they live in. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The actual problem at that page can be illustrated by inspecting User:Margolis-Marmite's contributions. He has an interest in articles relating to race and white supremacy, has edited the leads of a number of politicians to state that they are jewish, and most recently (aside from denying that Richard Ayoade, a man born in England is English), edited the category Black English actors to remove "English" from the link to the category Black English people by occupation|Actors... presumably because, in his eyes, "black people can't be English".

I was going to permablock him for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia as per multiple reasons on WP:CNH, but I'd like some other admins' opinions first. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

<comment> Whilst I am quite obviously involved, I have to take issue with Margolis-Marmite's automatic assumption that any opinion differing to his is either racism [10] [11] or trolling. [12] Chaheel Riens ( talk) 15:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh he is obviously English, but also equally obviously British - generally in this situation (nationality) we list them as whichever is more appropriate. We certainly wouldn't list him as Norwegian or Nigerian in that place as PC points out, since his nationality (afaik unless he picked up dual citizenship) is neither. His ethnic background is mentioned in the appropriate place by his parents. I can see why someone who has a POV issue with black people being English wouldn't understand that, but that's not really a point for this board. Any editor can notify/warn them of BLP discretionary sanctions and if they keep at it, take them to AE. As an admin you don't have to bother with the 2nd part as long as they have been warned in advance. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous sources referring to him as English and in this interview he frames himself and his work as English rather than British, as does he here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well ref one of them next to English then :) As I said, if theres an acceptable source we can use any of the UK countries for nationality. I would have been surprised if there were none tbh, as he is very English. Cambridge footlights etc etc. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I love the way you dismiss the importance of ethnicity to millions of ethnic English people. Im guessing you'd never do this to a Jew. Margolis-Marmite ( talk) 18:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at Rob Moore (property investor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Progressive Property (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are questionable sources that are being repeatedly added. Someone claiming to be Rob Moore left this note on my talk page. Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 21:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sun Liangang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly written self-promoting unsourced page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.241.38.109 ( talk) 10:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: The article is not written in neutral tone, and also is listed a directory. May be written by someone closely related to the subject. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this in the new pages feed. I don't quite think it qualifies for G10 as an attack page, but its basically a page devoted to controversies caused by Michael Yeung Ming-cheung, a Catholic bishop in China. Bringing it here to see what others think the best way to deal with it is. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

I see that there have been some contentious issues with Matthew Sweetman regarding items he published on Jerome Lyle Rappaport's page. Mr. Sweetman claimed he was a friend of the Rappaports when in fact he is not. He is not a close member of the family - most of the items he posted he obtained illegally. Mr. Sweetman is a minor and a stalker - the only way he could have obtained most of these items is if broke into Mr. Rappaport's home. A signature from a personal letter in Mr. Rappaport's home seems like it was scanned an put on this page - Mr. Sweetman has never been invited to Mr. Rappaport's personal office and would never have been allowed to sift thru his drawers or allowed to scan anything.. Mr. Rappaport does not have a daughter Debbie.

I am not sure how to do the edits or how to have the page go back to what it was before he made the changes. I am also confused as to why a 90 year old man would be punished and not be able to have items removed because of a boy's actions.

My guess is the reason Matthew became hostile is because most of the items he had edited and written are slanderous and not only to Jerome Lyle Rappaport but more importantly to his children.

Please let me know what the next steps are.

Jannelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannellecioffi ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be accusing a named minor of being "a stalker" and of breaking into someone's home. You can't do that, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you do it again you will likely be blocked from editing.

Many of the edits made by editors with the account names "Matthewtsweetman" and "Jeromelylerappaport" (which accounts may or may not be operated by people with those names) have been undone, and much or all of the material associated with the edits has been revision deleted.

I have removed the signature from the article because in my opinion it adds nothing other than stoking controversy here.

Please could you tell us what other aspects of the article Jerome Lyle Rappaport you currently find inaccurate or inappropriate, and why? MPS1992 ( talk) 13:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have also now removed the mention of "Debbie" as it appears not to be properly sourced. My request immediately above still stands. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies in advance for the length of this post -- I have made it as brief as possible considering the complexity of the issue.

Luke Dittrich is not an objective, reliable source, and therefore, all reference to his article should be removed from Wikipedia, for reasons more fully elaborated on my talk page than is appropriate for posting here. This request is supported by Wikipedia’s policy to immediately remove “poorly sourced” and sensationalist material when posting information about living persons. Despite the reputation of Esquire, the Dittrich article was not properly fact-checked and should not be considered a reliable source.

Briefly:

A clearly supported distortion of Dittrich’s assertions in the original article is an excerpt from a discussion between myself and His Holiness the Dalai Lama at a Maitripa College graduation ceremony. As confirmed by others, Dittrich distorts the meaning of what the Dalai Lama actually said, alluding that His Holiness questioned my honesty when describing “extremely hidden phenomena,” noting that I “fidgeted” while His Holiness “wagged a finger in my direction.” In all actuality, His Holiness states the opposite – “and in this particular case, there seems no reason to lie.” This demonstrable distortion and fabrication is a direct contradiction of the recorded discussion, and is widely available via YouTube. https://www.dailygrail.com/2013/07/esquire-expose-has-its-own-selective-editing/

Distortion of facts appears to be routine for Dittrich. In August 2016, 200 Scientists, many from MIT, wrote letters of protest around serious problems in Dittrich's book, Patient HM, further questioning his abilities as an objective journalist or author, as reported in Scientific American: "The Massachusetts Institute of Technology brain sciences department and, separately, a group of some 200 neuroscientists from around the world have written letters to The New York Times claiming that a book excerpt in the newspaper’s Sunday magazine this week contains important errors, misinterpretations of scientific disputes, and unfair characterizations of an MIT neuroscientist who did groundbreaking research on human memory." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mit-challenges-the-new-york-times-over-book-on-famous-brain-patient/

The full argument on my talk page elaborates in detail how the rest of Dittrich’s handling of my story was similarly filled with distortions, twisting of facts, and misinterpretation. Detailed review of Robert Mays' rebuttal of Dittrich’s article details many other inaccuracies. While the IANDS article is not deemed by Wikipedia to be a mainstream, fact-checked source, nonetheless, it is a detailed resource that documents the distortions and includes primary sources. I am not requesting a link to this article be posted on my page, but simply that it may be used to support my claim that Dittrich himself is not a reliable source. https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in-the-news/970-esquire-article-on-eben-alexander-distorts-the-facts.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I get some extra eyes on this? An already established real-world dispute over whether or not Moon accidentally ran over and killed his chauffeur Neil Boland in 1970 has now turned up here. In a nutshell, he admitted guilt, was acquitted as an accident, there are few living witnesses left, opinion is divided as to whether he actually did it or not. I have discussed this a bit at User talk:Ritchie333#Death of Keith Moon's driver and explained my views on it. Obviously Moon isn't a living person, but his surviving family members are, so some diplomacy is called for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article states that there is a dispute over the facts. My view is that this controversy should be covered in the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Morgan Richard Tsvangirai is now late. http://glonews360.com/confirmed-mdc-leader-morgan-richard-tsvangirai-dies-from-food-poisoning/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.54.254 ( talk) 11:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a hoax report of this doing the rounds earlier in the year... this looks very similar. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Article appears to have become a glossy resume. Do political figures get to have lengthy 'endorsement' list sections, sourced to their websites? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit excessive. I trimmed it down a bit, but was reverted. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. From here it could be page protection or user block.... 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I realized that I came upon similar issues earlier this year at Gabriel Marques (Attorney), another Portuguese politician on Long Island, and suspect a series of promotional accounts which may or may not be related. It's fair to say that the current puffing of Martins' bio was done to promote the candidate and coincide with today's election. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess that's how they roll in Nassau County. Get your campaign intern to buff up your Wikipedia entry before the election. Doesn't make for good publicity, but I doubt anyone in the press will be bothered to chase it up, considering. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 22:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

There's an edit war leading to semi-protection over a section making allegations about behaviour. It needs checking out for compliance with WP:RS, WP:UNDUE among others. Nthep ( talk) 13:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have redacted the section in question (see the article's talkpage) and have revdeleted the relevant history. Was coming here to post a notification when I saw this thread was already open. Ronhjones has already protected the page (thank you Ron!). Yunshui  ^雲 _水 15:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone check this bio with respect to WP:BLPPRIMARY? Sorry I can't look at it more at the moment. Best, -- joe decker ^talk 01:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead needs pruning as it is really excessively long. And definitely the BLP violates use of primary sources something fierce, but I am still ill. Good luck! Collect ( talk) 15:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to mention that sources note that Yiannopoulos's definition of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term is used more broadly than the technical definition (to include adults engaging in sexual activity with minors, or specifically committing child sexual abuse). Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a few more eyes on one of these articles. We have a National Enquirer article from Wednesday being regurgitate everywhere what do others think. Pls see Talk:Corey Haim/Archives/2021#Charlie Sheen rape allegations. - Moxy ( talk) 02:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, would it be possible to change order of the content on Fiona Graham's page? I think that part of the "Wanaka Gym court case" has nothing to do with her geisha career, and it is not appropriate to be placed just below geisha activities. Would you be able to move this section to the end of the entire content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly1985 ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the page and the section seems to be in the correct location. Can you provide a reason for moving the section lower down on the page? It is already a separate section from her Geisha activities. Meatsgains ( talk) 03:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the page and your response. The Graham's page is mailny about her geisha work, and I think if "Wanaka court case" is right under the geisha activities it damages her geisha career. Parts of media coverage, radio and bibliography is much more important about Fiona Graham and it is directly related to her geisha career.

He's been in the news in the wake of the fall of several prominent media men recently, so his article has been getting a lot of attention lately, editors equating some of the past allegations/accusations as full blown convictions of sexual assault. I've toned some of it down where I haven't seen much in the way of new sources supporting that ("lurid stories circulating since 2001" doesn't strike me as very reliable). My main questions right now: does it belong in the lede and where does the topic itself go within the article? Past talk pages had consensus it should follow "Style" but in the wake of his losing some jobs with magazines etc., it's moved up higher. I don't know enough about Biography articles to say. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 04:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a user who insists on including Laura Bush's commentary on the section regarding HW's sexual misconduct, in addition to Bush's statement through his spokesman (which no one disputes should belong). I think this is clearly unjustified: Laura A) isn't speaking on behalf of HW, B) has no particular expertise in the subject matter, C) had no direct observation of what's been alleged. Her views are no more relevant than anyone else's. This user insists that her views deserve mention because she's his daughter-in-law, but last I checked, being related to someone (let alone indirectly) doesn't make your views on their life relevant enough to be included in the article. Thoughts? Fixed245 ( talk) 23:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

- If her opinion did not matter; why would a journalist of a major news network (CNN) ask her for her comment on the incident? Shouldn't they have approached a spokesman instead?

---

A. She is speaking on behalf of HW because of the direct question asked by the journalist at CNN - who asked her because he is Bush's daughter-in-law.

---

B. She is a woman and has an understanding of what woman goes through. Furthermore, she is related to HW therefore understands and has expertise on who the individual is.

---

C. If that excuse is used, than the spokesman has no right to speak because he had no direct observation as well. The spokesman view and the daughter-in-law's view are equal in importance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:92C0:D700:28D1:199C:8720:4C07 ( talk) 01:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not that her opinion "doesn't matter." It's that her opinion isn't central enough to the incident to be the only one, among many expressed, that gets mentioned in the sub-section about the allegations. Your response to A is simply wrong; Laura Bush is speaking for herself. Nowhere in her comments did she say that she was speaking on behalf of HW. Your response to B, again proves too much; if all that matters if being related, then the entire article would need to be re-written to include the viewpoints of his family (and there are many). Your response to C is just repeating yourself. When you say the "spokesman's view", understand that Bush's spokesman was hired by Bush to make public statements on his behalf.

And that's really the point. Let me put it this way: if there were a separate article about the allegations specifically, then I'd agree with you: Laura Bush's comments should probably be included. But this is a sub-section within an article about George H.W. Bush, the person. So it will be limited. Providing an overview of the allegations, along with Bush's official response, is the appropriate level of detail. Does that make sense? Fixed245 ( talk) 04:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Her opinion is central enough to the point a journalist of a well known news outlet would at least ask a question regarding her father-in-law's allegations. If they were not central, the journalist would've never asked that question in the first place. Laura Bush, as she is related to the former President, was speaking on behalf of her father-in-law not only as the former president but also her related family member. She is the only one to express the family's thoughts regarding the incident. She is speaking on behalf of the Bush and the entire Bush family. Her comments speak on behalf of Bush and the family, similar to Michelle Obama's comments regarding her husband's policies, etc. Michelle Obama was not hired by former President Obama but she is still speaking on his behalf on certain matters. I don't understand why it is difficult to input comments by both sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:92C0:D700:6933:8B4D:135D:71E ( talk) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think every time a family member speaks on your behalf, they're speaking on behalf of you? I mean, are you even reading the stuff you're writing? No, Michelle Obama doesn't speak on behalf of Barack. They're two separate people, and Michelle isn't a paid spokesman of Barack's. Moreover, both sides aren't represented; you're including Bush's comments without the comments of a critic. The right path is to include neither "side", and let the allegations plus Bush speak for themselves. Fixed245 ( talk) 06:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

COntnet dispute over allegations-- serious BLP vs "well known". Would appreciate more review. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Largely promotional biography that appears to have been created and tended by a WP:COI account. It's been nominated for deletion via AfD, but regardless of outcome, this could use more eyes. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Brian Hanley (biohacker) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brian Hanley (Biohacker) This article reads as another hit piece by Antonio Regolado who wrote the MIT Technology Review article. It references his article, repeats his libellous materials from the article, and is done in his lexical style, despite certain breadcrumbs that suggest Romania was the source. There is an open complaint with MIT's legal department regarding the MIT article. The MIT Tech Review article is libellous, grossly misrepresents myself, my work, and what I told Mr. Regolado. The talk section also reads as something that he would have originated. I have blog articles critical of biohacking. Most recently, I voiced my concerns about Josiah Zayner, both for him and for his public ^[1]. See item 1 in cite regarding the open complaint. See summation at the end about self-experimentation by sientists. See the rest of the cited article that discusses my concerns with the biohacking movement and what Zayner is doing.

I have been critical of amateur gene therapy, AKA biohacking, predating the MIT Technology review article by Mr. Regolado. In 2015 I expressed my concerns about a claimed telomerase experiment ^[2] over a year before the MIT Tech Review article came out.

I have quite a few publications, popular ^{[3] [4]}, and academic ^[5].

The entire Wikipedia entry should be deleted, as the title is, itself, a libel and there is no way to change it. I can supply the text of the complaint to MIT's legal department if you want to contact me by email. Ymandelbrot ( talk) 00:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Brian Hanley (microbiologist), which (I hope) satisfies the most direct concern. As for the rest, I will leave that for others to address. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have re-worded a few items that were obviously wrongly worded. Anyone who feels that Brian Hanley is not a well-known microbiologist could take the article to WP:AFD. MPS1992 ( talk) 02:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gyadari Balamallu simply known as Balamallu is the present chairman of Telangana state industrial infrastructure corporation (TSIIC). He got originated from siddipet, Telangana. He got married to Karuna Sri Gyadari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupoireddy Sai Charan ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like some very controversial info is being edit warred in/out of this article almost daily lately, eg [13] regrettably I lack time to sort out what is or isn't properly sourced or a BLP vio right now. Please take a look & help watch. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I started watch this last month, back-forth, back-forth, but see it is in controversy section and is cited so I support including infromation. I added info back in that Penfold included. Is this allowed to copy from Penfold usewr to add back in, or this is plagiat? I see this as ok, but will stop if not ok to use Penfold writing to cut and paste back into article. I read the citations and infomration looks correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.158.1.66 ( talk) 12:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Philippe DioGuardi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems very self-serving, as though written as a piece of advertising by the person who is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic the Jack ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be not only self-serving but self-written and lacking any real genuine sources, mainly relying on his own SPS material. And a little bit of criticism, but the sad truth is that I am not even sure of the notability of the person in the first place. Someone please RfD this mess! Collect ( talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This is really more of a question, and hopefully the right place to post this. I came across this edit, which removed the female birth name of a trans man with a rationale regarding privacy. I looked through WP:BLP, MOS:GENDERID, and even WP:Gender identity, and I'm not sure which way to go on this. Cannolis ( talk) 19:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If and only if current reliable sources mention the birth name does Wikipedia tend to allow the use of the birth name. Clearly if the person refers to a birth name, that counts as a good source. Wikipedia is not here to stress controversy about individuals, or at least should not do so. Collect ( talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Do the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and The Nation suffice for this? 1 2. I'm taking current to stretch back a couple years because it doesn't seem like much has been going on since 2015 with him. Cannolis ( talk) 20:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK to describe "assaults" in way that is not making clear whatever there are obviously scripted events called "assaults" or actual real-world assaults?

I started /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Gail_Kim/1 but I am not sure whatever these mentions should be also removed from article and not inserted without clarification (I have limited knowledge about acting so for now I made no edits to article) Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 09:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if recent addition to this article, sourced from an affidavit, meets WP:BLP. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted per BLPPRIMARY Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Mukund Purohit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes are needed at this article. A lot of POV language and poor sourcing. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

One off IP vandalism of BLP. I have done a revert as per this but it might need a full rollback and hide. Eno Lirpa ( talk) 12:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I have seen in the article about José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, a paragraph called controversy that can be libelous and affect the image of Mr. Salafranca. According to the rules of the European Parliament is the secretariat of the Delegations and the hosting countries the persons in charge of the preparation of the trips and then they have to be approved by the Parliament, for this reason, Mr. Salafranca wasn't responsible of the expenditure of the trip and the controversy paragraph can give the impression of it.

This is why either that paragraph should be edited adding the whole scope or deleted.

Thank you

@ Juanba90: - please see WP:NLT and do not throw comments like "libelous [sic]" around. I have renamed the section. Giant Snowman 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone not involved could look at latest iteration and see if it needs reversion or even revdel. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not well enough sourced for its accusations. I'll remove it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

David Stronach's life is misrepresented in his biography. The sentence: "The family fled to Israel at the time of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and moved to the United States shortly afterwards" is incorrect. The family relocated to the US after the revolution, and eventually ended up at the University of California. As he is a relative of mine, I was able to verify that the posting in Wikipedia is incorrect. I tried to update this last night and it was rejected -- whoever rejected it is not in position of the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshstrohbaum ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Joshstrohbaum, the issue was not having published references for the information. You can't add something just because you know it. This is an encyclopedia article (think shelves of volumes like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography), not a "posting" on social media. However you removed something that wasn't in the reference given for the paragraph, so it shouldn't have been added back. Also a new editor should never be given a final fourth-level warning as the first warning, so you were badly treated. I've updated the article with what I could find references for. StarryGrandma ( talk) 21:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Nguyễn Minh Tú (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a lot of fabrication with regards to Nguyễn Minh Tú real birth year. 2 wiki contributors are refusing to use factual and are relying on unreliable articles to state her birth year is either 1992 or 1993. Today is 14 November which is her birthday, and in her own social media, she states she is celebrating her 26th birthday which means her real birth year is in fact 1991. When we try to correct the wiki page, the 2 contributors keep changing it and citing unreliable online portals as a reference, despite being told and written to that we are correcting the information based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.127.40.70 ( talk) 13:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dianna Cowern

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dianna_Cowern&diff=prev&oldid=808489278

Attempting to use Wikipedia to send inappropriate videos to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.31.130 ( talk) 19:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was inappropriate. And creepy. I’ve semi-protected the page for a while and revision deleted the offending edits. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Spartan Race ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spartan Race is an endurance event with a disputed past, seemingly involving the co-founders trying to sue each other into oblivion. Over the past couple years, a number of editors have tried to evaluate the poorly documented history of the race, most recently here, resulting in the reasonably sourced article we currently have. Despite good-faith efforts and a number of indefinite blocks, since at least 2015 an individual has been trying to push a POV that Julian Kopald is one of the original founders but has not been able to provide any kind of source, other than a long list of websites similar to "josephdesena [dot] exposed" and "joetherat [dot] com" (not linked because clearly BLP violations; Joe De Sena is one of the documented co-founders). It's likely this editor is Kopald and that he created these websites himself, and since being blocked for legal threats in August he's been using throwaways and IPs to continue disrupting the article.

Based on a published correction in one of the only sources that covers the legal dispute (that the co-founders settled out of court, later corrected to indicate that one refused to settle) and Kopald's legal nonsense on this site, my feeling is that Kopald threatens lawyers against anyone who publishes an origin of the site that doesn't include his name. And the quality of the sources that Kopald himself repeatedly offers makes me think that his story is not entirely truthful. The most recent time a list of sources was offered for this ( here) and I tried to respond with a line-by-line rebuttal, another IP likely used by Kopald responded with more insults and threats, while another user suggested that at least one of the sources might possibly be useful. I'm here because I think we need an outside look at these sources, listed behind the link in this paragraph.

My feeling is that any mention of Kopald in any marginally reliable source (such as this) is in passing at best, and very light on useful details. And given the obvious dispute, I think we need better sourcing. Pinging Jsslee and ScrapIronIV who have participated in recent discussions. Any input from the BLP experts is well appreciated. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 02:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As I have been personally threatened and insulted by these IP's claiming to be Kopald, I am not as neutral as others may be. All anyone can say is that there have been many patient editors who have tried to explain how Wikipedia works to this person, and he just doesn't understand. Until impeccably reliable, independent, third party sources can confirm his claims, they should be omitted from the article. If such sources are provided, I have no issues with including it. Some people understand what an encyclopedia is, and others don't. This individual falls in the latter category. He should be blocked on sight until he has a revelation, and renounces his legal (and personal) threats. Scr★pIron ^IV 04:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Spartan is a Boston-headquartered company. I live in Boston and am involved in the running community here. I've also have done photography work at Fenway Park to cover a Spartan event in the past. Through these activities, I've met Spartan Race employees, and I can say that opinion on the founders is divided. Some think that Kopald and Weinberg (and a half dozen other people) founded Spartan Race. Others think that it's Joe Desena's sole property. Look on Glassdoor's review of Spartan Race and you'll see that there is quite a lot of dissent among people who have (allegedly) worked there. Of course, there's no way to verify if any of those reviews are made by real employees or not. Bottom line, it's hard to know what exactly happened in the history of Spartan Race. The only information we have are the PR articles that this company has paid for through various news sites. And PR, isn't the most truthful source of information. If Joe Desena actually did oust his co-founders, he could easily have his marketing team pay for articles that speak a different tune. Jsslee ( talk) 05:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also been personally threatened by Kopald, as has everyone who's tried to intervene ( typical legal threat) in the past couple years. The user Jkxyz ( talk · contribs) admitted or claims to be Julian Kopald, and it's abundantly clear that the IPs currently disrupting the article are the same user. However this isn't the venue for discussing one user's behaviour: my interest is in getting to the bottom of the content issues amongst the editors who are contributing in good faith. I agree with everything Jsslee has said here with regard to the clouded history of the organization and the state of available sourcing, both of which are why I'm insisting on high-quality sources for anything we do include. To that end I located an old draft of the article at User:Jkxyz/Spartan race that might be useful, I haven't had a good look at it yet. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 14:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Marco Iannuzzi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is this financial sales guy's CV. Philanthropy is generally characterized by giving money, not self promotional efforts such as being the emcee for events where you desire personal recognition. Way too many unverified sources. Kudos to him for trying though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.14.244 ( talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The page certainly reads like a puff piece. I'll go through and clean it up but welcome others for additional eyes. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia at it's best, I guess? 93.93.67.179 ( talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about this article. My overall feeling is that most of the accusations are WP:BLP violations and should not remain, but my fear is that if I just dive in and butcher the article, it'll end up in a messy edit war and I'd sooner avoid that if I can! I'm starting a thread on the article's talk page in the hope that some kind of consensus can be reached. Neiltonks ( talk) 13:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to List of alleged rapists in the entertainment industry. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 22:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor who recently expanded this list seems to be using the article to right great wrongs. I can find no discernible criteria for including incidents in the list, so I have removed the entire section pending discussion. It includes unproven allegations of sexual assault by named, living people. If that's not a BLP issue, I don't know what is. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that if it's a list-article, only very notable cases should be listed pointing at articles (assuming that these were high profile enough and well sourced enough to exist). Otherwise, only minimal high profile cases could serve as examples and the article should be shortened to be about the description and existence, maybe prevalence, not a list of cases... And yes, any allegation is inappropriate unless there were convictions. Thanks for the cleanup, — Paleo Neonate – 04:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

See talkpage history (and most of previous discussion on this is in Archive 2). This has been an ongoing problem over the years with various IP editors attempting to insinuate or otherwise state Page has committed a crime. Leaving aside the legalities for the moment, BLP is very clear on what we can and cant do, and stating someone has committed a serious crime when they have not been arrested, charged or convicted of such is something we cant do.

The problem is there is no acceptable physical relationship between a 14 year old and a man of his age (at that time). The article currently mentions it, in what is on the surface appears to be a 'neutral' wording, but since there is nothing neutral about the act itself, comes across as whitewashing. I am at a loss at this point, I am half-tempted to remove all mention of Maddox altogether as it is extremely frustrating to have to defend according to WP policy what is otherwise indefensible. I doubt this would stick as it is well sourced and has been covered over an extended period of time (and more can be found) both in biographies as primary recollections from two of the individuals involved and by the media in general. So there we are. Thoughts? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the passage, primarily because I disagree that it's well-sourced. We have citations to the "unauthorised biography" and to two secondary sources, which if you click through a read you will note also rely on that same biography. In fact the Rolling Stone article claims it's "fact checking" but doesn't even cite a source. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it doesn't belong here per WP:BLP unless high-quality sources are used. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 15:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

While not currently in the article, there are primary sources involved too. Both Cole (the 'kidnapper') and Maddox have confirmed the substance of the event. Page has wisely kept silent on it. The current sources were the best compromise previously (rolling stone and independent) as Cole's biography was not considered acceptable (I own it, and I agree, he is not a reliable witness by himself). It can be well sourced and compliant as to the bare facts - that Cole arranged for Maddox to meet Page, and they started some form of relationship. The rest of the salacious details can be sourced to varying degrees of reliability. The question is should it? I personally have always been against gossip, but the counter argument is Rolling Stone and Independent are still covering the story 30 years later, there is at least some lasting impact. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But the only real source being used is the unauthorized biography, since RS (maybe) and Independent are citing it as fact. I'm very uncomfortable with that. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I would steer clear of primary sources here as per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOR, particularly WP:PRIMARY. Any discussion will absolutely need solid, reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to support them, but with care. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes this is why they were not used, and it was sourced to the independent, rolling stone and the non-primary unauthorized biography (an authorized biography will only show want the subject wants and is no better than a primary source). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly that there is no way to include well-sourced allegations in an article. BLP is clear that they must be described as allegations rather than a fact of law, yes, but Page is WP:WELLKNOWN. "BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There are multiple sources, two of which are well-established, reliable, and fact-checked organizations. If the legal departments of Rolling Stone and The Independent are comfortable publishing an allegation, I can see no reason why Wikipedia should not do so. 50.79.5.81 ( talk) 15:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of contemporaneous witnesses that there was some sort of relationship. That it was sexual appears to source from the girl. Problem is, there are also various stories that originate from the same girl that she lost her virginity to Bowie at 13, 14 and 15. Also, the word kidnapped may have been metaphorical. Quite possibly all true; but rather iffy for an encyclopedia. O3000 ( talk) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe it's our responsibility as editors to determine the veracity of the statements. They're sourced and they belong in the article. Attempting to cast doubt on Ms Maddox's stories, especially based on information not in the provided sources, is WP:OR. If it's all false and Jimmy Page decides to sue somebody over it, that's on Stephen Davis, the Independent, and Rolling Stone. It is categorically not irresponsible or "iffy" for Wikipedia to repeat noteworthy allegations that have been discussed broadly by reliable sources for three decades. Wikipedia editors have done their due diligence; that's why it's attributed to three different sources. The section must be restored - and, separately, should not be in the "Partners" section of the article, because a child cannot be an adult's "partner". My pointing that out was the inciting incident which caused the section to be deleted. 50.79.5.81 ( talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the substance of my argument, which is that an "unauthorized biography" is a very weak source for us to publish allegations against a living person of kidnapping and sexual conduct with a minor. You have yet to produce any sources other than those just repeating what the book says, which is a primary source (Maddox's account). We are not a news source, nor are we a music journal. We are an encyclopedia. It is absolutely our responsibility to assess the sources we're using and use the highest quality sources, especially when dealing with a BLP. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Independent refers to it as a "story", merely parrots what was in the unauthorized bio and says the girl "claims" she fell in love. A total of three sentences on the situation. The Rolling Stone article provides only two paragraphs with little detail. In both cases, the relationship was a small part of the articles. And yes, we are allowed to look at other sources. That’s not OR. O3000 ( talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not in dispute that it is alleged that Page raped Ms Maddox. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia say anything more - the statement is obviously true, but I agree it is not Wikipedia's job to say that the statement is true. An allegation made in multiple sources is noteworthy in and of itself, and should be included per WP:BLP. Right now, however, we seem to be talking in circles. What is the path of action required for us to move forwards together to get this information back into the article? 50.79.5.81 ( talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A court case would do it. Major coverage in the media as per Weinstein would merit inclusion of an "allegations" section. With the sources we have, which do not appear to constitute WP:RS,... I doubt it would get there. We could not include it without invoking WP:LBL Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a very serious allegation, especially if true, but people of varying levels of celebrity receive unsavory allegations against them all the time - Page himself is no stranger to that, if his troubled relationship with fellow songwriters spanning many years is any indication. However, what we're not seeing - and have repeatedly asked for - is "[the] allegation made in multiple sources". You, dear IP editor, insist that this condition has been fulfilled, but we find it has not. It has been stated that there were many eyewitnesses, but we have yet to find them and all we have is the vague attribution along the lines of "many eyewitnesses". The veracity of the claimant has also been called into question, though I would definitely like a source for the claim that she made any such claim against David Bowie. Going back to my original point, for this claim to be included in the article we would need proof that 1) it made a notable, substantial impact on the subject's life or career, and 2) it's not just among the noise of claims that have no doubt been made over the years. Someone tried to sue Justin Bieber over the writing of the song "Somebody to Love", but the suit is not mentioned in the article because it has never been proven to truly matter for the subject at hand. It is not in dispute that such an allegation was made against Bieber, but if I recall correctly it was dismissed, and we rightfully omit any reference to the suit on the basis that it never proved to matter. But these sorts of claims are made all the time, and whether we acknowledge them depends on whether this has forced any subject of our articles to do anything, e.g. Page getting dropped from promos because of the accusations. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the following, Hammer of the Gods absolutely should not be used as a source, nor should articles that quote it:

Richard Cole toured with LED ZEPPELIN throughout the group's late 1960s/'70s heyday, and went on to become the primary source for author Stephen Davis' landmark 1985 account of the band's excesses on the road, "Hammer Of The Gods".

When Jones later asked him why he'd exaggerated the group's bad behavior for the book, Cole explained that he'd been a drug addict who needed the money

• "LED ZEPPELIN Bassist 'Disowns' Road Manager After Biographies", Blabbermouth.net, 13 Dec 2007, retrieved 15 Nov 2017

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Tarah Wheeler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article seems like a self-promoting advertisement. It contains untrue statements presented as facts without substantial citations. Example - "After a record-breaking Kickstarter campaign...". The citations for this statement don't verify this claim.

The article also contains a lot of redundant text like "She gave advice to women technologists on interview techniques and salary negotiation, when she was a systems architect at mobile encryption firm Silent Circle."

On removing all the unverifiable and poorly sourced claims and redundant statements, the whole article can be condensed down to one line - "Tarah Wheeler is an advocate for diversity in tech".

In all honesty, I don't think this page even should be there. The person concerned doesn't have enough notability to warrant an article. Iamoaf ( talk) 14:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At least three of the first 4 references I checked tick all the boxes on WP:GNG: significant articles in independent, reliable sources (Forbes, The Register and Seattle Weekly News). She almost certainly passes notability standards. I see that the language is factual and direct, lacking the flowery adjectives that usually mark promotional articles. Honestly, it reads much like what you would expect of any article about a notable business executive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Forbes/Sites, not Forbes. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How is she "a notable business executive"? According to the info on her page, she founded one company, and even so, it has no website or any significant web presence, considering it is an internet based business. And she's only worked at a couple of other companies. Seems to me that she's just another business executive. Also, a lot of statements on her page can be challenged: She's a scientist, but has she published any research papers? She is a poker player, but has she played in any significant poker tournaments? She's a hacker, but has she "hacked", or found/researched any software vulnerabilities? Most of the information on that page lacks sufficient backing material. Undoubtedly, she's an author and has written but one book, and that too on a very niche topic, for a very narrow audience. Does that warrant a page? Iamoaf ( talk) 21:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's a tight fit, but I think she does meet the notability criteria. She appears to do a lot of work promoting diversity in cybersecurity and has received significant coverage for it. However, some of the article language makes it sound like a fan of hers wrote it; I think we can keep the article if we rewrite it with a more neutral tone. -- Blueclaw ( talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sikandar Shaheen was one of the most versatile actor, who had a masters degree in English literature. Sikandar Shaheen also appeared in a film Bobby (1984) which was a diamond jubilee super hit film with Sri Lankan actress Sabeeta in leading role and Javed Sheikh as hero. Mohammad Ali was in supporting role as well. Sikandar Shaheen died on June 9, 2004 in Lahore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ashiq Ali ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Where's the issue that anyone needs to address? You might consider taking it up with Wikipedia:Articles for Creation if you have not previously done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Draft:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This may need more eyes because of sensitive topic and potential BLP issues. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It had been submitted, and out of an abundance of caution, I declined it. Editor is quite new; I'll leave working with him to others. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, — Paleo Neonate – 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Cullen328 as CSD#G10 attack page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be possible to write a policy compliant article about this topic, but such an article would not list people convicted of nothing, and would not contain highly opinionated, tabloid-style commentary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Minneapolis child sex abuse ring (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Was since created in main space, but has gained some attention and is currently in a better state. — Paleo Neonate – 00:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the article has included such things as unsourced claims about the backgrounds of the clients and listing crimes for which no one was listed as being convicted, care should be taken that this does not end up an attack page... and it is questionable whether there needs to be a page for this at all, or whether this was just a sad news item without lasting import on the larger scale. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted as an attack page. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then it was recreated, and the version that is in article space now had that content in until I edited it. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It still does not pass muster. 29 individuals were the subject of an indictment; three were convicted and six were acquitted. (The article does not say what happened to the others). The allegations of the indictment are reported as factual, rather than being qualified as allegations only. There is a reason why news sources always qualify allegations; Wikipedia must do so also. Kablammo ( talk) 01:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering the creator was issued a 4im warning for the draft, shouldn't some admin action be taken, at least a stronger statement that this is not going to be tolerated? The editor creating these articles seems from his contributions to have a strong interest in sex scandals of various sorts. Do we want to keep dealing with this? John from Idegon ( talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite the posts here and the involvement of several experienced editors, the article continued to report as fact what were only allegations. I have, I hope, corrected that. But the name of the article itself implies a series of events which were not proved against most of the targets, for most of the offenses. Kablammo ( talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Minneapolis child sex abuse ring. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In the wake of someone noticing that the few convictions in the case had been overturned, the article has now been deleted. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The introduction was a bunch of gibberish. For months it’s been removed and readded. The article falsely claimed that scandals had to involve a violation of law, which is not true for many Obama administration scandals. A terming of alleged legal but improper conduct as illegal is a major BLP offense. That introduction is not worthy to be part of an encyclopedia. 2606:A000:6444:4700:59D0:5215:432B:C56 ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandals are still attacking this page. BLPEnforcer ( talk) 18:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

An IP editor has been repeatedly trying to remove/whitewash sourced negative material from Mikhail Blagosklonny and from the associated article Oncotarget. The IP claims the source is unreliable but the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch on the same source for other BLPs is that it's reliable (and it's used similarly on many other BLPs). More eyes on the articles would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The link you provide is about Retraction Watch which is also being discussed in the talk page of this article. Stop confusing the two sources. This is about Jeffrey Beall's list which is a self-published blog and has no place on a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. Note the discussion you link to even says that Beall's list is worse than RetractionWatch. 40.134.67.50 ( talk) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is an odd mis-reading of WP:SPS. Beall is an expert in predatory and otherwise dodgy academic journal publishing ^{[1] [2]} and is well-recognized for this expertise. ^{[3] [4]} Beall's List therefore fits squarely within the meaning of reliable sources in the very policy you cite: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Emphasis in the original. Continuing to edit-war to remove the information cited to this source has every appearance of tendentious editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• @ Eggishorn: Please finish reading the paragraph in WP:SPS which says Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Second emphasis mine.
• In any case, I was referring to WP:BLPSPS which clearly states Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Emphasis mine. 40.134.67.50 ( talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is a good source for "predatory journal", which can now be supplemented with The Scientist also saying it's considered predatory. [14] However the current sourcing is very borderline for supporting the other BLP-allegations. I suggest the direct BLP-allegations be removed per BLPREQUESTRESTORE policy, pending the result of the open RFC at Talk:Oncotarget#Threats_of_retraction. Alsee ( talk) 21:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets please clean up the process on this - it is a total mess

We will only address Beall and Retraction/Scientist in regard to the BLP here - Oncotarget and academic journal guidelines are not part of this Discussion - however, anywhere the BLP is mentioned, BLP guidelines must be applied.

Wiki guides us on this by stating that biography of living persons must be the highest quality sources, and if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

As the other editor has mentioned the burden of proving that it is a high quality source is on the editor who adds or restores the material and I firmly believe you have not proven that these are high quality sources - you are mearly referencing a bunch of coverage about a group of poor sources. Moreover, even if I agree with you that these are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims. Even tho its your job to prove this I will give you some guidance...

Overall, all of these sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines which are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering and sensationalism attributing material to anonymous sources and using weasel words: (sign of poor source)

1. Both Retraction and Beall cite anonymous sources for their claims on this BLP subject this gives me a reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (sign of poor source)

2. Beall's List uses nothing but weasel words i.e. Possible, potential and probable. (sign of poor source)

3. The article from the Scientist contains multiple inaccuracies and it is apparent that the article involved no independent reporting. The writer has merely incorrectly paraphrased portions of a Retraction Watch article and placed an outsized reliance on a defunct website. Since it was published they have issued corrections on their article.

1 2 and 3 show that these sources are miles away from "high quality" sources needed for BLP pages - if good sources at all, they are an excellent example of circular reporting and basically repeating gossip. Ivan Oransky, a founder of Retraction Watch is also the deputy editor of The Scientist and the coverage of Retraction Watchlist article was a poor attempt to create a third party source. Overall, the body of these three sources applied to this issue are poor sources, if sources at all.

Moreover, even if we agree with you that Beall, Retraction and Scientist are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

1. Beall is claiming (from an anonymous source) that Oncotarget peer review is questionable and BLP subject is gaming the system - noone else has ever claimed that. (sign of poor source)

2. The Scientist is not making the same claim as Retraction - it was literally two different claims all together (albeit due to the fact of thee poor editorial quality of the Scientist article which is highlighted by the subsequent correction)

To momentarily step away from BLP policy - one of Wiki's five main pillars concludes that to remain neutral an editor must cite notable sources especially when controversial, and goes on to specifically say about BLP that we must remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (The Scientist) relies on self-published sources (Beall) or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards (anonamoys sources in Retraction and Beall's post) - however, Wiki makes perfectly clear Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person

Putting comments like these from such bottom end sources on BLP pages is reckless

I have created a Wiki account and will continue to monitor this issue @MakinaterJones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.133 ( talk) 22:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Schwahn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whether or not the amount of content about the Schwahn sexual harassment allegations is WP:Undue needs some looking at. I state this because he is not as famous as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and others affected by the Weinstein effect. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Kept allegations, reduced verbiage and identification of so many other persons who are only marginally connected to the allegations. Collect ( talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor with all of 25 edits basically restored the excess material and I am officially banned from touching it now on the BLP issue -- so will someone please address the matter? The article again links to a great many people tangentially involved, and goes to more detail than the entire rest of the BLP has! Thank you. Collect ( talk) 13:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted by Darkness Shines. Obviously the article needs to be watched tho. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And re-reverted by the new editor who now has 27 edits. And I am still banned from touching it. Collect ( talk) 20:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you banned from reverting? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom banned me from making any additional reverts for BLP reasons, and I am restricted to 1RR on all pages, and I can not edit or comment on or discuss anything remotely connected to "American Politics" on any page of Wikipedia whatsoever from 1 AD or so to infinity. Was the decision rational? No. But it was their decision, even when an editor wished on my talk page that my wife would die of her melanomas. And one of the evidence givers was ready to report me when I discovered he was a major plagiarist. I am not going to appeal unless and until some of those folks recognize that my BLP positions are what Wikipedia policies call for. But I sure as hell am not going to waste my life holding a "grudge" about any of this. ArbCom has the right to make decisions, and the obligation to live with them. Collect ( talk) 00:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Collect, see the first letterhead quote box. I've never doubted your ability. I'm much more versed in PAGs today than I was back when your case was filed, and just wanted you to know that you have my support if you decide to appeal. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

He is only a suspect in the Killing of Nabra Hassanen.It is violation of WP:BLPCRIME to say he is the murderer or use a copyrighted image in the article under fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathsparty ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Further the title :Darwin Martinez Torres, murderer of Nabra Hassanen is wrong he is only a suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathsparty ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

An admin has speedy deleted the file under criteria F7 (invalid fair use rationale) Neiltonks ( talk) 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The Boston Herald article seems to have been made into a WP:COATRACK for criticism of sportswriter Ron Borges, mostly introduced with this one-off edit a few months ago, duplicating similar content on the biography page. An anon tried to remove it a while ago, but was reverted for vandalism by Materialscientist. The amount of space spent on Borges seems grossly undue at the very least, and I have reason to believe the account responsible belongs to a rather persistent hoaxer whose work I’ve seen before, making me suspicious that the content is mostly fabricated. However, I know nothing about either subject, so I’m asking here for more eyes on both articles, with a view to removing (and possibly hiding) the content.— Odysseus 147 9 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the content. Neutrality ^talk 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My name is Mary Hayashi and I am a former California politician. I was told to post here regarding concerns about the Wikipedia page about me, which includes two dedicated "Shoplifting" sections. [15]

In 2012 I walked out of a high-end retail store in San Francisco, but had forgotten about a blouse, skirt, and pants (worth $2,500) in my bag that I had not paid for. [16] As a result, two years later my competition for the Democrat seat launched a smear campaign called "Mug Shot Mary" with its own website and promised to make sure everyone knew about the incident. [17] The current Wikipedia page says I claimed to have a brain tumor that caused me to shoplift, but I have denied this. The case was eventually dismissed on March 5, 2015, but by then the political campaign was long over and the press did not cover the dismissal.

While this incident was unfortunately a part of the 2014 political race, the Wikipedia page contains more than 10 paragraphs about this situation and two sentences about the entire 2014 campaign. I have been told this violates Wikipedia's policy here against an article that is "temporarily unbalanced" and that someone here might be able to help. Aunt Mary San ( talk) 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the section summarising (or quoting from) the personal statement; the section is sufficient without it. I'm not inclined to have the article discuss the denial of having had a tumour; Ms Hayashi could have (but apparently didn't) instructed her lawyer not to make statements along these lines, and it's odd (to say the least) to have a denial about it after the trial or dismissal or whatever. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm puzzled also by the notion that the charges were "dismissed"; the sources say that Ms Hayashi pleaded no contest, which contradicts the assertion of dismissal. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Shortened version looks good. I rewrite a bit about the election that seemed a little biased as well. ValarianB ( talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi All. I’m glad to see the section shrinking, but it still seems to cite a lot of op-eds and have redundant content. Hopefully I am not being too pushy – I respect Wikipedia’s editorial autonomy. But I want to bring a few points to your attention for closer scrutiny:

• The following sentence is cited to an op-ed labeled “Opinion Shop” and is redundant with another sentence in the section: ”During the campaign, Hayashi repeatedly denied that she was responsible for the shoplifting incident, again citing a medical condition and distraction.”
• This sentence is also cited to “Opinion Shop” and hardly seems neutral/factual: “Her shoplifting conviction proved too damaging for her to overcome.”
• It seems extraordinary that a biography on my entire life story and all my years of public service would have a dedicated section regarding a misdemeanor.
• The first sentence says I was charged with shoplifting. This second sentence effectively defines shoplifting and is somewhat redundant with the sentences before/after it: ”Prosecutors said that Hayashi had taken the items into a dressing room, put them in a shopping bag, and walked out of the store.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD87:6730:B83D:9B02:61F8:9C65 ( talk) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason it's covered in the biography is that it received significant attention in e.g. newspapers. If sources need to be upgraded, I'm sure that can happen. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Any such upgrading should be done right quick, because my itchy fingers are heading towards wholesale deleting anything sourced to a piece entitled "Opinion Shop". MPS1992 ( talk) 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Janet O'Sullivan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was a recent article about the subject which suggested she celebrated the death of a pro life campaigner. It has been suggested on twitter that this was done to discredit her. While I suspect that some version will end up in the article on wikipedia about it the current wording and placement seems likely to cause pain and damage to an otherwise low profile individual who is currently not campaigning. The link to the diff is [18]. I would appreciate someone more experienced with BLP and low profile individuals taking a look and giving a recommendation please. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 22:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Greg Osby (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information that is repeatedly posted on this is not accurate, useful or relevant. It is also offensive. Especially since these are unproven ALLEGATIONS. This information is libelous, defaming and potentially unlawful. Jazzjock251 ( talk) 05:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the information per WP:BLPCRIME. Not a wellknown figure and these are just accusations. The one source that was included is minimal. It is a small piece tacked onto an article about someone else also accused of sexual harassment at Berkeley. To be included in the article we would need much more coverage of the incident. The statement that he was fired was not mentioned in the source at all. ~ GB fan 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been re-added, and I've removed it again. fish& karate 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Draft:Trump and Hitler ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 03:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that opus was created by User:Kingshowman. It should be G5ed.- Mr X 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted, user blocked. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, how about something like Nazi-references in politics? I think there´s some amount of at least primary sources. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

He's not like Hitler - he's like Mussolini ( [19], [20], [21]) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all, — Paleo Neonate – 11:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Erika Guevara Rosas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has in recent days become an extended resume/promo for the subject, with a mix of unsourced and poorly sourced content cultivated by a few [[WP:SPA]s. Needs a lot of attention, and perhaps a return to stub format. 2601:188:180:11F0:885A:A64B:EED6:3A14 ( talk) 00:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

[22] — please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Also [23]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed all the garbage and warned the editor doing it. fish& karate 08:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Who has promptly put the names back again. Editor has now been given a final warning. fish& karate 11:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333 has informed me that by removing this BLP-related nonsense, I am now involved in a content dispute so cannot block the user. Please would another administrator keep an eye on this. fish& karate 11:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on it. The problem is if you call another editor's edits "garbage", and "nonsense", it makes it difficult to take administrative action without the other party crying foul. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The user ( User Drupadmalik) added it a third time ( [24]). Someone else removed it, so that's fine, but he/she is just going to keep adding it, despite the warning on their talk page. I would appreciate someone else reviewing this, and I recommend a block. fish& karate 10:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

As good as my word, blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Emmerson Mnangagwa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

People keep adding to Emmerson Mnangagwa's infobox that he is "President (designate)". As far as I can see we have no source saying this is the case - ZANU-PF sources have said they expect him to be made president on Friday, but an expectation doesn't seem to me to constitute a formal post that should be in an infobox. ( Zimbabwe simply has the position as 'vacant'). I'm out of reverts, largely to IP editors, so thought I'd see if anyone else thought this was an issue. TSP ( talk) 13:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Moot now. fish& karate 14:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• May be moot but Wikipedia shouldn’t be used for crystal ball predictions 221.121.135.92 ( talk) 17:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran Since Nov 12 NeuroWIKI99 has made a series of edits in which he/she has used the edit summary to make personal attacks against Neurorel. Note that NeuroWIKI99 is attempting to add information about Neurorel in the edit summaries. These are the only contributions NeuroWIKI99 has made.Here is the most recent example:

• 18:41, 22 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-405)‎ . . Vilayanur S. Ramachandran ‎ (→‎Testimony at the Lisa Montgomery trial: NeuroEL (AG) - why all the efforts to discredit and portray VS Ramachandran in a negative light. You do it on multiple WIKI sites. You're not balanced in your edits, your intentions are questionable!)

Neurorel ( talk) 17:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Neurorel: This is not really a BLP issue, it's a behavioral issue. If you want to report NeuroWIKI99 this can be done at WP:ANI but I don't think you will get anywhere with that, it is a pretty garden variety disagreement over content with allegations of bias. —DIYeditor ( talk) 00:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)