![]() | 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. |
Vince Siemer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyes are needed at this article. There have been repeated deletions of text and poor sourcing in any version. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that he's WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Can I get more eyes on this? This article has been plagued with single purpose accounts and socks who either add unsourced content, ( [1]) whitewash reliably sourced claims they don't like, ( [2], [3]) or swap out sources for self-published content like IMDB because the broadsheet source said something negative? ( [4]) It's like pushing a rock up a hill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I just began cleanup of this article for the Article Rescue Squadron ( ARS), and created its ARS rescue list entry. In the process of converting its references from bare URLs to full list-defined references, I found that all three of the English-language sources (I do not read Malayalam) refer to Nandini Nair, rather than Nandini Sree. I'm wondering if this article could be a hoax (or a confusion), attributing information about one individual to another individual. Alternatively, it could be a matter of two names for the same person, but so far I have been unable to verify that. If it is a hoax, probably the best solution would be to move the page to Nandini Nair, the person named in the sources, in a way that does not leave a redirect from Nandini Sree.
I first became aware of this article while doing proposed deletion patrolling, and I had never heard of either Nandini Sree or Nandini Nair before. If these two people are the same, I would really appreciate a link to a source explaining that; I have been unable to find any such.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Please look at [ [5]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Not a biography, but multiple non notable named people, and the whole thing is an attack page. probably a G10 candidate. but it might be possible to write an acceptable stub. I have no way of determining if the Chinese sources are suitable. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
We have an article on Siegfried Borchardt. He's a German neo-Nazi. The article started off as a translation from the German Wikipedia. The translation was rather literal and had German grammar constructs, so I've copy-edited it to try to make it read better in English. However, I'd appreciate more eyes on it, particularly from anyone who can read German and can check the current article against the original, or is familiar with the German political scene, as I won't have picked up on any factual inaccuracies as I don't speak German.
Also, I'm not sure whether he's actually notable enough for an article as seems to have only been involved in local politics, so views on this would be appreciated too! Neiltonks ( talk) 13:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The sources don’t seem to be major. Don’t read German so can’t know for sure. Suggest list for deletion 221.121.135.92 ( talk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Alex Da Corte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated vandalism to this page after multiple deletions. Page was granted temporary protection, I am making a request for extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housegoat18 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Renaming? There appears to be no demonstrated link to any science background or formal practice by this Edward Hammond (scientist) other than perhaps political science. However, either implies some form of academic or practical background for which this Hammond appears to have neither. According to Hammond's website he has a BA in History and Masters in Latin American Studies & Community Planning. He's an advocacy group researcher, so perhaps the "scientist" modifier should be changed to more accurately reflect this subject's actual background and expertise? Perhaps (activist) or (researcher)? AliceStanley11 ( talk) 21:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Emma Dean (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography has no semblance of a Neutral Point of View, and was written by the artist herself. Her own website is the source for many references throughout the article.
The tone of the writing standing also does not reflect a neutrality and is consistently overstating the artist's achievements. This is her uploaded CV and does not reflect the reality of her acclaim or success as a musician, as no musical work of hers has ever achieved a chart position, or won any significant award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music1019572 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Edward E. Kramer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
How do I request special supervision or lock this page from repeated serial vandalism? This rogue editor is not only making wrong assertions but poorly worded and offensively insulting assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Cornell_Fleischer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Okay. I have no plans on ever making a future revision to this specific living person's Wikipedia page, but another Wikipedia user has just accused me of being a paid shill. So I feel that I must post this information here, in order to continue the open dialogue that is a vital part of making Wikipedia work. I do not know the subject of the article nor do I have any affiliation with him whatsoever.
My sole reason for being concerned is that the incident in dispute at least partially involved a person's child. There was a conviction, according to a link of published and reliable sources later provided by this other Wikipedia user, but the subject of the article is not necessarily a fully public figure.
I did three reverts, two with one Wikipedia user and a third with a second user. I understand the rules and I will not be touching this article again.
The article subject is someone named
Cornell_Fleischer. I do not understand how to add a link to show the previous edits and because the circumstances may involve a person's child, I don't want to go posting information all over the place. Thank you.
My accuser is this Wikipedia user: User:Serefsiz102350 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
He posted a message here on my Talk Page: User_talk:Beauty_School_Dropout
Thank you.
Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 06:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Should I remove this post? Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you. I just wanted to inquire, and now will back off and I am completely serious that I won't attempt to edit or revert that page ever again, even if one day I end up becoming an admin myself. Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 06:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Julian Radcliffe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two main editors have been disputing over inclusion of what one called 'malicious content' on this individual. As the accounts involved have only edited in this individual and their organizations, this could be a case of an advocate of some cause vs a holder of a conflict of interest with the subject.
Though the content is sourced, most of those sources are blogs that are potentially biased. I originally agreed with removing the content, but a new article included from The Guardian on a recent edit has me thinking at least some of the content involved in this dispute should be kept. I would appreciate other outside views on this. LynxTufts ( talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Vladimir Plahotniuc ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following allegation or what our readers could perceive to be a politically motivated "legal analysis" has been challenged as a BLP violation, especially considering it strays off-topic about the pardon itself and attacks the BLP. It was removed from the article twice. The editor who is now edit warring to keep it in, Softlavender, said in her edit summary that the article is not a BLP, seemingly to justify the BLP vio. Pardon of Joe Arpaio is already a highly volatile article that was relentlessly targeted by a persistent sock farmer and keeping it free of BLP vios has not been an easy road to hoe. Input, please? Atsme 📞 📧 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Masem, thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm of the mind that in addition to WP:BLPSOURCE, there is WP:REDFLAG which also applies in this case. The value-laden labels are defamatory and usupported. Racial profiling is much different from being a racist, especially when one's grandchildren are of the race a BLP is being accused of being racist toward. Atsme 📞 📧 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It is unambiguously clear to me that the verbal attack against Arpaio by Chafetz who described him as a "xenophobe and racist" in a POV piece is a BLP vio, and I am dismayed that some of our veteran editors are not seeing it. Continuing along the same lines as what Masem described above as "coatracking attacks on Arpaio", I have listed the applicable policies I believe are unambiguous with regards to that quote:
One last point, the unsupported Chafetz allegation is contradicted by factual information about Arpaio, who is the son of immigrants, has been referred to as "a doting grandfather" of 4 children adopted by his daughter, each of different ethnicities, and his son's wife being Latino. I think strong political views too often create NPOV issues that may make editors less sensitive to BLP policy which unambiguously states: material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. Atsme 📞 📧 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Atsme: It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The material – as it's written – appears to be a BLP violation per WP:BLPSOURCES. The source, as an opinion piece, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, which means that it's a questionable source and hence not a suitable source for contentious claims about living persons. If the material is truly noteworthy, it should be easy to find a reliable source for the material. Politrukki ( talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I won't even try to figure out how you came to such a conclusion. Provide the diff where I said what you're claiming I said. If you want to know my contention, start with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, NPOV, BLP and WP:RS. This has already been discussed, so scroll-up ⬆⬆⬆ - read the discussion - and have a good day! Atsme 📞 📧 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Rick Derringer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not sure what is going on with this potentially libelous addition. EW regarding this Source is apparently in Italian. Jim1138 ( talk) 03:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Which version below best meets WP policies based on the refs given? We are having an NPOV vs BLP dispute
1) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views [1] and for cyberbullying a professor at National University of Singapore whose viewpoint he disagreed with. [2]
2) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views [1] and comments against viewpoints he disagreed with. [2] [3]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 07:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC) (amended per suggestion away down below Jytdog ( talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC))
-- Jane Dawson ( talk) 10:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
But with their silence, the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?". -- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 11:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It was earlier reported that MLC council member and former NMP, Calvin Cheng, had seemingly threatened and insulted an NUS prof, Dr Ian Chong, on Facebook .-- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 11:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
... I've added the proposed changes. There are other personal comments he has made on Facebook that has attracted flak, but unfortunately I can't add any para-phrases due to Singapore law (they come from non-establishment sources) .....
Neither version really complies with the spirit of WP:BLP. We do not need to use more words than are really useful for our readers:
covers the territory clearly, and can save a couple of paragraphs. And we do not need to expound on every "controversy" in detail either. Gosh, a short couple of sentences would be a lot more useful than the mishmash on the BLP currently. The BLP now is too long by half, with every "appointment" the person has ever had listed as though it were of international importance. Collect ( talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Jytdog, I commend you for your efforts since you are really bending over backwards to get the "truth" out there in a relatively NPOV way, but is it really necessary? Are these "cyberbullying" incidents among the things the subject is mostly notable for? Couldn't it be explained in terms not as less flattering as "cyberbullying"? Why such fierce opposition to not just use more laid back casual language? Huggums537 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
...“I am sure there are others who have the same view but to articulate them so publicly and in uncivil language, especially when he is a member of an organisation whose duty it is to advocate proper conduct in the online space should not be condoned.”...In many ways, Cheng is like this modern-day child who wants to see how far he can push the borders of decency.
It’s classic Cheng really — who’s been known to make annoyingly contentious comments in the past — but it’s made worse due to the fact that he’s a member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC)... They’re against uncivil behaviours online, which seems like what Cheng is practising...
..In a Facebook post on 25 November, Mr Cheng charged that Ms Kirsten Han, who is a freelance journalist and who is also a member of the TOC editorial team, was a “treacherous journalist” who “galvanised” a “hate campaign” against him...Mr Cheng also charged the “editors” of TOC, along with Ms Han, for being “traitorous”...In his response, Mr Tan wrote:...in no way do I think that TOC has engaged in ‘traitorous’ acts.”...
Mr Loh pointed out that Mr Cheng’s recalcitrant behaviour was neither a new phenomenon nor a recent one. “If you were to follow his online postings, you would find that he has displayed such behaviour over a period of time,” Mr Loh wrote. “Indeed, even in his postings which have led to this current controversy, his words and the manner in which he "engages" others are abhorrent. “They plainly and clearly go against all that the MLC stands for.”
...Mr Tan has had to counsel Mr Cheng earlier this year when the latter made a Facebook posting alleging that playwright Alfian Sa’at was engaging in “irresponsible rhetoric, which allege racial discrimination against our Malay-Muslim brethren.”...Mr Cheng's attack on Mr Sa'at was roundly criticised online, come as it did at a time when Mr Sa'at was grieving the death of his mother...Mr Tan told TOC:...I told Mr Cheng that I do not agree with the manner in which he did so."...Mr Cheng has also ridiculed and belittled others who have disagreed with him, calling them “fools” and “idiots”. Under the MLC’s core values, which are stated on its website here, the council says: “[Uncivil behaviours online]...
Calvin Cheng called Dr Chong a “second rate academic who had too much time on his hands”. He also threatened the prof, saying that unlike him, Dr Chong has a boss and can get fired for engaging in internet activities. He went on to suggest that MOE and the public should make ‘enquiries’ about this prof. He taunted the prof, telling him he is “concerned” for the prof and that the “economy is bad”....MLC discourages uncivil online behaviours...One of its aims is to discourage online behaviours that are anti-social, offensive, irresponsible or simply mean...Yet, MLC member Calvin Cheng appears to be doing exactly what MLC itself discourages.
...the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?
Kumaran Pillai who runs The Independent was the former editor of The Online Citizen TOC. The current editor of The Independent Ravi Philemon is also a former editor of TOC. PN Balji who wrote that article in Yahoo is a co-founder of The Independent. Essentially its the same small group of bloggers who are writing for these sites.
And that ‘license’ means nothing. All websites that comments on sociopolitical issues in Singapore with 50,000 unique visitors a month have to put up a bond to be ‘licensed’. This does not make them news organisations.
Finally, the TOC is doubly not a news license. The Government gazette it as a political association. It is also a one-man-show now.
See here: http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/the-online-citizen-now-a-one-man-show
The Online Citizen has also had to apologise for making false posts against the authorities and the establishment , most recently here :
And here:
The Independent has also been caught out for publishing fake news several times:
An independent survey by Blackbox Research showed that 43% of Singaporeans thought that TOC published fake news, 41% thought that of The Independent, and 44% Mothership.
In contrast, only 13% thought the same of The Straits Times, and 15% TODAY. Both mainstream news organisations.
See here:
http://www.blackbox.com.sg/fake-news-also-growing-worry-singapore/. 124.6.143.131 ( talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
References
This isn't a BLP issue per se, but I'm not sure where else to post it. Could one or two experienced editors please weigh in at this discussion about the "Glossary of relevant individuals" at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as I think it borders on inadvertent mudslinging of sorts. Thanks. nagual design 04:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Michel Chossudovsky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fellow editors, Is this source [11] sufficient for inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence; per this edit? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Your argument is undermined to the extent that it's incorrect to say this is a new development, pertaining only to alt-right dudes. (Anyway, is Chossudovsky alt-right? Not that I'm aware of...) I doubt you'll be persuaded by other examples, but: David Irving. Surely you don't see a problem in that first sentence... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
James McEnteer, in the highlighted excerpt from Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries, appears to suggest that Michel Chossudovsky's view is correct. The term conspiracy theory implies falsity. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dotyacd (
talk •
contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is transparently biased even if its one-sided assertions are supported by equally biased though conventionally accepted sources. In fact, as evident from some of the very material presented in the article, Michel Chossudovsky is an accomplished member of the academy who has dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge which is suppressed in the academy. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dotyacd (
talk •
contribs)
22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
J. Roberto Trujillo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Advertising and unverifiable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.181.253 ( talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017
I know that, per WP:BLPSPS, this would never be acceptable for citation in the George Lucas article for the claim that Lucas unsuccessfully sued the producers of a TV commercial for unauthorized use of the name "Star Wars", but the self-publishing producer in question is generally reputable (he could definitely be cited for non-controversial content in non-BLP contexts) and is probably "right" in this assertion.
I considered posting on the talk page asking if people had seen this in citable sources making the same assertion, since it really seems like the kind of thing that should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but it then occurred to me that since BLP applies to talk pages, maybe posting on the talk page to request sources for something one had heard in a source (which per the specific requirements of BLP policy was itself unacceptable) would be a violation.
Am I right in this interpretation?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please check my new creation Elizabeth Rata please? This is a person who has taken a strong position on race relations in New Zealand and there many sources saying or implying that she's a racist. I've picked a single one, by another notable academic at the same university, and quoted an entire sentence to preserve context. Is this appropriate? (I wouldn't have written the article, but I made a foolish commitment to write articles on every female New Zealand professor, so I'm stuck with it.) Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Could I get someone to have a look at Nursing Council of New Zealand please? It's horrid but I would might be perceived as a conflict of interest so I can't purge it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Why did the discussion about Mikhail Blagosklonny on the BLP noticeboard get archived without consensus ?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive261#Mikhail_Blagosklonny
On the BLP page:
(cur | prev) 13:40, 20 November 2017 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052) . . (Undid revision 811238984 by MakinaterJones (talk) Quite obvious edit warring from the IP. Please take it to talk. Thanks) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:45, 20 November 2017 MakinaterJones (talk | contribs) m . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052) . . (This is an unacceptable and prima facia reckless addition to a BLP page - do not revert this without finding consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will be removing beall from wiki and nominating his page for deletion) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:08, 20 November 2017 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052) . . (Undid revision 811167632 by 63.139.102.133 (talk) removal of sourced content) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:13, 19 November 2017 63.139.102.133 (talk) . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052) . . (Removed reckless off wiki dispute/gossip - misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
This content is contested - it should be removed from the BLP page while in discussion...I did not bring it to talk because there was already an issue created here.
I asked that it not be restored till we reached consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will not revert myself - but I encourage an admin to do so - or even strip to basic version while we consider if this is RS for BLP
Can someone help me get an RFC?
MakinaterJones ( talk) 21:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Also in discussion on the BLP talk page[ [12]]
MakinaterJones ( talk) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Raymond Hunthausen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under the sections "Episcopal Career" and Church Investigation" there are newer insertions that seem ideologically driven rather than objective. The tone and content of this article are at considerable variance from previous versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.164.62 ( talk) 02:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Controversial figure as an advice columnist and author, with a history of edits by those who have bones to pick, as well as protective contributions by family members and associates of the subject. Could use clean-up re: legal history, as well as watchlisting and long term attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Your site says Iain Lee lives in slough Buckinghamshire. Slough is in Berkshire - has been since the boundary changes of 1996 when places like Milton Keynes left bucks to become a unitary authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:26C0:9F00:18AD:7B61:FBDD:ACF1 ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Anand Chandrasekaran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a person non grata and should be removed because it is promoted by his PR agency from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalengineer ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Wiki page for him both describes him as the 'eldest son' and having taught his 'older brother' to play bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.248.136 ( talk) 15:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been changing Johnny Hallyday to say he's dead. This may be true, but no one has cited a source, and I can't find one. Update: found a BBC story [13]. Probably needs a "recent death" template and close watching in the next few days. He's not well known in the English speaking world but very popular among French speakers. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Jeffrey Tucker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article, under the subheading "Alleged role in Ron Paul newsletters" [14], presents some unspecific claims about the subject of the article, suggesting that he helped to produce newsletters that contained racially offensive material. The three sources cited for this accusation seem weak. The first presents hearsay; the second quotes from a comment box at a magazine website; the third cites anonymous sources. Should some or all of this material be removed? The same controversy is discussed more extensively at the article Ron Paul newsletters.-- Bistropha ( talk) 06:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am Gayla Drake, formerly Gayla Drake Paul, and I'd like to get my name corrected if possible. I can't seem to do it in the main title, though I have done some correcting and updating in the body. Can someone instruct me or do it for me? I would be happy to provide whatever documentation is needed, driver's license, divorce decree . . . My divorce became final in 2014 and I reverted to my maiden name.
Thank you. Gayla Drake — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaylaD ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This ostensible biography of Christopher Cerf has strong flavors of a coatrack, essayism, and soapboxing, even after a section titled "Controversies, Scandals, and Connections to Billionaires" was removed (see discussions on Talk page). Some very non:RS sources were removed, but some existing sources have a clear slant, and even reliable news articles seem to be cherry-picked to support a narrative. There are a lot of issues, including potential WP:SYN (see Cerf once talked about "beloved" teachers,[67] but some evidence suggests... and also Cerf claimed that state control of Newark Public Schools was legitimate, a political arrangement that was partly justified by claims that Newark had too much nepotism.[32] However, in Class Clowns, author Jonathan Knee wrote that Cerf hired his brother, Monty Cerf, when he ran Edison Schools.) Myself, jcc, and Alansohn, have been trying to help Bellshook understand concepts of WP:DUE and WP:BLPSTYLE, among others, but I think we all agree that additional eyes and editorial scrutiny is needed. --Animalparty! ( talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone with more experience look into the Marc Anthony Richardson article. See also the discussion on the Talk page of Stream of consciousness (narrative mode) [15]. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What EXACTLY do you need to resolve this issue, so that tag can be removed. What in this article needs verification? This is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaou ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Vladimir Peftiev ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
One of the editors of the article placed numerous pieces of possibly bias and detractive information, supported only by links to tabloid newspapers, some of which are not even written in English language. Statements of issue was marked by "unreliable source" template. One statement is exeptionally defamatory and was marked by "citation needed" template.
Due to the rules of living persons biography, those edits must be removed and editor's ability to edit pages must be limited, due to violation of mentioned rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.29.220 ( talk) 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This probably need some type of public evaluation, so I'm posting it here. Looks like today @ JimmyJoe87: created this category and then added about two dozen BLPs to it, with most likely varying degrees of applicability. Round about a half dozen were contested, and it's unclear how many of the uncontested additions have been thoroughly evaluated for accuracy. Needless to say, this is a contentious label and needs to be applied carefully re BLP.
Also pinging involved editors @ Objective3000: @ Galobtter: GMG talk 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Lacrim ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't speak French, but I enjoy French music. I was looking at Lacrim's Wikipedia page to see his discography, but I stumbled across its biography. It does not make a great deal of sense to me (which might be just because I am moderately incompetent), so it may need review in that respect. It says he was "pretty much homeless," kicked out of school, and, from what I understand, was in jail for four years. It does not have any sources, and the claim that he was in jail for four years may be interpreted as libelous.
I don't often edit Wikipedia, so I may be entirely wrong here. I just thought I would bring it to attention in case it is a problem.
HarryOtter ( talk) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of poorly sourced claims re-added, using what might be construed as non-neutral language. I am possibly barred from making any further edits there per ArbCom, - so would some person fix this trash? Collect ( talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Toeppen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
blp violations have been reintroduced to this page after a ~18 month hiatus, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.161.18 ( talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We have a BLP problem at Augustus Sol Invictus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). New accounts and an IP are edit-warring UNDUE, SYNTH allegations into the article. More eyes needed asap. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Alice Walton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I’d like to address the Automobile incidents portion of Alice Walton by bringing to your attention three points: 1) It details two car accidents that never resulted in charges, so I question their appropriateness in an encyclopedia; 2) The language used convicts Ms. Walton of a crime for which she was never charged nor convicted (and in fact, the arrest was expunged); and 3) It includes speculation.
For the sake of brevity here, more detail can be found at this edit request. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and I'm eager to get input from editors who are experienced in this area.
I will not direct edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 ( Talk · COI:Walton family) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Persistent mention of ethnicity in opening. I've asked that the user--whose primary interest here is to add Kurdish identification to biographical ledes--be blocked. And I don't want to edit war over this. Page protection is probably necessary, as it has been in the past. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Persistent addition of trade reports, before official confirmation. The article is already protected, so more eyes are needed here. JNW ( talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
C. Christine Fair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs more watchers, someone keeps trying to add some rather contentious/silly stuff based (I think?) on a comment she made on facebook. Can't be sourced to a RS and quite unencyclopedic. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Adnan Gabeljić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Rolejaran ( talk · contribs) who claims to be the subject of this article has tried nominaing it for deletion twice [16], and [17]. The nominations are both malformed and I directed him to this board but seems he doesn't understand. In the latest AfDing attempt he he made this claim, so I think this should be brought here for OTRS verification of his identity and appropriate next action. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Rick Tocchet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would like eyes on the weight attached to Rick Tocchet's 2007 conviction for involvement in a gambling ring - lengthy section on charges that led to probation, and an IP has added a mention of it to the lead, which seems additionally undue. Echoedmyron ( talk) 21:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This article seems not objective, since it presents a person as a researcher, despite the fact that this person as no research formation (no PhD) no rresearch position and there is no material from this researcher published on peer review journals or similar, so no approval at all from the scientific community. There is only one book with comments as "The book "Physics in 5 Dimensions" describes in detail an objective view of physics." or " Compared to classical physics, "Physics in 5 Dimensions" is a physically objective and significantly more unified theory of physics and the extensive results make a good case for replacing the "Big Bang Theory" with the "Theory of Physics in 5 dimensions" as the model of the development of the universe." while there is absolutely no objective proofs of those assessment. In fact, this article looks more like a kind of advertisement of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.155 ( talk) 01:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I created an RfC a while ago and am putting it also here, in the hope that I may get your thoughts.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Copywriter12/sandbox/Perry_Marshall
I have NCOI status, relating to a friend whose BLP has been flagged. The editor who flagged it listed a bunch of issues, which I addressed point-by-point in a sandbox version (so I don't violate NCOI rules). That editor is now not responding to repeated requests over months to view the modifications, so we're stuck in limbo. I would very much appreciate your thoughts about this RfC. Thanks. Copywriter12 ( talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Jennell Jaquays ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors are repeatedly deadnaming the subject of the article in the lede, and including unsourced claims about her birth name. The article already contains more than adequate information to identify her as the author of works written under her previous name, including an article redirect for that name. Pawsplay ( talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the subject of this article does object to the deadnaming in the lede and mentioned it recently on Facebook. In any case, BLP quite clearly says that information must be clearly sourced, and there is no source given for the subject's birth name. Further, while public information can be used, BLP is also quite clear that editors should not go mining and otherwise engage in original research to publish biographic information that is not widely published. Edit-warring implies some kind of contention about the content of the article. There is already a consensus that unsourced information cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how the concept of compromise applies to simply inserting assertions into an article because, first of all, you don't respect the privacy of a living person, and second of all, you don't care if the information is true. I don't know for a fact what her birth name was, and if you do, I'm asking you to show your sources. I feel like there is some kind of agenda here, like some people feel it's very important to deadname this individual, to the extent they are completely willing to ignore Wikipedia's fundamental commitment to sourcing information. This is ridiculous. Further, someone keeps removing the listed previous name from Works, which I can only describe as vandalism. While I don't have a crystal ball, it seems difficult not to infer that the usefulness of the article is being deliberately compromised in order to bolster the case for deadnaming the subject in the lede and in Early Life. I have been completely transparent about the process here, and active both on this page and on the article's talk page. If anyone should be sanctioned for edit-warring, it should be the editors who continue to restore unsourced statements about a living person to the article. Pawsplay ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
: The page has now been protected by an admin, and the present version includes mentions of birth name that do not meet WP:V. Pawsplay ( talk) 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
An admin removed the name "Paul" entirely from the article, and asked us to discuss the suitability of the following references in establishing the birth name of the subject.
Those sources, both written by (or at least attributed to) the subject of this article, claim many of the same things as each other, and therefore from my reading they appear to establish that "Paul Jaquays" and "Jennell Jaquays" are at least the same person. On the other hand, the admin removed the name Paul from the body of the article entirely, so unless we can accept that these two links establish them as the same person, how can we know that they actually are the same person? If we can't establish that Jennell used to be Paul, then we should remove everything from the article that can only be attributed to Paul, which is nearly everything in the article.
If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is? Do we need a birth certificate? Should we remove the birth name from all BLP articles that have not somehow established that through a reliable source? Should we not assume that the name a person has gone from my their childhood into their adulthood is not a name they were born with? Does a subject have to prove one way or another that the name they use is their actual name? Does the subject of this article actually dispute that her parents chose the name "Paul" for her when she was born? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Jessa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I do not believe that this auto-biographical article should be included on wikipedia at all since it does not meet the standard of "notable person" This person has not won a widely recognized award in their field. The article does not even include the last name of this person which is confusing. This person is also under age 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.144.16 ( talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since its creation, virtually all of the article was written by a single author who has minimal other contributions. The article has referenciness, but I just found a known predatory journal in there. Can someone with the correct language and subject matter knowledge have a look at this please? Guy ( Help!) 10:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think a few more eyes (and opinions) would be useful at Naomi Oreskes. There is a short exchange at Talk:Naomi Oreskes that summarises the issue. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Falen supercar is a 2008 design that can be viewed on Google images, [Falen "Concept 17.1"]. No cars were produced as of 2017. In 2017, a sports writer called the designers' phone number and reported that one of the designers was upstairs in a bedroom, and that the woman who answered the phone was middle aged.
The deleted article had a link to a WayBack business webpage for the designers, who identified themselves as a "design consultancy".
This AfD page includes an uncited charge that the design consultancy was really a kid or kids who pranked sports writers in 2008 for the purpose of having a laugh. There are also repeated uncited claims of a hoax.
I have already made one BLP removal from this page. I have stated, "AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page." This was my last edit to the page before the AfD was closed, whereafter the statement was made, "I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense." What is the point of having a BLP policy if editors can call it nonsense with impunity? Unscintillating ( talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Asaad Al Eidani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All important references are in Arabic, and cannot verify key information. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Simon R. Taylor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Much of this article appears to be based on sources which are not credible, or do not appear to exist. Per BLP I think it should all be removed. On that basis, is the author notable? No mainstream media appears to have ever covered him. Given the history, this may be a (malicious) prank.
There is currently a request for comment open in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of a list of public figures who have been named in sexual harassment/sexual assault allegations in connection with the #MeToo campaign. There is a lack of consensus as to whether the list meets the BLP requirements, and also as to whether it is a result of WP:SYNTH. There is currently a limited diversity of views amongst editors on the article's talk page, so some other opinions would be appreciated. Kb.au ( talk) 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This site has been hacked and filled with defamatory and libelous material and removes large swathes of biography.
Mr Wolstencroft was involved in a Free Speech issue and controversy that attracted the ire of the New Left SJW and Antifa - who have created a slanderous profile.
Resort to pre October profile - after that it is often libelous. I know his true life and story and can create a balanced and fair portrait with fair links to controversies.
Wolstencroft's new film The Debt Collector is a bout a guy who FIGHTS and kills Nazis - not a guy who sympathizers with them - for just glaring one eg recently added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMasterson ( talk • contribs)
also known as Richard Masters"RichardMasterson"..hmmm Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
We now have administrators such User:Oshwah inserting libelous and unreferenced material here all while falsely declaring that his "ADDITION" is the removal of unreferenced material. Michael Ronson ( talk) 07:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Vince Siemer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyes are needed at this article. There have been repeated deletions of text and poor sourcing in any version. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that he's WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Can I get more eyes on this? This article has been plagued with single purpose accounts and socks who either add unsourced content, ( [1]) whitewash reliably sourced claims they don't like, ( [2], [3]) or swap out sources for self-published content like IMDB because the broadsheet source said something negative? ( [4]) It's like pushing a rock up a hill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I just began cleanup of this article for the Article Rescue Squadron ( ARS), and created its ARS rescue list entry. In the process of converting its references from bare URLs to full list-defined references, I found that all three of the English-language sources (I do not read Malayalam) refer to Nandini Nair, rather than Nandini Sree. I'm wondering if this article could be a hoax (or a confusion), attributing information about one individual to another individual. Alternatively, it could be a matter of two names for the same person, but so far I have been unable to verify that. If it is a hoax, probably the best solution would be to move the page to Nandini Nair, the person named in the sources, in a way that does not leave a redirect from Nandini Sree.
I first became aware of this article while doing proposed deletion patrolling, and I had never heard of either Nandini Sree or Nandini Nair before. If these two people are the same, I would really appreciate a link to a source explaining that; I have been unable to find any such.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Please look at [ [5]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Not a biography, but multiple non notable named people, and the whole thing is an attack page. probably a G10 candidate. but it might be possible to write an acceptable stub. I have no way of determining if the Chinese sources are suitable. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
We have an article on Siegfried Borchardt. He's a German neo-Nazi. The article started off as a translation from the German Wikipedia. The translation was rather literal and had German grammar constructs, so I've copy-edited it to try to make it read better in English. However, I'd appreciate more eyes on it, particularly from anyone who can read German and can check the current article against the original, or is familiar with the German political scene, as I won't have picked up on any factual inaccuracies as I don't speak German.
Also, I'm not sure whether he's actually notable enough for an article as seems to have only been involved in local politics, so views on this would be appreciated too! Neiltonks ( talk) 13:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The sources don’t seem to be major. Don’t read German so can’t know for sure. Suggest list for deletion 221.121.135.92 ( talk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Alex Da Corte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated vandalism to this page after multiple deletions. Page was granted temporary protection, I am making a request for extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housegoat18 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Renaming? There appears to be no demonstrated link to any science background or formal practice by this Edward Hammond (scientist) other than perhaps political science. However, either implies some form of academic or practical background for which this Hammond appears to have neither. According to Hammond's website he has a BA in History and Masters in Latin American Studies & Community Planning. He's an advocacy group researcher, so perhaps the "scientist" modifier should be changed to more accurately reflect this subject's actual background and expertise? Perhaps (activist) or (researcher)? AliceStanley11 ( talk) 21:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Emma Dean (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography has no semblance of a Neutral Point of View, and was written by the artist herself. Her own website is the source for many references throughout the article.
The tone of the writing standing also does not reflect a neutrality and is consistently overstating the artist's achievements. This is her uploaded CV and does not reflect the reality of her acclaim or success as a musician, as no musical work of hers has ever achieved a chart position, or won any significant award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music1019572 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Edward E. Kramer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
How do I request special supervision or lock this page from repeated serial vandalism? This rogue editor is not only making wrong assertions but poorly worded and offensively insulting assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Cornell_Fleischer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Okay. I have no plans on ever making a future revision to this specific living person's Wikipedia page, but another Wikipedia user has just accused me of being a paid shill. So I feel that I must post this information here, in order to continue the open dialogue that is a vital part of making Wikipedia work. I do not know the subject of the article nor do I have any affiliation with him whatsoever.
My sole reason for being concerned is that the incident in dispute at least partially involved a person's child. There was a conviction, according to a link of published and reliable sources later provided by this other Wikipedia user, but the subject of the article is not necessarily a fully public figure.
I did three reverts, two with one Wikipedia user and a third with a second user. I understand the rules and I will not be touching this article again.
The article subject is someone named
Cornell_Fleischer. I do not understand how to add a link to show the previous edits and because the circumstances may involve a person's child, I don't want to go posting information all over the place. Thank you.
My accuser is this Wikipedia user: User:Serefsiz102350 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
He posted a message here on my Talk Page: User_talk:Beauty_School_Dropout
Thank you.
Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 06:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Should I remove this post? Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you. I just wanted to inquire, and now will back off and I am completely serious that I won't attempt to edit or revert that page ever again, even if one day I end up becoming an admin myself. Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 06:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Julian Radcliffe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two main editors have been disputing over inclusion of what one called 'malicious content' on this individual. As the accounts involved have only edited in this individual and their organizations, this could be a case of an advocate of some cause vs a holder of a conflict of interest with the subject.
Though the content is sourced, most of those sources are blogs that are potentially biased. I originally agreed with removing the content, but a new article included from The Guardian on a recent edit has me thinking at least some of the content involved in this dispute should be kept. I would appreciate other outside views on this. LynxTufts ( talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Vladimir Plahotniuc ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following allegation or what our readers could perceive to be a politically motivated "legal analysis" has been challenged as a BLP violation, especially considering it strays off-topic about the pardon itself and attacks the BLP. It was removed from the article twice. The editor who is now edit warring to keep it in, Softlavender, said in her edit summary that the article is not a BLP, seemingly to justify the BLP vio. Pardon of Joe Arpaio is already a highly volatile article that was relentlessly targeted by a persistent sock farmer and keeping it free of BLP vios has not been an easy road to hoe. Input, please? Atsme 📞 📧 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Masem, thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm of the mind that in addition to WP:BLPSOURCE, there is WP:REDFLAG which also applies in this case. The value-laden labels are defamatory and usupported. Racial profiling is much different from being a racist, especially when one's grandchildren are of the race a BLP is being accused of being racist toward. Atsme 📞 📧 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It is unambiguously clear to me that the verbal attack against Arpaio by Chafetz who described him as a "xenophobe and racist" in a POV piece is a BLP vio, and I am dismayed that some of our veteran editors are not seeing it. Continuing along the same lines as what Masem described above as "coatracking attacks on Arpaio", I have listed the applicable policies I believe are unambiguous with regards to that quote:
One last point, the unsupported Chafetz allegation is contradicted by factual information about Arpaio, who is the son of immigrants, has been referred to as "a doting grandfather" of 4 children adopted by his daughter, each of different ethnicities, and his son's wife being Latino. I think strong political views too often create NPOV issues that may make editors less sensitive to BLP policy which unambiguously states: material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. Atsme 📞 📧 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Atsme: It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The material – as it's written – appears to be a BLP violation per WP:BLPSOURCES. The source, as an opinion piece, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, which means that it's a questionable source and hence not a suitable source for contentious claims about living persons. If the material is truly noteworthy, it should be easy to find a reliable source for the material. Politrukki ( talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I won't even try to figure out how you came to such a conclusion. Provide the diff where I said what you're claiming I said. If you want to know my contention, start with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, NPOV, BLP and WP:RS. This has already been discussed, so scroll-up ⬆⬆⬆ - read the discussion - and have a good day! Atsme 📞 📧 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Rick Derringer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not sure what is going on with this potentially libelous addition. EW regarding this Source is apparently in Italian. Jim1138 ( talk) 03:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Which version below best meets WP policies based on the refs given? We are having an NPOV vs BLP dispute
1) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views [1] and for cyberbullying a professor at National University of Singapore whose viewpoint he disagreed with. [2]
2) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views [1] and comments against viewpoints he disagreed with. [2] [3]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 07:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC) (amended per suggestion away down below Jytdog ( talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC))
-- Jane Dawson ( talk) 10:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
But with their silence, the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?". -- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 11:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It was earlier reported that MLC council member and former NMP, Calvin Cheng, had seemingly threatened and insulted an NUS prof, Dr Ian Chong, on Facebook .-- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 11:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
... I've added the proposed changes. There are other personal comments he has made on Facebook that has attracted flak, but unfortunately I can't add any para-phrases due to Singapore law (they come from non-establishment sources) .....
Neither version really complies with the spirit of WP:BLP. We do not need to use more words than are really useful for our readers:
covers the territory clearly, and can save a couple of paragraphs. And we do not need to expound on every "controversy" in detail either. Gosh, a short couple of sentences would be a lot more useful than the mishmash on the BLP currently. The BLP now is too long by half, with every "appointment" the person has ever had listed as though it were of international importance. Collect ( talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Jytdog, I commend you for your efforts since you are really bending over backwards to get the "truth" out there in a relatively NPOV way, but is it really necessary? Are these "cyberbullying" incidents among the things the subject is mostly notable for? Couldn't it be explained in terms not as less flattering as "cyberbullying"? Why such fierce opposition to not just use more laid back casual language? Huggums537 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
...“I am sure there are others who have the same view but to articulate them so publicly and in uncivil language, especially when he is a member of an organisation whose duty it is to advocate proper conduct in the online space should not be condoned.”...In many ways, Cheng is like this modern-day child who wants to see how far he can push the borders of decency.
It’s classic Cheng really — who’s been known to make annoyingly contentious comments in the past — but it’s made worse due to the fact that he’s a member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC)... They’re against uncivil behaviours online, which seems like what Cheng is practising...
..In a Facebook post on 25 November, Mr Cheng charged that Ms Kirsten Han, who is a freelance journalist and who is also a member of the TOC editorial team, was a “treacherous journalist” who “galvanised” a “hate campaign” against him...Mr Cheng also charged the “editors” of TOC, along with Ms Han, for being “traitorous”...In his response, Mr Tan wrote:...in no way do I think that TOC has engaged in ‘traitorous’ acts.”...
Mr Loh pointed out that Mr Cheng’s recalcitrant behaviour was neither a new phenomenon nor a recent one. “If you were to follow his online postings, you would find that he has displayed such behaviour over a period of time,” Mr Loh wrote. “Indeed, even in his postings which have led to this current controversy, his words and the manner in which he "engages" others are abhorrent. “They plainly and clearly go against all that the MLC stands for.”
...Mr Tan has had to counsel Mr Cheng earlier this year when the latter made a Facebook posting alleging that playwright Alfian Sa’at was engaging in “irresponsible rhetoric, which allege racial discrimination against our Malay-Muslim brethren.”...Mr Cheng's attack on Mr Sa'at was roundly criticised online, come as it did at a time when Mr Sa'at was grieving the death of his mother...Mr Tan told TOC:...I told Mr Cheng that I do not agree with the manner in which he did so."...Mr Cheng has also ridiculed and belittled others who have disagreed with him, calling them “fools” and “idiots”. Under the MLC’s core values, which are stated on its website here, the council says: “[Uncivil behaviours online]...
Calvin Cheng called Dr Chong a “second rate academic who had too much time on his hands”. He also threatened the prof, saying that unlike him, Dr Chong has a boss and can get fired for engaging in internet activities. He went on to suggest that MOE and the public should make ‘enquiries’ about this prof. He taunted the prof, telling him he is “concerned” for the prof and that the “economy is bad”....MLC discourages uncivil online behaviours...One of its aims is to discourage online behaviours that are anti-social, offensive, irresponsible or simply mean...Yet, MLC member Calvin Cheng appears to be doing exactly what MLC itself discourages.
...the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?
Kumaran Pillai who runs The Independent was the former editor of The Online Citizen TOC. The current editor of The Independent Ravi Philemon is also a former editor of TOC. PN Balji who wrote that article in Yahoo is a co-founder of The Independent. Essentially its the same small group of bloggers who are writing for these sites.
And that ‘license’ means nothing. All websites that comments on sociopolitical issues in Singapore with 50,000 unique visitors a month have to put up a bond to be ‘licensed’. This does not make them news organisations.
Finally, the TOC is doubly not a news license. The Government gazette it as a political association. It is also a one-man-show now.
See here: http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/the-online-citizen-now-a-one-man-show
The Online Citizen has also had to apologise for making false posts against the authorities and the establishment , most recently here :
And here:
The Independent has also been caught out for publishing fake news several times:
An independent survey by Blackbox Research showed that 43% of Singaporeans thought that TOC published fake news, 41% thought that of The Independent, and 44% Mothership.
In contrast, only 13% thought the same of The Straits Times, and 15% TODAY. Both mainstream news organisations.
See here:
http://www.blackbox.com.sg/fake-news-also-growing-worry-singapore/. 124.6.143.131 ( talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
References
This isn't a BLP issue per se, but I'm not sure where else to post it. Could one or two experienced editors please weigh in at this discussion about the "Glossary of relevant individuals" at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as I think it borders on inadvertent mudslinging of sorts. Thanks. nagual design 04:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Michel Chossudovsky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fellow editors, Is this source [11] sufficient for inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence; per this edit? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Your argument is undermined to the extent that it's incorrect to say this is a new development, pertaining only to alt-right dudes. (Anyway, is Chossudovsky alt-right? Not that I'm aware of...) I doubt you'll be persuaded by other examples, but: David Irving. Surely you don't see a problem in that first sentence... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
James McEnteer, in the highlighted excerpt from Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries, appears to suggest that Michel Chossudovsky's view is correct. The term conspiracy theory implies falsity. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dotyacd (
talk •
contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is transparently biased even if its one-sided assertions are supported by equally biased though conventionally accepted sources. In fact, as evident from some of the very material presented in the article, Michel Chossudovsky is an accomplished member of the academy who has dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge which is suppressed in the academy. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dotyacd (
talk •
contribs)
22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
J. Roberto Trujillo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Advertising and unverifiable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.181.253 ( talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017
I know that, per WP:BLPSPS, this would never be acceptable for citation in the George Lucas article for the claim that Lucas unsuccessfully sued the producers of a TV commercial for unauthorized use of the name "Star Wars", but the self-publishing producer in question is generally reputable (he could definitely be cited for non-controversial content in non-BLP contexts) and is probably "right" in this assertion.
I considered posting on the talk page asking if people had seen this in citable sources making the same assertion, since it really seems like the kind of thing that should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but it then occurred to me that since BLP applies to talk pages, maybe posting on the talk page to request sources for something one had heard in a source (which per the specific requirements of BLP policy was itself unacceptable) would be a violation.
Am I right in this interpretation?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please check my new creation Elizabeth Rata please? This is a person who has taken a strong position on race relations in New Zealand and there many sources saying or implying that she's a racist. I've picked a single one, by another notable academic at the same university, and quoted an entire sentence to preserve context. Is this appropriate? (I wouldn't have written the article, but I made a foolish commitment to write articles on every female New Zealand professor, so I'm stuck with it.) Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Could I get someone to have a look at Nursing Council of New Zealand please? It's horrid but I would might be perceived as a conflict of interest so I can't purge it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Why did the discussion about Mikhail Blagosklonny on the BLP noticeboard get archived without consensus ?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive261#Mikhail_Blagosklonny
On the BLP page:
(cur | prev) 13:40, 20 November 2017 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052) . . (Undid revision 811238984 by MakinaterJones (talk) Quite obvious edit warring from the IP. Please take it to talk. Thanks) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:45, 20 November 2017 MakinaterJones (talk | contribs) m . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052) . . (This is an unacceptable and prima facia reckless addition to a BLP page - do not revert this without finding consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will be removing beall from wiki and nominating his page for deletion) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:08, 20 November 2017 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052) . . (Undid revision 811167632 by 63.139.102.133 (talk) removal of sourced content) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:13, 19 November 2017 63.139.102.133 (talk) . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052) . . (Removed reckless off wiki dispute/gossip - misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
This content is contested - it should be removed from the BLP page while in discussion...I did not bring it to talk because there was already an issue created here.
I asked that it not be restored till we reached consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will not revert myself - but I encourage an admin to do so - or even strip to basic version while we consider if this is RS for BLP
Can someone help me get an RFC?
MakinaterJones ( talk) 21:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Also in discussion on the BLP talk page[ [12]]
MakinaterJones ( talk) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Raymond Hunthausen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under the sections "Episcopal Career" and Church Investigation" there are newer insertions that seem ideologically driven rather than objective. The tone and content of this article are at considerable variance from previous versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.164.62 ( talk) 02:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Controversial figure as an advice columnist and author, with a history of edits by those who have bones to pick, as well as protective contributions by family members and associates of the subject. Could use clean-up re: legal history, as well as watchlisting and long term attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Your site says Iain Lee lives in slough Buckinghamshire. Slough is in Berkshire - has been since the boundary changes of 1996 when places like Milton Keynes left bucks to become a unitary authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:26C0:9F00:18AD:7B61:FBDD:ACF1 ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Anand Chandrasekaran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a person non grata and should be removed because it is promoted by his PR agency from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalengineer ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Wiki page for him both describes him as the 'eldest son' and having taught his 'older brother' to play bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.248.136 ( talk) 15:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been changing Johnny Hallyday to say he's dead. This may be true, but no one has cited a source, and I can't find one. Update: found a BBC story [13]. Probably needs a "recent death" template and close watching in the next few days. He's not well known in the English speaking world but very popular among French speakers. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Jeffrey Tucker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article, under the subheading "Alleged role in Ron Paul newsletters" [14], presents some unspecific claims about the subject of the article, suggesting that he helped to produce newsletters that contained racially offensive material. The three sources cited for this accusation seem weak. The first presents hearsay; the second quotes from a comment box at a magazine website; the third cites anonymous sources. Should some or all of this material be removed? The same controversy is discussed more extensively at the article Ron Paul newsletters.-- Bistropha ( talk) 06:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am Gayla Drake, formerly Gayla Drake Paul, and I'd like to get my name corrected if possible. I can't seem to do it in the main title, though I have done some correcting and updating in the body. Can someone instruct me or do it for me? I would be happy to provide whatever documentation is needed, driver's license, divorce decree . . . My divorce became final in 2014 and I reverted to my maiden name.
Thank you. Gayla Drake — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaylaD ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This ostensible biography of Christopher Cerf has strong flavors of a coatrack, essayism, and soapboxing, even after a section titled "Controversies, Scandals, and Connections to Billionaires" was removed (see discussions on Talk page). Some very non:RS sources were removed, but some existing sources have a clear slant, and even reliable news articles seem to be cherry-picked to support a narrative. There are a lot of issues, including potential WP:SYN (see Cerf once talked about "beloved" teachers,[67] but some evidence suggests... and also Cerf claimed that state control of Newark Public Schools was legitimate, a political arrangement that was partly justified by claims that Newark had too much nepotism.[32] However, in Class Clowns, author Jonathan Knee wrote that Cerf hired his brother, Monty Cerf, when he ran Edison Schools.) Myself, jcc, and Alansohn, have been trying to help Bellshook understand concepts of WP:DUE and WP:BLPSTYLE, among others, but I think we all agree that additional eyes and editorial scrutiny is needed. --Animalparty! ( talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone with more experience look into the Marc Anthony Richardson article. See also the discussion on the Talk page of Stream of consciousness (narrative mode) [15]. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What EXACTLY do you need to resolve this issue, so that tag can be removed. What in this article needs verification? This is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaou ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Vladimir Peftiev ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
One of the editors of the article placed numerous pieces of possibly bias and detractive information, supported only by links to tabloid newspapers, some of which are not even written in English language. Statements of issue was marked by "unreliable source" template. One statement is exeptionally defamatory and was marked by "citation needed" template.
Due to the rules of living persons biography, those edits must be removed and editor's ability to edit pages must be limited, due to violation of mentioned rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.29.220 ( talk) 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This probably need some type of public evaluation, so I'm posting it here. Looks like today @ JimmyJoe87: created this category and then added about two dozen BLPs to it, with most likely varying degrees of applicability. Round about a half dozen were contested, and it's unclear how many of the uncontested additions have been thoroughly evaluated for accuracy. Needless to say, this is a contentious label and needs to be applied carefully re BLP.
Also pinging involved editors @ Objective3000: @ Galobtter: GMG talk 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Lacrim ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't speak French, but I enjoy French music. I was looking at Lacrim's Wikipedia page to see his discography, but I stumbled across its biography. It does not make a great deal of sense to me (which might be just because I am moderately incompetent), so it may need review in that respect. It says he was "pretty much homeless," kicked out of school, and, from what I understand, was in jail for four years. It does not have any sources, and the claim that he was in jail for four years may be interpreted as libelous.
I don't often edit Wikipedia, so I may be entirely wrong here. I just thought I would bring it to attention in case it is a problem.
HarryOtter ( talk) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of poorly sourced claims re-added, using what might be construed as non-neutral language. I am possibly barred from making any further edits there per ArbCom, - so would some person fix this trash? Collect ( talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Toeppen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
blp violations have been reintroduced to this page after a ~18 month hiatus, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.161.18 ( talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We have a BLP problem at Augustus Sol Invictus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). New accounts and an IP are edit-warring UNDUE, SYNTH allegations into the article. More eyes needed asap. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Alice Walton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I’d like to address the Automobile incidents portion of Alice Walton by bringing to your attention three points: 1) It details two car accidents that never resulted in charges, so I question their appropriateness in an encyclopedia; 2) The language used convicts Ms. Walton of a crime for which she was never charged nor convicted (and in fact, the arrest was expunged); and 3) It includes speculation.
For the sake of brevity here, more detail can be found at this edit request. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and I'm eager to get input from editors who are experienced in this area.
I will not direct edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 ( Talk · COI:Walton family) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Persistent mention of ethnicity in opening. I've asked that the user--whose primary interest here is to add Kurdish identification to biographical ledes--be blocked. And I don't want to edit war over this. Page protection is probably necessary, as it has been in the past. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Persistent addition of trade reports, before official confirmation. The article is already protected, so more eyes are needed here. JNW ( talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
C. Christine Fair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs more watchers, someone keeps trying to add some rather contentious/silly stuff based (I think?) on a comment she made on facebook. Can't be sourced to a RS and quite unencyclopedic. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Adnan Gabeljić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Rolejaran ( talk · contribs) who claims to be the subject of this article has tried nominaing it for deletion twice [16], and [17]. The nominations are both malformed and I directed him to this board but seems he doesn't understand. In the latest AfDing attempt he he made this claim, so I think this should be brought here for OTRS verification of his identity and appropriate next action. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Rick Tocchet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would like eyes on the weight attached to Rick Tocchet's 2007 conviction for involvement in a gambling ring - lengthy section on charges that led to probation, and an IP has added a mention of it to the lead, which seems additionally undue. Echoedmyron ( talk) 21:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This article seems not objective, since it presents a person as a researcher, despite the fact that this person as no research formation (no PhD) no rresearch position and there is no material from this researcher published on peer review journals or similar, so no approval at all from the scientific community. There is only one book with comments as "The book "Physics in 5 Dimensions" describes in detail an objective view of physics." or " Compared to classical physics, "Physics in 5 Dimensions" is a physically objective and significantly more unified theory of physics and the extensive results make a good case for replacing the "Big Bang Theory" with the "Theory of Physics in 5 dimensions" as the model of the development of the universe." while there is absolutely no objective proofs of those assessment. In fact, this article looks more like a kind of advertisement of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.155 ( talk) 01:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I created an RfC a while ago and am putting it also here, in the hope that I may get your thoughts.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Copywriter12/sandbox/Perry_Marshall
I have NCOI status, relating to a friend whose BLP has been flagged. The editor who flagged it listed a bunch of issues, which I addressed point-by-point in a sandbox version (so I don't violate NCOI rules). That editor is now not responding to repeated requests over months to view the modifications, so we're stuck in limbo. I would very much appreciate your thoughts about this RfC. Thanks. Copywriter12 ( talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Jennell Jaquays ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors are repeatedly deadnaming the subject of the article in the lede, and including unsourced claims about her birth name. The article already contains more than adequate information to identify her as the author of works written under her previous name, including an article redirect for that name. Pawsplay ( talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the subject of this article does object to the deadnaming in the lede and mentioned it recently on Facebook. In any case, BLP quite clearly says that information must be clearly sourced, and there is no source given for the subject's birth name. Further, while public information can be used, BLP is also quite clear that editors should not go mining and otherwise engage in original research to publish biographic information that is not widely published. Edit-warring implies some kind of contention about the content of the article. There is already a consensus that unsourced information cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how the concept of compromise applies to simply inserting assertions into an article because, first of all, you don't respect the privacy of a living person, and second of all, you don't care if the information is true. I don't know for a fact what her birth name was, and if you do, I'm asking you to show your sources. I feel like there is some kind of agenda here, like some people feel it's very important to deadname this individual, to the extent they are completely willing to ignore Wikipedia's fundamental commitment to sourcing information. This is ridiculous. Further, someone keeps removing the listed previous name from Works, which I can only describe as vandalism. While I don't have a crystal ball, it seems difficult not to infer that the usefulness of the article is being deliberately compromised in order to bolster the case for deadnaming the subject in the lede and in Early Life. I have been completely transparent about the process here, and active both on this page and on the article's talk page. If anyone should be sanctioned for edit-warring, it should be the editors who continue to restore unsourced statements about a living person to the article. Pawsplay ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
: The page has now been protected by an admin, and the present version includes mentions of birth name that do not meet WP:V. Pawsplay ( talk) 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
An admin removed the name "Paul" entirely from the article, and asked us to discuss the suitability of the following references in establishing the birth name of the subject.
Those sources, both written by (or at least attributed to) the subject of this article, claim many of the same things as each other, and therefore from my reading they appear to establish that "Paul Jaquays" and "Jennell Jaquays" are at least the same person. On the other hand, the admin removed the name Paul from the body of the article entirely, so unless we can accept that these two links establish them as the same person, how can we know that they actually are the same person? If we can't establish that Jennell used to be Paul, then we should remove everything from the article that can only be attributed to Paul, which is nearly everything in the article.
If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is? Do we need a birth certificate? Should we remove the birth name from all BLP articles that have not somehow established that through a reliable source? Should we not assume that the name a person has gone from my their childhood into their adulthood is not a name they were born with? Does a subject have to prove one way or another that the name they use is their actual name? Does the subject of this article actually dispute that her parents chose the name "Paul" for her when she was born? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Jessa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I do not believe that this auto-biographical article should be included on wikipedia at all since it does not meet the standard of "notable person" This person has not won a widely recognized award in their field. The article does not even include the last name of this person which is confusing. This person is also under age 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.144.16 ( talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since its creation, virtually all of the article was written by a single author who has minimal other contributions. The article has referenciness, but I just found a known predatory journal in there. Can someone with the correct language and subject matter knowledge have a look at this please? Guy ( Help!) 10:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think a few more eyes (and opinions) would be useful at Naomi Oreskes. There is a short exchange at Talk:Naomi Oreskes that summarises the issue. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Falen supercar is a 2008 design that can be viewed on Google images, [Falen "Concept 17.1"]. No cars were produced as of 2017. In 2017, a sports writer called the designers' phone number and reported that one of the designers was upstairs in a bedroom, and that the woman who answered the phone was middle aged.
The deleted article had a link to a WayBack business webpage for the designers, who identified themselves as a "design consultancy".
This AfD page includes an uncited charge that the design consultancy was really a kid or kids who pranked sports writers in 2008 for the purpose of having a laugh. There are also repeated uncited claims of a hoax.
I have already made one BLP removal from this page. I have stated, "AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page." This was my last edit to the page before the AfD was closed, whereafter the statement was made, "I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense." What is the point of having a BLP policy if editors can call it nonsense with impunity? Unscintillating ( talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Asaad Al Eidani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All important references are in Arabic, and cannot verify key information. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Simon R. Taylor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Much of this article appears to be based on sources which are not credible, or do not appear to exist. Per BLP I think it should all be removed. On that basis, is the author notable? No mainstream media appears to have ever covered him. Given the history, this may be a (malicious) prank.
There is currently a request for comment open in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of a list of public figures who have been named in sexual harassment/sexual assault allegations in connection with the #MeToo campaign. There is a lack of consensus as to whether the list meets the BLP requirements, and also as to whether it is a result of WP:SYNTH. There is currently a limited diversity of views amongst editors on the article's talk page, so some other opinions would be appreciated. Kb.au ( talk) 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This site has been hacked and filled with defamatory and libelous material and removes large swathes of biography.
Mr Wolstencroft was involved in a Free Speech issue and controversy that attracted the ire of the New Left SJW and Antifa - who have created a slanderous profile.
Resort to pre October profile - after that it is often libelous. I know his true life and story and can create a balanced and fair portrait with fair links to controversies.
Wolstencroft's new film The Debt Collector is a bout a guy who FIGHTS and kills Nazis - not a guy who sympathizers with them - for just glaring one eg recently added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMasterson ( talk • contribs)
also known as Richard Masters"RichardMasterson"..hmmm Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
We now have administrators such User:Oshwah inserting libelous and unreferenced material here all while falsely declaring that his "ADDITION" is the removal of unreferenced material. Michael Ronson ( talk) 07:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)