![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
She's a child model, and her height gets changed somewhat frequently but there doesn't seem to be any sources whatsoever being used. The height itself isn't even consistent: [1] changed from 6ft6inches to 5ft3inches, [2] back to 6ft6inhes, [3] to 5ft4inches, [4] to 5ft6inches. I noticed this, removed the height, and started a talk page discussion about it yesterday. However, no one's commented and the height was changed yet again [5], this time to 5ft6inches. I tried looking for a reliable source that verified her height, but couldn't. She's 13, so she's likely still growing anyways. If her height can't be verified as correct information, I don't think it should remain in the article. Am I doing the right thing right now? I think I've been doing what I should in a situation like this, but I don't really have much experience with situations like this. Clovermoss ( talk) 14:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently some opinions columns have been published questioning Aboriginal author Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality. Pascoe identifies as Aboriginal. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Pascoe as Aboriginal, including the ABC, SBS, The Guardian, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald etc.
The columns have been run in two News Corp mastheads: The Herald Sun and The Australian, both reliable sources, but their opinions columns are famous for their strident bias. The main voice in the debate is Andrew Bolt. Bolt has been convicted and successfully sued over near identical claims made in this column (Bolt has been sued a number of times in the past after publishing defamatory falsehoods). In this context these mastheads are not independent reliable sources, they are "culture warriors".
The other voice is essentially yellow journalism a generally unreliable source - Quadrant.
The three publishers of the claims are the main protagonists in the Australian " culture wars". The source of the information is a total hatchet job, someone who obviously fixates on Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality to an unhealthy and wildly disproportionate extent. It's a blog, little more than an attack page: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/
The only reliable voice published on the debate so far is the The Saturday Paper and they tear the claims to shreds here: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/media/2019/11/30/bolt-pascoe-and-the-culture-wars/15750324009163
Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page. I believe this would violate a number of guidelines, namely: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL.
Undue because only a handful of columnists, who clearly have a strident bias and also have a history of attacking fair skinned Aboriginal people, have made the claim. Why haven't other mastheads reported the claims? That gets to the next point and why we shouldn't publish them either - other mastheads haven't gone near it because they may well end up in court: Libel - because the main voice in this debate has been convicted and sued for near identical claims in the past. These claims may well end up in court under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
With this taken into account I do not believe such claims should be published in a BLP unless they are more widely reported in independent reliable sources.
Thanks in advance. Bacondrum ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page.I feel misrepresented by Bacondrum statement. Most of the editors referred to have not said we want to say "Pascoe is not Aboriginal", we want to say something akin to "Some commentators have questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry." The statement would be referenced to one of Bolt's articles and Dark Emu Exposed or perhaps just to the Inside Story article mentioned above. Some of the comments about Andrew Bolt on talk:Bruce Pascoe have gone very close to breaching WP:BLP about Bolt. -- Scott Davis Talk 06:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment The top of this page says For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead
. There are currently two open RFCs on
talk:Bruce Pascoe on related topics of this report. The second RFC was raised by the same person as this report. Neither has been closed yet. The first four sentences of this notice are not in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is how much weight should be given to "right wing" sources, and how the content of those sources should be used in the article. --
Scott Davis
Talk 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
BLP subject complains on talk page of unfairness. Has not been given due consideration by Canadian Wikipedia editors who have locked the page down after stripping it of most of the information, refuse to listen to him claim cited article has error that he complained of at the time -- the accusation that he had a conflict of interest as a journalist when, as the timeline clearly shows, he had earned his PhD, was teaching and writing books. Appears to be spite and retribution for Bourrie's Wikipedia edits of some 10 years ago. Square Offset ( talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's stick to the BLP issues raised, please. Square Offset ( talk) 00:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, someone told me this was a BLP issues page. Silly me to believe them. Someone also said Wikipedia has a BLP policy that's supposed to be taken very seriously. Again. my complaint is that the subject of the article is insistent that he wasn't a journalist when he did the Duffy edits and other work/favors/whatever for Duffy, and the timeline shows he's right: he taught full time at Concordia in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years (see Rate My Professor) got his PhD in 2009, according to the University of Ottawa alumni page cited in the article, did three books (2012, 2013 and early 2015) and went to law school in September 2014. The Christopher Waddell comment seems to be a dial-a-quote from the go-to journalism prof in Ottawa, who was fed information by David Akin, and then spit out a quote. Waddell as dial-a-quote: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ACYBGNTWkV_yWBbepnDOHROgKC5MnyNmXQ%3A1577113726113&ei=ftgAXqLCBpirtQafzaRQ&q=christopher+waddell+journalism&oq=christopher+waddell+journalism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10760.13819.0.14130.11.11.0.0.0.0.347.932.1j2j1j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.-GCJyqaF90I) Bourrie's objection, also published by Canadaland (here https://www.canadalandshow.com/canadaland-strong-armed-me-writing/)(we can get into that site's lack of credibility later), is not mentioned. I think Bourrie has a point: anything that gives depth to the article has been trimmed out, while anything negative has been fiercely protected. For instance, the anonymous editors who guard the page could try to keep it current by doing the odd Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie+bush+runner&sxsrf=ACYBGNSvUNkx7zrtEd5fZ8tFBwc8u_Lauw:1577113436043&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjksICxhczmAhWoVN8KHUGOBHMQ_AUoAnoECBUQBA&biw=1366&bih=625. As for who I am, there may be a happy day when everyone writes on Wikipedia under their own name, so that we may be able to easily see their conflicts of interest, and they may take responsibility for their work. That day has not yet arrived. Square Offset ( talk) 12:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Cherry-picking for straw man arguments is a waste of yours and my time, so let's not do it. You could try to make a case for leaving the article as-is by reading the links. The article by Bourrie is from the same site that Wikipedia uses to trash him. Wikipedia has a rep as an organization in which intransigent, anonymous white men stake out positions and guard them in power plays and drive everyone else away. It's easy to be an arrogant bully behind a fake name. It's also easy to trash the name of a real person without responsibility. And the BLP guide suggest people who feel Wikipedia has given them a bum deal should come here, so COI is also a worthless argument here -- whether a CO exists or not. You try to make the argument "we can libel Mark Bourrie because you might be Mark Bourrie." It's not much of a case you're making. Square Offset ( talk) 16:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a COI. But even if I did, this is the place to complain about BLP violations. Now, do you have a COI? Do any of the other anonymous "editors"? No one will address my actual complaint. Complaints about Wikipedia being an insider social club ring true when all the responses are about the person and nothing is about the content. Square Offset ( talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing that. The timeline, in fact, shows otherwise, and none of this "journalism" seems to be linked to by anyone. I tried to find some, and all that turned up was excerpts from his books, and absolutely nothing about Canadian federal politics or about Duffy (outside his book Kill the Messengers: Stephen Harper's Assault on Your Right to Know, which he discussed in the piece published by -- wait for it -- Canadaland). The Wikipedia page strongly implies, through a quote from someone who did no investigation but is held out as authoritative, he had a journalistic conflict of interest, covering Duffy and Canadian politics, while working for Duffy. I can't find evidence of that. Where is the journalism? Some links please. Timeline very strongly suggests he was writing three books and teaching during the time he did the Duffy edits. Square Offset ( talk) 15:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's "original research" to do a Google search (Merk Bourrie in Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie&sxsrf=ACYBGNQmDDLqk5u6DARL57YgTTOjy9l2Yw:1577211335138&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhPeK8s7mAhWDVN8KHTlnBqYQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1366&bih=625) to see if the subject of the piece is right when he complains on that talk page. There's an inherent human dignity question here: does Wikipedia actually care about truth and reputations? Or does it use weaseling to get out of responsibility and accountability, just as it allows editing and administering behind fake names? Does anyone care about getting it right, or is it just about exercising social power in Wikipedia cliques? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Square Offset ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment on sockpuppetry: I went through the article and didn't find any BLP violations. Almost all of the material is properly sourced and supported, and the few unsourced non-contentious statements are tagged inline. This looks like a complaint from the same person operating accounts such as Sportsman360, who left a nearly identical complaint on the article's talk page in September [8] and was subsequently banned for being a sockpuppet of Spoonkymonkey, who was banned by Arbcom and may be related to the sockpuppets of Mark Bourrie. All the accounts have the same argumentative style, and they also focus on people like Christopher Waddell for making "libelous" statements. Based on the article's talk page, editor Nfitz looks to have more knowledge about the sockpuppetry there (which seems to frequently have 3 month breaks in between, possibly to avoid checkuser). I will submit a new entry for the SPI if I have time later in the week. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There is either a person or group of people who have continuously been vandalizing and editing Patrick Fiori's page even though I've tried to undo the changes. I would like to request that there be a page protection of some kind to keep the page from being edited unless it is by an admin or by Patrick himself, and also restore the page to what it was before all of the edits were made. Any advice or help by anyone is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I have reversed the edits made by the other users back to the way it was before. I hope it will stay that way. Though, I doubt it. Admins, please help!
Hajiru ( talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
G. Nanjundan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} Person was found deceased in last few days, there were various reports in newspapers etc. No talk page was created by the article creator. The talk page where created had Old revision of Talk:G. Nanjundan had no Template:WPBS blp=yes not blpo=yes parameters set; nor the living=yes {{ WikiProject Biography}} set. I have subsequently set various parameters, FeanorStar7 has challenged them and I seem ot have challenged back. This is all good faith and I would like to know best practice setting for a newly created article on a person recently deceased for WPBS/bll & blpo and WikiProject Biography living=. This report has had to be rushed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC) See also my talk page. @ Inter&anthro and S. M. Nazmus Shakib: article/talk page creators. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a few things that I wanted to bring up here first about this article. First, the article only has two citations: one being for his death today. I can't read them because they're in Russian. His name was also removed from Category:Living people. The other thing that stands out to me is that the only other citation in the article is to a sentence containing one word (read the article to see what I mean, I wouldn't want to repeat possible WP:BLP violations here). Are sources like these enough for a BLP? The original creator of the article was blocked for using mutiple accounts abusively, so I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the content. Clovermoss ( talk) 18:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
WHY are you looking for dirt on Sen. Blackburn under the guise of a Biography of Living Persons? You ask for evidence if she is "Racist" because of her vote in regards to recognizing Hawaii as former Pres. Obama's state of birth. SHAME on you!!! Biography's are apolitical and by asking for evidence if she is racist you are negating your claim to be a "Biography". This should be deleted IMMEDIATELY if you wish to maintain your credibility! Kilraywashere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilraywashere ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can anyone help confirm that this interview (on YouTube) confirms this edit to Naseem Shah's article? I assume the language is Urdu. FYI - I have no issue with the source, as it's from the Pakistan Cricket Board, but need confirmation on that edit. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Please note that someone keeps deliberately putting up a section on 'Norway' which is disparaging to Manfred Gerstenfeld. Every time we take it down, they put it back up. Can you please stop this?
thank you
Karen (for Manfred Gerstenfeld) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwolberg ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Article cites, "In contrast, Lopez claimed that Southwestern administrators fired him for his refusal to cut back on his rhetoric after having reprimanded him earlier for talking almost incessantly about homosexuality.[13]" 'Talking incessantly' is not mentioned in the cited article, and obscures the point. It appears the issue is between a belief in the "celebate homosexual life" as ideal (SWBS), and belief in modification of homosexual orientation by Lopez, as well as linking homosexuality to abuse. The cited source itself from queerty.com is insubstantial and unhelpful compared to sources closer to the discussion. Inside Higher Ed does a better job. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/12/11/professor-who-sought-refuge-liberal-academe-southern-baptist-seminary-finds-out-why. Vague broadside swipes should be excluded by Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardTurner2 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
We could use some more eyes over at Talk:Open_Technology_Fund#Addition_to_Section_3_-_Projects. A user removed an entry stating that it violated WP:BLP, this has been re-removed by Gamaliel. I understand he wants to err to the side of caution. We have another admin, myself and another user who all state there's no BLP violation present in the addition. The original user who removed the entry, Cellarpaper has responded on the talk page but has not actually stated what the BLP is, nor has Gamaliel stated what he believes the BLP to be.
Some extra input on the page would be appreciated to gain consensus, one way or the other. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 13:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There have been multiple attempts by a user to make this article like an attack page. That user is eager on deleting all the positive info even is it is sourced by news websites and just wants to have all negative info. diffs: 1. User wants to delete acquittal info: [10] [11] [12] 2. User wants to delete the clarification comments and just wants to have the controversial comment: [13] 3. Any many more: [14] [15] [16] Removed references which proved the subject was exonerated in the other case [17] etc. I see continuous attempts by this user in making article negative and as fas as I know a BLP article should have both negative and positive aspects if they are sourced, but this user just wants to engage in edit war and tries to remove all positive content. La vérité gagne ( talk) 07:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A picture of Peter LaBarbera (File:Peter LaBarbera.jpg) exists but an admin says it is prejudicial towards him given protesters against his organization in the background. However, I would note that LaBarbera was attending this pride parade as a counter protester and therefore the image is consistent with his work. Can the image be used or cropped?-- NL19931993 ( talk) 05:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Kshitijbhargava171001 is adding unsourced POV and potentially defamatory content in the article as can be seen
here,
here and
here, where the user writes that the subject has no other credibility apart form being the daughter of a notable politician as can be seen in one of the edits by the user here - "Mriganka has no other relevant milestone in her life than being the daughter of Hukum Singh..
" The user keep edit-warring and is likely to violate 3RR despite I warned them once
[18]. Since not much activity can be seen from the account apart from vandalizing the above article, it seems like a vandalism only account. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Fylindfotberserk should note that the comments made were not defamatory these were just facts. To Prove me wrong I did ask
User:Fylindfotberserk to prove that these defamatory or untrue. If even one instance of the information provided by me is found to be untrue I would agree to the statement above. Please provide with credible data that proves Mriganka Singh has some achievement in her life apart from just fighting an election that too on the basis of her ancestry. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kshitijbhargava171001 (
talk •
contribs) 07:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm the subject of this page. I never went to Hazelhurst school. As it's my page i'm not editing it myself. The page is also very out of date and has obsolete listings. If you want to update then I suggest you use my website www.samiraahmed.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.125 ( talk) 14:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Gerardo Werthein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malfeasance that is "under investigation". content aded here is negatve BLP sourced to finleaks and removed as misinformation here. Subsequently readded and removed. While not egregiously negative BLP, I'd like it looked at and I question the adequacy of the source.-- Deep fried okra 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I came across a slow edit war at that page, over information that portrays the page subject negatively. It looks to me like the information is reliably and widely sourced, but I'm posting here to get some more opinions about it, and eyes on the page. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The BLP-violating content was reinstated by User:Roxy the dog, using Twinkle no less. Some more eyes on this would be appreciated. Woodroar ( talk) 21:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there was some serious problems with the whitewashing. But Wikipedia is also WP:NOT#TABLOID. In other words, although this person's legal troubles have been splashed across the New York society scandal pages, we probably shouldn't be devoting the entire article to such. I think we need to just summarize the legal troubles neutrally and let the reader visit the relevant sources if they want the sordid details. I am not sure on how best to accomplish this. jps ( talk) 00:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The neutrality of the
recently added
Kim Iversen#Political views section isn't obvious for me. For starters I've reset the lede + categories to what they were before (=2RR for today), tagged the section as {{
primary}}
, and upgraded six raw references to {{
YouTube}}
+ {{
cite web}}
. –
84.46.52.63 (
talk) 06:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Glad this was finally protected. I'm getting no response to rev/deletion requests of content a several articles. This one could use it. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 17:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Lia McHugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is there any way to protect certain sections of this person's wikipedia entry from being edited. I have provided solid proof of this actresses DOB yet people keep reverting the change based on zero evidence. RoboBongoCuckooCop ( talk) 12:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I came across Corky Boozé while reviewing a new-ish user's article creations. I'm very concerned about how this article is written. It consists almost entirely of controversy sourced to local publications. There is very little biographical information in the article. My dilemma is, should this be CSDed as an attack page; should it be nominated for AfD; or can it be salvaged? - Mr X 🖋 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Too much personal, passionate detail. -- 195.176.96.201 ( talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
On Robin Steinberg: The "Controversies" section appears to be poorly sourced and the subject of repeated attempts to re-add the material by a single-purpose account. Since I'm arguably INVOLVED as I've removed the content before, bringing here for review and possible administrative action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Asking for more eyes on this. Not a whole lot of English sources. I've reverted a couple of times unsourced and poorly written additions to the article which seem to me not to be written from a NPOV. Hydromania ( talk) 09:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A SPA is trying to whitewash the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
My query concerns a book by Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point. An editor has added this:
"There has also been criticism of the basic claims of his book that the idea of a tipping point originates from epidemiology and a denial that there was any actual evidence for the central examples of the spread of the fashion for hush puppies or venereal diseases, together with the claim that the book has an underlying theme of racism and homophobia. [1]"
Besides needing attribution, I'm uneasy about it as it seems to be accusing Gladwell of racism and homophobia, something not suggested in his article. However, when I looked at his article to find out, I found that the same editor, User:Napata102, had added "This claim that the idea came from epidemiology has been critically challenged. [2]" I can't see where Ladimeji is an expert on dynamics here [20] or in the deleted biography Dapo ladimeji created by the same editor. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Requesting page protection due to defamatory and libelous information being repeatedly posted unnecessarily. These edits made by posters with an axe to grind are public information that could damage ones career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.187.84 ( talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd entirely agree with your assessment although I appreciate it may not have been obvious. There is something weird going on with that page. I recognised the article and name, which was weird since he's an obscure former American football player, a sport I think is wack and don't follow in any way. I see now this is because it came up before Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive294#Douglas Chapman. At the time, there didn't seem to be anything particularly concerning.
But since then, the article has had edits that admins have felt were bad enough to justify rev-deletion [21].
Also I see now that even before the previous thread, someone has been adding uncited contentious and I suspect almost definitely untrue claims about their recent employment [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and a clearly untrue claim that the subject is paralysed [29] [30] [31] and utter nonsense [32] [33]. Given the relative obscurity of the subject, I guess this must be some person with a personal dislike of the subject targeting the article. (I recently dealt with what I assume is a a similar case on two sisters although in that case I suspect there's probably some personal connection as the people seemed ever more obscure.) I would include the blocked adder Special:Contributions/Marshall77 of the rev-deleted claims and Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO who did once add similar non attributed claims about the subject's recent employment as per my earlier links.
The recent edits [34] are maybe the basis of something which could be in our article and in any case are not defamatory if true. But although a source was attributed for one claim, no inline citation was provided. And I have very strong doubts given the recent history that it is true. If not true, I would argue it is defamatory. I personally dislike using the word on wikipedia as it's rarely helpful and don't think it's useful here, still the OP may very well be correct. Definitely some of the earlier additions could be considered defamatory.
BTW I noticed [35] which suggests to me the OP could be the subject of the article.
Persistent WP:BLP violations, so a more stringent level of page protection is merited. As well, mass rev-deletion may be appropriate for defamatory content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Really need more eyes, a mass attack re: long term addition of unsourced nicknames, mixed in with a mass attack of unsourced changes in statistics. I've requested indefinite semi protection. Can't keep up with the multiple IPs, and no intention of spending the night doing so. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Could some editors please have a look at this article, the use of cited sources, and the associated AfD page. There was an incident at a Trump campaign rally in 2016. A young Aspergers Brit with many mental health issues had a psychotic episode in which he attempted to grab a security guard's pistol at the rally. He was immediately subdued and eventually served 6 months in jail for possession of a firearm. An editor has created and is "defending" an article that promotes the false narrative that this was a significant assassination attempt on Trump. In fact, the only lasting coverage given the incident related to discussion within the UK about how the social services and justice systems treat troubled individuals with behavioral problems. The article creates an UNDUE and BLP-disparaging narrative that is not supported by the weight of the RS coverage of this incident. Any wise input will be appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing. All the cited sources were from the period shortly after the incident before the facts became known. This is not a notable event. The article presents prosecutors' early allegations as if they were fact. BLP violation. And when all of what we now know is put in context, we just have the story of a kid who had a psychotic break and acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. The folks at AfD don't seem to be focusing on much of this. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. “I did try to kill a guy, mum.” [37] I'm not sure these quite gel. - Ryk72 talk 02:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The kid is mentally incompetentNot legally, because he was still charged and convicted.
That source says the judge ... dtermined that the kid did not attempt to kill.No, it doesn't quite say that. It says the judge commented, not determined. He wasn't charged with attempted murder, so there was no determination on that aspect. He plead guilty to what he was charged with, so there was no determination on guilt.
You are missing the crux.No, I don't think I am. He tried to take somebody's gun, with the intent to shoot to kill. I don't think it's reasonable to describe that as "acted out in a very harmless way" or "not harm anyone or anything". - Ryk72 talk 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see the direct relevance of "U.S. Code 1751.I only see it as relevant in the negative sense. The argument is made above, and at AfD, that we should not say "attempted assassination", because no-one was explicitly charged with "attempted assassination". That statute is the only "attempted assassination" statute. (Mere mortals must make do with mere murder). If we were to use that as a decider as to whether, when and where we could say "assassination", then we would have to exclude multiple incidents, all of which are commonly regarded as assassinations. I suppose I could've just said "No-one was charged with "assassination" for MLK, ME, MX, RFK, HM". - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm amazed that article even exists. GoodDay ( talk) 00:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC) I've just found and removed a group of references cited to British tabloids deprecated here at RSN. Help is needed vetting all the sources for this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I have removed a section of the article that recites undue personal detail about the perpetrator and relies on press accounts of the confused accounts before all of the facts were known. I have asked author of the article not to reinsert that content. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The above article concerns an incident at a Donald Trump rally. Donald Trump Jr. gave an interview on Good Morning America reacting to the incident. My view is that this is germane to the article as it is a response to the incident from a public figure. Another editor has removed Trump Jr's reaction stating it is "meaningless UNDUE content that violates BLP by inflating the significance of the incident". I would welcome an objective view on whether it is appropriate to include Trump Jr.'s reaction in the article. McPhail ( talk) 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
At the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there are strong BLP problems - a specific, otherwise non-notable living individual is associated with the title. While there are some sources that use that term to describe the event, going by the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, we see that we should avoid suggesting that such an individual committed a crime unless they've been convicted of it. Said individual has not only not been convicted of that crime, but not even charged with that (they were found guilty of a far more minor crime, disorderly conduct.) While the recent AFD for that article ended with a Keep, even many of the Keep votes were saying that the page should/could be renamed, with BLP concerns often being cited. While there may be concerns for orderly page move, BLP concerns generally override most other concerns, and editor @ Pudeo: has not only undone a move specifically intended to stop BLP concerns while a more proper name could be found, but also undid an attempt to edit the article to avoid the BLP concerns within the article (I have since restored those edits.) I am asking that the page be blanked until it can be moved to a title that does not fly in the face of WP:BLPCRIME. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In the small biography of Hiroto Saikawa, there is a big section on Carlos Ghosn's arrest and how he is guilty of funds misappropriation. There is a note saying that so far there is no evidence of his crime since no trial has taken place, but has been deleted then added again, and will probably be deleted again. The whole paragraph on Ghosn should actually be removed, as it is actually defamatory since no guilt for Ghosn has been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.244 ( talk) 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Article I've created on a video game developer. He's recently been accused of some shady behavior. I'm mostly curious about BLP, tone, and neutrality. I would like imput from the greater community about these issues.
Discussion:
Sources:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Persistent addition of the name DelRoBa. I am not seeing any source online that Dilraba = DelRoBa. Dilraba is a transliteration of an Uyghur name. 41.102.0.91 ( talk) 18:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent unsourced claims of death. I'm not finding any online corroboration. Page protection, user blocks or verification, any will work. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just added a few maintenance tags to Balloon boy hoax. This because of an outstanding discussion on whether this YouTube video should be worked into the article. It portrays undeniable evidence against the current "opinion" of the article.
I'm only a rookie, but I believe this should be looked into. While it is a YouTube link, and "anyone can upload anything", I believe it should be taken into very careful consideration whether the current, very loaded argument the article provides is still correct for a BLP. If facts change over time, this article should too, especially if the article is almost libelous towards its subject. Shindo Nana talk? 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ryan Avery (lacrosse player) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi! Please help. I wanted to know what I would do if I create Ryan Avery (Keynote Speaker) in Wikipedia and there's already a name that appears the same as his, which is the subject above. I believe that Ryan Avery as a speaker is more noticeable than Ryan Avery (lacrosse player). I hope I could get advice from contributors and editors. Thank you.
Azumi121 ( talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Azumi121
Edit warring over inclusion of a legal issue. May require page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:55AD:391C:FBB:BE24 ( talk) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
cleanup tag. –
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Persistent addition of unsourced WP:BLP violations to both biographies, adding names and birth dates of non notable children. Requesting page protection and user blocks, if necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semiprotected}}
on the talk page. If many users edit the page or at least undo any damages ask for a "pending review" protection, it's far better than "semi-protection" for all involved parties if there are lots of editors. –
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)There is a dispute on the Glenn Beck page where some editors are removing a line in his lead that says, "During Barack Obama's presidency, Beck promoted numerous falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Obama, his administration, George Soros, and others." Is it a BLP violation to say Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories about Obama and others? RS say he did. Furthermore, it's a central aspect to his notability. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj - This page contains many false informations. The cited weblinks are misrepresenting. The cited weblinks of awards are false. The page should be deleted or rewritten completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical Arun ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
rewrite}}
, {{
PROD}}
and {{
AFD}}
exist, pick what you need, the article name with a title is already odd, therefore I haven't read the page. Caveat, better don't pick PROD or AFD until this BLP/N entry is archived, about a week after the last reply. –
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)An IP requested that the above be semi-protected at WP:RFPP and I've done that. If anyone has a moment, please try to work out what is going on. In particular, some editors like adding "Menon" to the name, and some like to remove it. The image was also recently changed. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Content added linking Bodhi Jones to a TicTok account are only based on the looks of the person and has not been sourced proving they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles E Hampton II ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Mark Kostabi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bringing this here for review, an IP editor and a new user with one edit have both removed
this content, with edit summaries of falsely sourced paragraph that is libelous and harmful
and the new user claiming poorly sourced content which is misleading, harmful and libellous
. I reverted both editors. I maintain the content is a significant life event for a BLP, reliably sourced, NPOV, he's
well known, and has received sustained coverage through the years,
1991,
2004,
2010,
2012,
2018. Mentioned in
this book as well. And the original article (June 1989) is still online,
The Art Of The Hype, with a paid subscription. Should this content be removed or is it compliant with our
WP:BLP policy? Left a note on the new user's talk page about this discussion. Thanks.
Isaidnoway
(talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Norman Shelter was born in 1931 and served in World War II, but that is impossible, he would not have been 18 until 1949, four years after the war ended. Either he was not born in 1931 or he served in the Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.76 ( talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Please review the edits of @ Luke Mills1996: at Reece Webb-Foster - he claims to be the subject's brother and makes edits every once-in-a-while which go against RS in the article. Giant Snowman 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Following an ANI discussion on protecting the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, I've proposed a change to BLP policy to allow for the omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm. I'm putting it up here to elicit further comments from interested editors: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed changes.
Thanks. François Robere ( talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like BLPN contributors to share their opinion on the dispute, whether Wikipedia Article should name the "unnamed" Juvenile convict in this case.
WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.
|
---|
|
the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source - AltNews.in (A fact checker site)
DBig Xrayᗙ 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "applied to those who share the same name as someone who has appeared in the news. The privacy of the person who is actually involved in the story is what the policy covers". We aren't going to be publishing the names of random people who share the same name as the convicted juvenile rapist, unless they're somehow a key part of the story. But they aren't and indeed the vigilantism isn't even mentioned at the moment AFAICT. The fact that the juvenile is apparently going under a new name, doesn't change the exclusion of publishing his name based on the limited number of sources which mention it. And by sources, we of course mean reliable secondary sources, no Twitter mentions or whatever.
While I don't have hard stats, probably the most common cases of BLPNAME we deal with here are naming family members particularly children of notable individuals. (To be clear, I don't mean people who are notable for crimes. Just random celebrities and the like.) We do normally exclude such names even if they appear in one or 2 reliable sources. We also get a fair few cases where the victim has been named by one or two sources, again we exclude such mentions if they're limited. We may exclude them even in some cases where it's more widespread but we need to do so for other reasons. ( Kobe Bryant sexual assault case may be one such case.) We also often get cases involving those who have chosen to use a pseudonym especially those acted in adult films and similar although frankly most of these cases are terrible and involve primary sources like court cases, trademark documents or other clearly non RS/ WP:BLPPRIMARY violations that we don't even need to touch on BLPNAME.
It's probably true we don't deal with many cases of excluding a convicted defendants name here but this is because most commonly either it's widely published or there is no reliable secondary source. Especially for very high profile cases involving a significant offense. (Again primary sources and other non reliable sources are irrelevant, no matter if there is no doubt of their accuracy.) I think the circumstances of this case namely that it involves someone seen as a minor in the jurisdiction they were charged in and so they were not named for that reason, but that a small number of reliable sources were willing to publish the name anyway, probably arises in part because of how extremely high profile it is and this isn't something we deal with a lot.
The most similar case I can think of off hand is Murder of Grace Millane however that situation is only expected to be temporary. (There are other permanent name suppression cases in NZ, but there are normally no RS coverage of the name. And those tend to be minor crimes as more major crimes will only involve permanent suppression if it's necessary to protect a victim i.e. where the victim was a spouse or child.) I also expect there's cases case where the alleged victim of a sexual crime was later convicted for making a false statement or something and where they have been named by one or two sources, but not by most. And I'm fairly sure there are some cases involving fairly low profile crimes or things which may not even be crimes, and of course cases which didn't result in convictions, which we cover for some reason where the name has been excluded even though it was published in RS although of course additional considerations (namely how to handle the BLPCRIME issue) arise in such cases. (While eventually the decision was made to include the names of both parties, there was extensive discussion on what to do with either party for Columbia University rape controversy and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).)
Some expert input about the Stefan Molyneux entry on the List of YouTubers could be helpful, a "discussion" (not really) on the Talk page was inconclusive. – 84.46.53.207 ( talk) 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This article has frequently been the target of socks and editors (often new) with an obvious WP:COI. Today, a new editor (and now an IP with threats) have been adding promotional material to the article. More eyes are needed. I cannot revert any more.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I need help with a sourcing issue on Cenk Uygur. I introduced an edit in the Political Views section that lists his current political views, and then source each political view with a YouTube video showing Uygur expressing the political view on his show The Young Turks. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by one user claiming there is a sourcing issue, leaving the comment "Entirely sourced to Young Turks YouTube, which is controlled by subject and lacks independent sourcing." In response I reference WP:BLPSPS which 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." Ultimately my argument is that when citing a person's political views, a video of the person expressing their political views is a reliable source. This appears to be backed up by WP:BLPSPS. Independent sourcing in this case doesn't seem necessary to me because the section is on Uygur's personal opinions, not what other people think his opinions are.
Here is a diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cenk_Uygur&diff=934340944&oldid=931464513. Can anyone provide their input? Cacash refund ( talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You need secondary sourcing, not Cenk's own words. You want to avoid fluff and spin that Cenk might introduce. We also don't want to list every single political position he's ever taken on every issue (that's what his personal campaign site is about), rather only what is notable. How do we determine what is notable? It would be what secondary sources discuss. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: About "touting his support for single-payer healthcare", a quote from the BLP as of today: Is it only me, or is this out of line? My idea of neutral would be "supporting
single-payer healthcare" with a wikilink. The
HuffPost reference contains no "tout", but I can't tell if it is the red or yellow RS/P variety, maybe an attribution to Jessica Schulberg would help (8 uses in the article namespace). The other
The Santa Clarita Valley Signal source also contains no "tout". Both sources are not wikilinked in their references,
NOTTIKTOK. –
84.46.52.170 (
talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Need some assistance on whether this is considered part of WP:TWITTER (via WP:V) and thus added to the article or shouldn't be added at all. Since this is a BLP, I am coming to you all for guidance. A discussion has begun on the talk page of the article. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual")(pulled from the first sentence of Asexuality#Definition,_identity_and_relationships). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for 24 hours as people are edit-warring over this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Could I please get someone to check the article Gabriel Matzneff I just created? I think it's fine, but I would like another set of eyes on it - I've largely just translated the lead section of the French article. Thanks! - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This page is in violation of large portions of the biographies of living persons policy.
Sources are nearly all tabloid journalism, which consists of defamatory and libelous information. Sources are negative, questionable and written/referenced by unqualified people. Removal of such sources has been unsuccessful - editing blocked by a bot.
The page serves the only purpose of harming the subject - achieved subtly through negative references.
NPOV is not consistent where the anonymous writer has given their opinion on the subjects career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceNerd1900 ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jay Maynard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Discospinster constantly reverting sourced material from Jay Maynard article without comment, even as far as to remove the edits from the system entirely. Refuses to address the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.50.12.149 ( talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The category in the Pablo Lyle Wikipedia biography is libellous and slanderous.
I tried to edit and now it has been locked...and its unedited. This is my edit...that includes their misintentions with more detailed information. Their short blurb appears to be nonfiction but its actually full of errors...and out of context and most importantly out of context with the video footage being used to make the accusations. Its biased and very onesided. Once again while being a short blurb of the incident it is libellous and slanderous and can be punishable in the court of law for writing a bad take on the incident.
The real,longer and uncut version: On April 2019, Lyle without consideration for his Miranda Rights may have admitted to punching 63-year-old Juan Ricardo Hernández (of Cuban origin) during a road rage incident where Juan Ricardo Hernandez leaves his automobile unattended about 5 cars behind Lyle and approaches and engages the chauffer of the automobile SUV (a family car) where Lyle was a passenger. They were at a Stop Light and major intersection in Miami, Florida. The victim was hospitalized and died four days after his road rage incident which engaged the passerbyes occupants of a family car/vehicle.[3] Lyle was charged with manslaughter after the man of mature aged died. He had been originally charged with battery before Hernandez died. There is a video of the road rage incident where the victim leaves his compact car unattended about 5 cars behind, he was obviously the driver of his compact car leaving his car unattended during a Stop Light at a Major Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez then approaches enraged to engage the chauffer, Lyle and his children whom were passerbyes at a Major Stop Light Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez engages the family whom were in a family car, an SUV stopped at a major intersection. Lyle's children were passengers in the car. Lyle in a dubiously sketchy video is perhaps then seen running to punch Hernandez. Miami is full of random violence and crime even in traffic like the Dominican Republic and various parts of Florida and the Caribean which all lead to massacres. Many intersections are really to be avoided and really its a Stop and Go at Your Own Risk Intersections Regime. Apparently, gangs are more adept at law and managing the courts than the courts themselves. Why would gangs want to own the streets and major intersections. The trial is still on going but may end soon. [4] If convicted of manslaughter, Lyle could face up to 15 years in prison.
There are many major criminal incidents in Miami against tourists. Many appear to be mock crimes or repetitions of tourists being mugged and with the Miami Yacht industry apparently some are lured into yachts and raped. Do notice the recent mass murder crimes against families in traffic even in Mexico in Sonora. A family on a rural road headed to Sonora was killed in an incident that took the lives of 3 female adults and 6 children from the LeBaron family, a Mormon American Family returning home. The survivors are the father Mr Baron and 3 children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:C000:4A86:40CC:9574:69E2:B1C3 ( talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"As CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, McCain's handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak with frank and open communications made him a role model for crisis management.[ [40]]"
This is overly promotional content with a dead source. According to policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Statement should be changed to reflect a more neutral tone, or at the very least have a verifiable source.
Bleepenvoy ( talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bleepenvoy, here are the cites given for this small paragraph.
It appears you have strong opinion that there should be no review of this event, just given as a date and fact. But there's significant coverage that it has been used as a case study. Deciding Globe and Mail is in the bag for him is quite the stretch. The article in The Conversation isn't "only promotional", it's complimentary, which isn't the same thing. The Public Communication Review study has been referenced in 48 books. It seems this is strong personal bias on your part, not true criticism of the sources. tedder ( talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation in Joseph Boyden bio are one-sided, subjective, poorly notated or not notated at all. Many claims posted in this section are clearly libellous. The tone of the opening paragraph of Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation says it all. Wikipedia editors who are trolling this page have only continued to highlight subjective and false statements and refuse to allow objectivity or additional fact, while at the same highlighting false and unverified rumour. Please find a fair balance of facts and the deletion of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miigwaansaag ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to get further clarification on this edit. I'm not saying it's a bad edit, but I'm not clear on the policy relating to this. The editor states it is per MOS:BIO, and I see this section. That states it should not go in the lead, but should it be in the article? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jacob Wohl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's a dispute over whether to use Category:21st-century American criminals. I oppose it's usage until there's a reliable source to say he has been convicted of a criminal offense in a court of law. Another editor points to the fact that he's already categorized as Category:American fraudsters, which is a sub-cat of Category:American criminals by crime. I think there's sufficient sources to say he's been found to have defrauded people, and broken the law, and been penalized for doing so. But, I don't yet see a source to say he's been criminally convicted. It's my understanding, that with a BLP, we don't categorize somebody as a criminal, unless they are convicted of a crime, even if sources say that they committed an act, which is normally considered a crime (e.g. fraud). I think this case shows a flaw in how the categories are organized. I haven't found a source that clearly settles the issue either way (to definitively say he's been convicted, or he's never been convicted, of a crime). Maybe I missed a source, in which case, I would be happy to be proven wrong. -- Rob ( talk) 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Supun Halangoda ] (Born 29 of April 2000) is young Programmer and an Engineer in IT Infrastructure in Cloud computing, Servers, Routing and Switching. He started his first organization in 2017 which was known as App Factory LK, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun Halangoda ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged.I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr ( talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point.
Humanengr (
talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd watch out and avoid personal sites as they likely have spin and fluff. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF is clear on this matter. If a self-published source contains an exceptional claim, it requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, an exceptional claim led to this discussion and the multiple high quality sources do not exist to support the claim. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
“I identify as a Hindu," Gabbard wrote in an email Thursday. “However, I am much more into spirituality than I am religious labels."
In that sense," she added,“I am a Hindu in the mold of the most famous Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, who is my hero and role model."
Gabbard wrote that she "was raised in a multicultural, multiracial, mulitfaith family" that allowed her “to spend a lot of time studying and contemplating upon both the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."
Today her spiritual practice is neither Catholic nor traditionally Hindu.
“My attempts to work for the welfare of others and the planet is the core of my spiritual practice," Gabbard wrote. “Also, every morning I take time to remember my relationship with God through the practice of yoga meditation and reading verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. From the perspective of the Bhagavad-Gita, the spiritual path as I have described here is known as karma yoga and bhakti yoga."Yes, such material can be used. WP:BLPSELFPUB applies. Xenagoras ( talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
For those interested in bigoted attacks that Gabbard has faced regarding her private religious beliefs, see the sources cited here. Humanengr ( talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I am someone who is a big fan of a broadcast crew member 'Tapon Mahamud Jony' and I made an account on Wikipedia with his name. I have watched all of his interviews and attended his award-winning ceremonies. I once met him and told him about my interest to publish an article about himself and so I asked him to provide me some references where he was nominated for awards and achievements. Indeed it is an autobiography and all references are reliable. Please guide me on what changes are needed to publish this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have done what you said. Can you guide what to do for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Found at the help desk, it's no BLPPROD, but apparently a BLP1E with various BLP policy violations not limited to do no harm (see #Delhi gang rape above.) – 84.46.52.152 ( talk) 00:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
She's a child model, and her height gets changed somewhat frequently but there doesn't seem to be any sources whatsoever being used. The height itself isn't even consistent: [1] changed from 6ft6inches to 5ft3inches, [2] back to 6ft6inhes, [3] to 5ft4inches, [4] to 5ft6inches. I noticed this, removed the height, and started a talk page discussion about it yesterday. However, no one's commented and the height was changed yet again [5], this time to 5ft6inches. I tried looking for a reliable source that verified her height, but couldn't. She's 13, so she's likely still growing anyways. If her height can't be verified as correct information, I don't think it should remain in the article. Am I doing the right thing right now? I think I've been doing what I should in a situation like this, but I don't really have much experience with situations like this. Clovermoss ( talk) 14:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently some opinions columns have been published questioning Aboriginal author Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality. Pascoe identifies as Aboriginal. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Pascoe as Aboriginal, including the ABC, SBS, The Guardian, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald etc.
The columns have been run in two News Corp mastheads: The Herald Sun and The Australian, both reliable sources, but their opinions columns are famous for their strident bias. The main voice in the debate is Andrew Bolt. Bolt has been convicted and successfully sued over near identical claims made in this column (Bolt has been sued a number of times in the past after publishing defamatory falsehoods). In this context these mastheads are not independent reliable sources, they are "culture warriors".
The other voice is essentially yellow journalism a generally unreliable source - Quadrant.
The three publishers of the claims are the main protagonists in the Australian " culture wars". The source of the information is a total hatchet job, someone who obviously fixates on Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality to an unhealthy and wildly disproportionate extent. It's a blog, little more than an attack page: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/
The only reliable voice published on the debate so far is the The Saturday Paper and they tear the claims to shreds here: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/media/2019/11/30/bolt-pascoe-and-the-culture-wars/15750324009163
Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page. I believe this would violate a number of guidelines, namely: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL.
Undue because only a handful of columnists, who clearly have a strident bias and also have a history of attacking fair skinned Aboriginal people, have made the claim. Why haven't other mastheads reported the claims? That gets to the next point and why we shouldn't publish them either - other mastheads haven't gone near it because they may well end up in court: Libel - because the main voice in this debate has been convicted and sued for near identical claims in the past. These claims may well end up in court under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
With this taken into account I do not believe such claims should be published in a BLP unless they are more widely reported in independent reliable sources.
Thanks in advance. Bacondrum ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page.I feel misrepresented by Bacondrum statement. Most of the editors referred to have not said we want to say "Pascoe is not Aboriginal", we want to say something akin to "Some commentators have questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry." The statement would be referenced to one of Bolt's articles and Dark Emu Exposed or perhaps just to the Inside Story article mentioned above. Some of the comments about Andrew Bolt on talk:Bruce Pascoe have gone very close to breaching WP:BLP about Bolt. -- Scott Davis Talk 06:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment The top of this page says For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead
. There are currently two open RFCs on
talk:Bruce Pascoe on related topics of this report. The second RFC was raised by the same person as this report. Neither has been closed yet. The first four sentences of this notice are not in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is how much weight should be given to "right wing" sources, and how the content of those sources should be used in the article. --
Scott Davis
Talk 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
BLP subject complains on talk page of unfairness. Has not been given due consideration by Canadian Wikipedia editors who have locked the page down after stripping it of most of the information, refuse to listen to him claim cited article has error that he complained of at the time -- the accusation that he had a conflict of interest as a journalist when, as the timeline clearly shows, he had earned his PhD, was teaching and writing books. Appears to be spite and retribution for Bourrie's Wikipedia edits of some 10 years ago. Square Offset ( talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's stick to the BLP issues raised, please. Square Offset ( talk) 00:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, someone told me this was a BLP issues page. Silly me to believe them. Someone also said Wikipedia has a BLP policy that's supposed to be taken very seriously. Again. my complaint is that the subject of the article is insistent that he wasn't a journalist when he did the Duffy edits and other work/favors/whatever for Duffy, and the timeline shows he's right: he taught full time at Concordia in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years (see Rate My Professor) got his PhD in 2009, according to the University of Ottawa alumni page cited in the article, did three books (2012, 2013 and early 2015) and went to law school in September 2014. The Christopher Waddell comment seems to be a dial-a-quote from the go-to journalism prof in Ottawa, who was fed information by David Akin, and then spit out a quote. Waddell as dial-a-quote: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ACYBGNTWkV_yWBbepnDOHROgKC5MnyNmXQ%3A1577113726113&ei=ftgAXqLCBpirtQafzaRQ&q=christopher+waddell+journalism&oq=christopher+waddell+journalism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10760.13819.0.14130.11.11.0.0.0.0.347.932.1j2j1j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.-GCJyqaF90I) Bourrie's objection, also published by Canadaland (here https://www.canadalandshow.com/canadaland-strong-armed-me-writing/)(we can get into that site's lack of credibility later), is not mentioned. I think Bourrie has a point: anything that gives depth to the article has been trimmed out, while anything negative has been fiercely protected. For instance, the anonymous editors who guard the page could try to keep it current by doing the odd Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie+bush+runner&sxsrf=ACYBGNSvUNkx7zrtEd5fZ8tFBwc8u_Lauw:1577113436043&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjksICxhczmAhWoVN8KHUGOBHMQ_AUoAnoECBUQBA&biw=1366&bih=625. As for who I am, there may be a happy day when everyone writes on Wikipedia under their own name, so that we may be able to easily see their conflicts of interest, and they may take responsibility for their work. That day has not yet arrived. Square Offset ( talk) 12:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Cherry-picking for straw man arguments is a waste of yours and my time, so let's not do it. You could try to make a case for leaving the article as-is by reading the links. The article by Bourrie is from the same site that Wikipedia uses to trash him. Wikipedia has a rep as an organization in which intransigent, anonymous white men stake out positions and guard them in power plays and drive everyone else away. It's easy to be an arrogant bully behind a fake name. It's also easy to trash the name of a real person without responsibility. And the BLP guide suggest people who feel Wikipedia has given them a bum deal should come here, so COI is also a worthless argument here -- whether a CO exists or not. You try to make the argument "we can libel Mark Bourrie because you might be Mark Bourrie." It's not much of a case you're making. Square Offset ( talk) 16:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a COI. But even if I did, this is the place to complain about BLP violations. Now, do you have a COI? Do any of the other anonymous "editors"? No one will address my actual complaint. Complaints about Wikipedia being an insider social club ring true when all the responses are about the person and nothing is about the content. Square Offset ( talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing that. The timeline, in fact, shows otherwise, and none of this "journalism" seems to be linked to by anyone. I tried to find some, and all that turned up was excerpts from his books, and absolutely nothing about Canadian federal politics or about Duffy (outside his book Kill the Messengers: Stephen Harper's Assault on Your Right to Know, which he discussed in the piece published by -- wait for it -- Canadaland). The Wikipedia page strongly implies, through a quote from someone who did no investigation but is held out as authoritative, he had a journalistic conflict of interest, covering Duffy and Canadian politics, while working for Duffy. I can't find evidence of that. Where is the journalism? Some links please. Timeline very strongly suggests he was writing three books and teaching during the time he did the Duffy edits. Square Offset ( talk) 15:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's "original research" to do a Google search (Merk Bourrie in Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie&sxsrf=ACYBGNQmDDLqk5u6DARL57YgTTOjy9l2Yw:1577211335138&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhPeK8s7mAhWDVN8KHTlnBqYQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1366&bih=625) to see if the subject of the piece is right when he complains on that talk page. There's an inherent human dignity question here: does Wikipedia actually care about truth and reputations? Or does it use weaseling to get out of responsibility and accountability, just as it allows editing and administering behind fake names? Does anyone care about getting it right, or is it just about exercising social power in Wikipedia cliques? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Square Offset ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment on sockpuppetry: I went through the article and didn't find any BLP violations. Almost all of the material is properly sourced and supported, and the few unsourced non-contentious statements are tagged inline. This looks like a complaint from the same person operating accounts such as Sportsman360, who left a nearly identical complaint on the article's talk page in September [8] and was subsequently banned for being a sockpuppet of Spoonkymonkey, who was banned by Arbcom and may be related to the sockpuppets of Mark Bourrie. All the accounts have the same argumentative style, and they also focus on people like Christopher Waddell for making "libelous" statements. Based on the article's talk page, editor Nfitz looks to have more knowledge about the sockpuppetry there (which seems to frequently have 3 month breaks in between, possibly to avoid checkuser). I will submit a new entry for the SPI if I have time later in the week. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There is either a person or group of people who have continuously been vandalizing and editing Patrick Fiori's page even though I've tried to undo the changes. I would like to request that there be a page protection of some kind to keep the page from being edited unless it is by an admin or by Patrick himself, and also restore the page to what it was before all of the edits were made. Any advice or help by anyone is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I have reversed the edits made by the other users back to the way it was before. I hope it will stay that way. Though, I doubt it. Admins, please help!
Hajiru ( talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
G. Nanjundan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} Person was found deceased in last few days, there were various reports in newspapers etc. No talk page was created by the article creator. The talk page where created had Old revision of Talk:G. Nanjundan had no Template:WPBS blp=yes not blpo=yes parameters set; nor the living=yes {{ WikiProject Biography}} set. I have subsequently set various parameters, FeanorStar7 has challenged them and I seem ot have challenged back. This is all good faith and I would like to know best practice setting for a newly created article on a person recently deceased for WPBS/bll & blpo and WikiProject Biography living=. This report has had to be rushed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC) See also my talk page. @ Inter&anthro and S. M. Nazmus Shakib: article/talk page creators. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a few things that I wanted to bring up here first about this article. First, the article only has two citations: one being for his death today. I can't read them because they're in Russian. His name was also removed from Category:Living people. The other thing that stands out to me is that the only other citation in the article is to a sentence containing one word (read the article to see what I mean, I wouldn't want to repeat possible WP:BLP violations here). Are sources like these enough for a BLP? The original creator of the article was blocked for using mutiple accounts abusively, so I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the content. Clovermoss ( talk) 18:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
WHY are you looking for dirt on Sen. Blackburn under the guise of a Biography of Living Persons? You ask for evidence if she is "Racist" because of her vote in regards to recognizing Hawaii as former Pres. Obama's state of birth. SHAME on you!!! Biography's are apolitical and by asking for evidence if she is racist you are negating your claim to be a "Biography". This should be deleted IMMEDIATELY if you wish to maintain your credibility! Kilraywashere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilraywashere ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can anyone help confirm that this interview (on YouTube) confirms this edit to Naseem Shah's article? I assume the language is Urdu. FYI - I have no issue with the source, as it's from the Pakistan Cricket Board, but need confirmation on that edit. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Please note that someone keeps deliberately putting up a section on 'Norway' which is disparaging to Manfred Gerstenfeld. Every time we take it down, they put it back up. Can you please stop this?
thank you
Karen (for Manfred Gerstenfeld) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwolberg ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Article cites, "In contrast, Lopez claimed that Southwestern administrators fired him for his refusal to cut back on his rhetoric after having reprimanded him earlier for talking almost incessantly about homosexuality.[13]" 'Talking incessantly' is not mentioned in the cited article, and obscures the point. It appears the issue is between a belief in the "celebate homosexual life" as ideal (SWBS), and belief in modification of homosexual orientation by Lopez, as well as linking homosexuality to abuse. The cited source itself from queerty.com is insubstantial and unhelpful compared to sources closer to the discussion. Inside Higher Ed does a better job. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/12/11/professor-who-sought-refuge-liberal-academe-southern-baptist-seminary-finds-out-why. Vague broadside swipes should be excluded by Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardTurner2 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
We could use some more eyes over at Talk:Open_Technology_Fund#Addition_to_Section_3_-_Projects. A user removed an entry stating that it violated WP:BLP, this has been re-removed by Gamaliel. I understand he wants to err to the side of caution. We have another admin, myself and another user who all state there's no BLP violation present in the addition. The original user who removed the entry, Cellarpaper has responded on the talk page but has not actually stated what the BLP is, nor has Gamaliel stated what he believes the BLP to be.
Some extra input on the page would be appreciated to gain consensus, one way or the other. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 13:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There have been multiple attempts by a user to make this article like an attack page. That user is eager on deleting all the positive info even is it is sourced by news websites and just wants to have all negative info. diffs: 1. User wants to delete acquittal info: [10] [11] [12] 2. User wants to delete the clarification comments and just wants to have the controversial comment: [13] 3. Any many more: [14] [15] [16] Removed references which proved the subject was exonerated in the other case [17] etc. I see continuous attempts by this user in making article negative and as fas as I know a BLP article should have both negative and positive aspects if they are sourced, but this user just wants to engage in edit war and tries to remove all positive content. La vérité gagne ( talk) 07:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A picture of Peter LaBarbera (File:Peter LaBarbera.jpg) exists but an admin says it is prejudicial towards him given protesters against his organization in the background. However, I would note that LaBarbera was attending this pride parade as a counter protester and therefore the image is consistent with his work. Can the image be used or cropped?-- NL19931993 ( talk) 05:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Kshitijbhargava171001 is adding unsourced POV and potentially defamatory content in the article as can be seen
here,
here and
here, where the user writes that the subject has no other credibility apart form being the daughter of a notable politician as can be seen in one of the edits by the user here - "Mriganka has no other relevant milestone in her life than being the daughter of Hukum Singh..
" The user keep edit-warring and is likely to violate 3RR despite I warned them once
[18]. Since not much activity can be seen from the account apart from vandalizing the above article, it seems like a vandalism only account. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Fylindfotberserk should note that the comments made were not defamatory these were just facts. To Prove me wrong I did ask
User:Fylindfotberserk to prove that these defamatory or untrue. If even one instance of the information provided by me is found to be untrue I would agree to the statement above. Please provide with credible data that proves Mriganka Singh has some achievement in her life apart from just fighting an election that too on the basis of her ancestry. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kshitijbhargava171001 (
talk •
contribs) 07:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm the subject of this page. I never went to Hazelhurst school. As it's my page i'm not editing it myself. The page is also very out of date and has obsolete listings. If you want to update then I suggest you use my website www.samiraahmed.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.125 ( talk) 14:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Gerardo Werthein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malfeasance that is "under investigation". content aded here is negatve BLP sourced to finleaks and removed as misinformation here. Subsequently readded and removed. While not egregiously negative BLP, I'd like it looked at and I question the adequacy of the source.-- Deep fried okra 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I came across a slow edit war at that page, over information that portrays the page subject negatively. It looks to me like the information is reliably and widely sourced, but I'm posting here to get some more opinions about it, and eyes on the page. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The BLP-violating content was reinstated by User:Roxy the dog, using Twinkle no less. Some more eyes on this would be appreciated. Woodroar ( talk) 21:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there was some serious problems with the whitewashing. But Wikipedia is also WP:NOT#TABLOID. In other words, although this person's legal troubles have been splashed across the New York society scandal pages, we probably shouldn't be devoting the entire article to such. I think we need to just summarize the legal troubles neutrally and let the reader visit the relevant sources if they want the sordid details. I am not sure on how best to accomplish this. jps ( talk) 00:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The neutrality of the
recently added
Kim Iversen#Political views section isn't obvious for me. For starters I've reset the lede + categories to what they were before (=2RR for today), tagged the section as {{
primary}}
, and upgraded six raw references to {{
YouTube}}
+ {{
cite web}}
. –
84.46.52.63 (
talk) 06:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Glad this was finally protected. I'm getting no response to rev/deletion requests of content a several articles. This one could use it. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 17:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Lia McHugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is there any way to protect certain sections of this person's wikipedia entry from being edited. I have provided solid proof of this actresses DOB yet people keep reverting the change based on zero evidence. RoboBongoCuckooCop ( talk) 12:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I came across Corky Boozé while reviewing a new-ish user's article creations. I'm very concerned about how this article is written. It consists almost entirely of controversy sourced to local publications. There is very little biographical information in the article. My dilemma is, should this be CSDed as an attack page; should it be nominated for AfD; or can it be salvaged? - Mr X 🖋 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Too much personal, passionate detail. -- 195.176.96.201 ( talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
On Robin Steinberg: The "Controversies" section appears to be poorly sourced and the subject of repeated attempts to re-add the material by a single-purpose account. Since I'm arguably INVOLVED as I've removed the content before, bringing here for review and possible administrative action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Asking for more eyes on this. Not a whole lot of English sources. I've reverted a couple of times unsourced and poorly written additions to the article which seem to me not to be written from a NPOV. Hydromania ( talk) 09:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A SPA is trying to whitewash the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
My query concerns a book by Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point. An editor has added this:
"There has also been criticism of the basic claims of his book that the idea of a tipping point originates from epidemiology and a denial that there was any actual evidence for the central examples of the spread of the fashion for hush puppies or venereal diseases, together with the claim that the book has an underlying theme of racism and homophobia. [1]"
Besides needing attribution, I'm uneasy about it as it seems to be accusing Gladwell of racism and homophobia, something not suggested in his article. However, when I looked at his article to find out, I found that the same editor, User:Napata102, had added "This claim that the idea came from epidemiology has been critically challenged. [2]" I can't see where Ladimeji is an expert on dynamics here [20] or in the deleted biography Dapo ladimeji created by the same editor. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Requesting page protection due to defamatory and libelous information being repeatedly posted unnecessarily. These edits made by posters with an axe to grind are public information that could damage ones career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.187.84 ( talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd entirely agree with your assessment although I appreciate it may not have been obvious. There is something weird going on with that page. I recognised the article and name, which was weird since he's an obscure former American football player, a sport I think is wack and don't follow in any way. I see now this is because it came up before Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive294#Douglas Chapman. At the time, there didn't seem to be anything particularly concerning.
But since then, the article has had edits that admins have felt were bad enough to justify rev-deletion [21].
Also I see now that even before the previous thread, someone has been adding uncited contentious and I suspect almost definitely untrue claims about their recent employment [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and a clearly untrue claim that the subject is paralysed [29] [30] [31] and utter nonsense [32] [33]. Given the relative obscurity of the subject, I guess this must be some person with a personal dislike of the subject targeting the article. (I recently dealt with what I assume is a a similar case on two sisters although in that case I suspect there's probably some personal connection as the people seemed ever more obscure.) I would include the blocked adder Special:Contributions/Marshall77 of the rev-deleted claims and Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO who did once add similar non attributed claims about the subject's recent employment as per my earlier links.
The recent edits [34] are maybe the basis of something which could be in our article and in any case are not defamatory if true. But although a source was attributed for one claim, no inline citation was provided. And I have very strong doubts given the recent history that it is true. If not true, I would argue it is defamatory. I personally dislike using the word on wikipedia as it's rarely helpful and don't think it's useful here, still the OP may very well be correct. Definitely some of the earlier additions could be considered defamatory.
BTW I noticed [35] which suggests to me the OP could be the subject of the article.
Persistent WP:BLP violations, so a more stringent level of page protection is merited. As well, mass rev-deletion may be appropriate for defamatory content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Really need more eyes, a mass attack re: long term addition of unsourced nicknames, mixed in with a mass attack of unsourced changes in statistics. I've requested indefinite semi protection. Can't keep up with the multiple IPs, and no intention of spending the night doing so. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Could some editors please have a look at this article, the use of cited sources, and the associated AfD page. There was an incident at a Trump campaign rally in 2016. A young Aspergers Brit with many mental health issues had a psychotic episode in which he attempted to grab a security guard's pistol at the rally. He was immediately subdued and eventually served 6 months in jail for possession of a firearm. An editor has created and is "defending" an article that promotes the false narrative that this was a significant assassination attempt on Trump. In fact, the only lasting coverage given the incident related to discussion within the UK about how the social services and justice systems treat troubled individuals with behavioral problems. The article creates an UNDUE and BLP-disparaging narrative that is not supported by the weight of the RS coverage of this incident. Any wise input will be appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing. All the cited sources were from the period shortly after the incident before the facts became known. This is not a notable event. The article presents prosecutors' early allegations as if they were fact. BLP violation. And when all of what we now know is put in context, we just have the story of a kid who had a psychotic break and acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. The folks at AfD don't seem to be focusing on much of this. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. “I did try to kill a guy, mum.” [37] I'm not sure these quite gel. - Ryk72 talk 02:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The kid is mentally incompetentNot legally, because he was still charged and convicted.
That source says the judge ... dtermined that the kid did not attempt to kill.No, it doesn't quite say that. It says the judge commented, not determined. He wasn't charged with attempted murder, so there was no determination on that aspect. He plead guilty to what he was charged with, so there was no determination on guilt.
You are missing the crux.No, I don't think I am. He tried to take somebody's gun, with the intent to shoot to kill. I don't think it's reasonable to describe that as "acted out in a very harmless way" or "not harm anyone or anything". - Ryk72 talk 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see the direct relevance of "U.S. Code 1751.I only see it as relevant in the negative sense. The argument is made above, and at AfD, that we should not say "attempted assassination", because no-one was explicitly charged with "attempted assassination". That statute is the only "attempted assassination" statute. (Mere mortals must make do with mere murder). If we were to use that as a decider as to whether, when and where we could say "assassination", then we would have to exclude multiple incidents, all of which are commonly regarded as assassinations. I suppose I could've just said "No-one was charged with "assassination" for MLK, ME, MX, RFK, HM". - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm amazed that article even exists. GoodDay ( talk) 00:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC) I've just found and removed a group of references cited to British tabloids deprecated here at RSN. Help is needed vetting all the sources for this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I have removed a section of the article that recites undue personal detail about the perpetrator and relies on press accounts of the confused accounts before all of the facts were known. I have asked author of the article not to reinsert that content. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The above article concerns an incident at a Donald Trump rally. Donald Trump Jr. gave an interview on Good Morning America reacting to the incident. My view is that this is germane to the article as it is a response to the incident from a public figure. Another editor has removed Trump Jr's reaction stating it is "meaningless UNDUE content that violates BLP by inflating the significance of the incident". I would welcome an objective view on whether it is appropriate to include Trump Jr.'s reaction in the article. McPhail ( talk) 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
At the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there are strong BLP problems - a specific, otherwise non-notable living individual is associated with the title. While there are some sources that use that term to describe the event, going by the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, we see that we should avoid suggesting that such an individual committed a crime unless they've been convicted of it. Said individual has not only not been convicted of that crime, but not even charged with that (they were found guilty of a far more minor crime, disorderly conduct.) While the recent AFD for that article ended with a Keep, even many of the Keep votes were saying that the page should/could be renamed, with BLP concerns often being cited. While there may be concerns for orderly page move, BLP concerns generally override most other concerns, and editor @ Pudeo: has not only undone a move specifically intended to stop BLP concerns while a more proper name could be found, but also undid an attempt to edit the article to avoid the BLP concerns within the article (I have since restored those edits.) I am asking that the page be blanked until it can be moved to a title that does not fly in the face of WP:BLPCRIME. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In the small biography of Hiroto Saikawa, there is a big section on Carlos Ghosn's arrest and how he is guilty of funds misappropriation. There is a note saying that so far there is no evidence of his crime since no trial has taken place, but has been deleted then added again, and will probably be deleted again. The whole paragraph on Ghosn should actually be removed, as it is actually defamatory since no guilt for Ghosn has been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.244 ( talk) 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Article I've created on a video game developer. He's recently been accused of some shady behavior. I'm mostly curious about BLP, tone, and neutrality. I would like imput from the greater community about these issues.
Discussion:
Sources:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Persistent addition of the name DelRoBa. I am not seeing any source online that Dilraba = DelRoBa. Dilraba is a transliteration of an Uyghur name. 41.102.0.91 ( talk) 18:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent unsourced claims of death. I'm not finding any online corroboration. Page protection, user blocks or verification, any will work. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just added a few maintenance tags to Balloon boy hoax. This because of an outstanding discussion on whether this YouTube video should be worked into the article. It portrays undeniable evidence against the current "opinion" of the article.
I'm only a rookie, but I believe this should be looked into. While it is a YouTube link, and "anyone can upload anything", I believe it should be taken into very careful consideration whether the current, very loaded argument the article provides is still correct for a BLP. If facts change over time, this article should too, especially if the article is almost libelous towards its subject. Shindo Nana talk? 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ryan Avery (lacrosse player) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi! Please help. I wanted to know what I would do if I create Ryan Avery (Keynote Speaker) in Wikipedia and there's already a name that appears the same as his, which is the subject above. I believe that Ryan Avery as a speaker is more noticeable than Ryan Avery (lacrosse player). I hope I could get advice from contributors and editors. Thank you.
Azumi121 ( talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Azumi121
Edit warring over inclusion of a legal issue. May require page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:55AD:391C:FBB:BE24 ( talk) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
cleanup tag. –
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Persistent addition of unsourced WP:BLP violations to both biographies, adding names and birth dates of non notable children. Requesting page protection and user blocks, if necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semiprotected}}
on the talk page. If many users edit the page or at least undo any damages ask for a "pending review" protection, it's far better than "semi-protection" for all involved parties if there are lots of editors. –
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)There is a dispute on the Glenn Beck page where some editors are removing a line in his lead that says, "During Barack Obama's presidency, Beck promoted numerous falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Obama, his administration, George Soros, and others." Is it a BLP violation to say Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories about Obama and others? RS say he did. Furthermore, it's a central aspect to his notability. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj - This page contains many false informations. The cited weblinks are misrepresenting. The cited weblinks of awards are false. The page should be deleted or rewritten completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical Arun ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
rewrite}}
, {{
PROD}}
and {{
AFD}}
exist, pick what you need, the article name with a title is already odd, therefore I haven't read the page. Caveat, better don't pick PROD or AFD until this BLP/N entry is archived, about a week after the last reply. –
84.46.53.221 (
talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)An IP requested that the above be semi-protected at WP:RFPP and I've done that. If anyone has a moment, please try to work out what is going on. In particular, some editors like adding "Menon" to the name, and some like to remove it. The image was also recently changed. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Content added linking Bodhi Jones to a TicTok account are only based on the looks of the person and has not been sourced proving they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles E Hampton II ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Mark Kostabi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bringing this here for review, an IP editor and a new user with one edit have both removed
this content, with edit summaries of falsely sourced paragraph that is libelous and harmful
and the new user claiming poorly sourced content which is misleading, harmful and libellous
. I reverted both editors. I maintain the content is a significant life event for a BLP, reliably sourced, NPOV, he's
well known, and has received sustained coverage through the years,
1991,
2004,
2010,
2012,
2018. Mentioned in
this book as well. And the original article (June 1989) is still online,
The Art Of The Hype, with a paid subscription. Should this content be removed or is it compliant with our
WP:BLP policy? Left a note on the new user's talk page about this discussion. Thanks.
Isaidnoway
(talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Norman Shelter was born in 1931 and served in World War II, but that is impossible, he would not have been 18 until 1949, four years after the war ended. Either he was not born in 1931 or he served in the Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.76 ( talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Please review the edits of @ Luke Mills1996: at Reece Webb-Foster - he claims to be the subject's brother and makes edits every once-in-a-while which go against RS in the article. Giant Snowman 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Following an ANI discussion on protecting the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, I've proposed a change to BLP policy to allow for the omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm. I'm putting it up here to elicit further comments from interested editors: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed changes.
Thanks. François Robere ( talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like BLPN contributors to share their opinion on the dispute, whether Wikipedia Article should name the "unnamed" Juvenile convict in this case.
WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.
|
---|
|
the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source - AltNews.in (A fact checker site)
DBig Xrayᗙ 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "applied to those who share the same name as someone who has appeared in the news. The privacy of the person who is actually involved in the story is what the policy covers". We aren't going to be publishing the names of random people who share the same name as the convicted juvenile rapist, unless they're somehow a key part of the story. But they aren't and indeed the vigilantism isn't even mentioned at the moment AFAICT. The fact that the juvenile is apparently going under a new name, doesn't change the exclusion of publishing his name based on the limited number of sources which mention it. And by sources, we of course mean reliable secondary sources, no Twitter mentions or whatever.
While I don't have hard stats, probably the most common cases of BLPNAME we deal with here are naming family members particularly children of notable individuals. (To be clear, I don't mean people who are notable for crimes. Just random celebrities and the like.) We do normally exclude such names even if they appear in one or 2 reliable sources. We also get a fair few cases where the victim has been named by one or two sources, again we exclude such mentions if they're limited. We may exclude them even in some cases where it's more widespread but we need to do so for other reasons. ( Kobe Bryant sexual assault case may be one such case.) We also often get cases involving those who have chosen to use a pseudonym especially those acted in adult films and similar although frankly most of these cases are terrible and involve primary sources like court cases, trademark documents or other clearly non RS/ WP:BLPPRIMARY violations that we don't even need to touch on BLPNAME.
It's probably true we don't deal with many cases of excluding a convicted defendants name here but this is because most commonly either it's widely published or there is no reliable secondary source. Especially for very high profile cases involving a significant offense. (Again primary sources and other non reliable sources are irrelevant, no matter if there is no doubt of their accuracy.) I think the circumstances of this case namely that it involves someone seen as a minor in the jurisdiction they were charged in and so they were not named for that reason, but that a small number of reliable sources were willing to publish the name anyway, probably arises in part because of how extremely high profile it is and this isn't something we deal with a lot.
The most similar case I can think of off hand is Murder of Grace Millane however that situation is only expected to be temporary. (There are other permanent name suppression cases in NZ, but there are normally no RS coverage of the name. And those tend to be minor crimes as more major crimes will only involve permanent suppression if it's necessary to protect a victim i.e. where the victim was a spouse or child.) I also expect there's cases case where the alleged victim of a sexual crime was later convicted for making a false statement or something and where they have been named by one or two sources, but not by most. And I'm fairly sure there are some cases involving fairly low profile crimes or things which may not even be crimes, and of course cases which didn't result in convictions, which we cover for some reason where the name has been excluded even though it was published in RS although of course additional considerations (namely how to handle the BLPCRIME issue) arise in such cases. (While eventually the decision was made to include the names of both parties, there was extensive discussion on what to do with either party for Columbia University rape controversy and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).)
Some expert input about the Stefan Molyneux entry on the List of YouTubers could be helpful, a "discussion" (not really) on the Talk page was inconclusive. – 84.46.53.207 ( talk) 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This article has frequently been the target of socks and editors (often new) with an obvious WP:COI. Today, a new editor (and now an IP with threats) have been adding promotional material to the article. More eyes are needed. I cannot revert any more.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I need help with a sourcing issue on Cenk Uygur. I introduced an edit in the Political Views section that lists his current political views, and then source each political view with a YouTube video showing Uygur expressing the political view on his show The Young Turks. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by one user claiming there is a sourcing issue, leaving the comment "Entirely sourced to Young Turks YouTube, which is controlled by subject and lacks independent sourcing." In response I reference WP:BLPSPS which 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." Ultimately my argument is that when citing a person's political views, a video of the person expressing their political views is a reliable source. This appears to be backed up by WP:BLPSPS. Independent sourcing in this case doesn't seem necessary to me because the section is on Uygur's personal opinions, not what other people think his opinions are.
Here is a diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cenk_Uygur&diff=934340944&oldid=931464513. Can anyone provide their input? Cacash refund ( talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You need secondary sourcing, not Cenk's own words. You want to avoid fluff and spin that Cenk might introduce. We also don't want to list every single political position he's ever taken on every issue (that's what his personal campaign site is about), rather only what is notable. How do we determine what is notable? It would be what secondary sources discuss. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: About "touting his support for single-payer healthcare", a quote from the BLP as of today: Is it only me, or is this out of line? My idea of neutral would be "supporting
single-payer healthcare" with a wikilink. The
HuffPost reference contains no "tout", but I can't tell if it is the red or yellow RS/P variety, maybe an attribution to Jessica Schulberg would help (8 uses in the article namespace). The other
The Santa Clarita Valley Signal source also contains no "tout". Both sources are not wikilinked in their references,
NOTTIKTOK. –
84.46.52.170 (
talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Need some assistance on whether this is considered part of WP:TWITTER (via WP:V) and thus added to the article or shouldn't be added at all. Since this is a BLP, I am coming to you all for guidance. A discussion has begun on the talk page of the article. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual")(pulled from the first sentence of Asexuality#Definition,_identity_and_relationships). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for 24 hours as people are edit-warring over this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Could I please get someone to check the article Gabriel Matzneff I just created? I think it's fine, but I would like another set of eyes on it - I've largely just translated the lead section of the French article. Thanks! - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This page is in violation of large portions of the biographies of living persons policy.
Sources are nearly all tabloid journalism, which consists of defamatory and libelous information. Sources are negative, questionable and written/referenced by unqualified people. Removal of such sources has been unsuccessful - editing blocked by a bot.
The page serves the only purpose of harming the subject - achieved subtly through negative references.
NPOV is not consistent where the anonymous writer has given their opinion on the subjects career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceNerd1900 ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jay Maynard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Discospinster constantly reverting sourced material from Jay Maynard article without comment, even as far as to remove the edits from the system entirely. Refuses to address the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.50.12.149 ( talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The category in the Pablo Lyle Wikipedia biography is libellous and slanderous.
I tried to edit and now it has been locked...and its unedited. This is my edit...that includes their misintentions with more detailed information. Their short blurb appears to be nonfiction but its actually full of errors...and out of context and most importantly out of context with the video footage being used to make the accusations. Its biased and very onesided. Once again while being a short blurb of the incident it is libellous and slanderous and can be punishable in the court of law for writing a bad take on the incident.
The real,longer and uncut version: On April 2019, Lyle without consideration for his Miranda Rights may have admitted to punching 63-year-old Juan Ricardo Hernández (of Cuban origin) during a road rage incident where Juan Ricardo Hernandez leaves his automobile unattended about 5 cars behind Lyle and approaches and engages the chauffer of the automobile SUV (a family car) where Lyle was a passenger. They were at a Stop Light and major intersection in Miami, Florida. The victim was hospitalized and died four days after his road rage incident which engaged the passerbyes occupants of a family car/vehicle.[3] Lyle was charged with manslaughter after the man of mature aged died. He had been originally charged with battery before Hernandez died. There is a video of the road rage incident where the victim leaves his compact car unattended about 5 cars behind, he was obviously the driver of his compact car leaving his car unattended during a Stop Light at a Major Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez then approaches enraged to engage the chauffer, Lyle and his children whom were passerbyes at a Major Stop Light Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez engages the family whom were in a family car, an SUV stopped at a major intersection. Lyle's children were passengers in the car. Lyle in a dubiously sketchy video is perhaps then seen running to punch Hernandez. Miami is full of random violence and crime even in traffic like the Dominican Republic and various parts of Florida and the Caribean which all lead to massacres. Many intersections are really to be avoided and really its a Stop and Go at Your Own Risk Intersections Regime. Apparently, gangs are more adept at law and managing the courts than the courts themselves. Why would gangs want to own the streets and major intersections. The trial is still on going but may end soon. [4] If convicted of manslaughter, Lyle could face up to 15 years in prison.
There are many major criminal incidents in Miami against tourists. Many appear to be mock crimes or repetitions of tourists being mugged and with the Miami Yacht industry apparently some are lured into yachts and raped. Do notice the recent mass murder crimes against families in traffic even in Mexico in Sonora. A family on a rural road headed to Sonora was killed in an incident that took the lives of 3 female adults and 6 children from the LeBaron family, a Mormon American Family returning home. The survivors are the father Mr Baron and 3 children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:C000:4A86:40CC:9574:69E2:B1C3 ( talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"As CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, McCain's handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak with frank and open communications made him a role model for crisis management.[ [40]]"
This is overly promotional content with a dead source. According to policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Statement should be changed to reflect a more neutral tone, or at the very least have a verifiable source.
Bleepenvoy ( talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bleepenvoy, here are the cites given for this small paragraph.
It appears you have strong opinion that there should be no review of this event, just given as a date and fact. But there's significant coverage that it has been used as a case study. Deciding Globe and Mail is in the bag for him is quite the stretch. The article in The Conversation isn't "only promotional", it's complimentary, which isn't the same thing. The Public Communication Review study has been referenced in 48 books. It seems this is strong personal bias on your part, not true criticism of the sources. tedder ( talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation in Joseph Boyden bio are one-sided, subjective, poorly notated or not notated at all. Many claims posted in this section are clearly libellous. The tone of the opening paragraph of Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation says it all. Wikipedia editors who are trolling this page have only continued to highlight subjective and false statements and refuse to allow objectivity or additional fact, while at the same highlighting false and unverified rumour. Please find a fair balance of facts and the deletion of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miigwaansaag ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to get further clarification on this edit. I'm not saying it's a bad edit, but I'm not clear on the policy relating to this. The editor states it is per MOS:BIO, and I see this section. That states it should not go in the lead, but should it be in the article? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jacob Wohl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's a dispute over whether to use Category:21st-century American criminals. I oppose it's usage until there's a reliable source to say he has been convicted of a criminal offense in a court of law. Another editor points to the fact that he's already categorized as Category:American fraudsters, which is a sub-cat of Category:American criminals by crime. I think there's sufficient sources to say he's been found to have defrauded people, and broken the law, and been penalized for doing so. But, I don't yet see a source to say he's been criminally convicted. It's my understanding, that with a BLP, we don't categorize somebody as a criminal, unless they are convicted of a crime, even if sources say that they committed an act, which is normally considered a crime (e.g. fraud). I think this case shows a flaw in how the categories are organized. I haven't found a source that clearly settles the issue either way (to definitively say he's been convicted, or he's never been convicted, of a crime). Maybe I missed a source, in which case, I would be happy to be proven wrong. -- Rob ( talk) 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Supun Halangoda ] (Born 29 of April 2000) is young Programmer and an Engineer in IT Infrastructure in Cloud computing, Servers, Routing and Switching. He started his first organization in 2017 which was known as App Factory LK, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun Halangoda ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged.I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr ( talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point.
Humanengr (
talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd watch out and avoid personal sites as they likely have spin and fluff. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF is clear on this matter. If a self-published source contains an exceptional claim, it requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, an exceptional claim led to this discussion and the multiple high quality sources do not exist to support the claim. Samp4ngeles ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
“I identify as a Hindu," Gabbard wrote in an email Thursday. “However, I am much more into spirituality than I am religious labels."
In that sense," she added,“I am a Hindu in the mold of the most famous Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, who is my hero and role model."
Gabbard wrote that she "was raised in a multicultural, multiracial, mulitfaith family" that allowed her “to spend a lot of time studying and contemplating upon both the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."
Today her spiritual practice is neither Catholic nor traditionally Hindu.
“My attempts to work for the welfare of others and the planet is the core of my spiritual practice," Gabbard wrote. “Also, every morning I take time to remember my relationship with God through the practice of yoga meditation and reading verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. From the perspective of the Bhagavad-Gita, the spiritual path as I have described here is known as karma yoga and bhakti yoga."Yes, such material can be used. WP:BLPSELFPUB applies. Xenagoras ( talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
For those interested in bigoted attacks that Gabbard has faced regarding her private religious beliefs, see the sources cited here. Humanengr ( talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I am someone who is a big fan of a broadcast crew member 'Tapon Mahamud Jony' and I made an account on Wikipedia with his name. I have watched all of his interviews and attended his award-winning ceremonies. I once met him and told him about my interest to publish an article about himself and so I asked him to provide me some references where he was nominated for awards and achievements. Indeed it is an autobiography and all references are reliable. Please guide me on what changes are needed to publish this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have done what you said. Can you guide what to do for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Found at the help desk, it's no BLPPROD, but apparently a BLP1E with various BLP policy violations not limited to do no harm (see #Delhi gang rape above.) – 84.46.52.152 ( talk) 00:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)