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

Luis C.deBaca is a diplomat who was an ambassador. His name is misspelled, however, with his middle initial bunched up with his last name, but without the period after the C to show it stands for a name. I don't know how to fix that, since it's the name of the article, not a problem in the article text. Check the correct way to present his surname and fix it if appropriate. Thanks! VanEman ( talk) 00:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure its misspelled? His State Department Bio is spelled CdeBaca. Foreign Policy spells it the same way, as do multiple other sources, including Senate documents. That said, his own Linkedin uses "C.deBaca" - with a period but no space. A page move is easy enough to do but I'm not quite sure how to weigh the different spellings of his name... Fyddlestix ( talk) 00:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that is confusing. This White House press release spells it C. de Baca, whereas, this Office of Justice statement uses C.deBaca. Maybe we should just leave it as is and redirect the others, because this State Department letter from the man himself signs it CdeBaca. Zaereth ( talk) 01:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this before with latin family names and official documents. For some reason at various times they dont particularly like spaces or periods, so everything gets squished together, and administrations being what they are, no one corrects it. The family name is Cabeza de Baca as an offshoot of the prominent Baca family. However commonname states we use what they are commonly referred by - and for whatever reason (probably due him being a politician and the administration being incompetent) that is currently CdeBaca. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My edits to this article have been blocked from viewing. While I understand if I can't insert them into the article, is there a way for me, at the very least, to look at them? Oobooglunk ( talk) 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, as they have been revision deleted. An admin *might* email you a copy of the deleted material, but from the relevant talkpage discussion it looks like at least one of the links/sources you used is no longer available. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oobooglunk, I can e-mail you copies of your edits from October-November 2015 if you like. The link to apgnation.com no longer works; the other links you added are OK. Any good? Bishonen | talk 18:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, thank you! Oobooglunk ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• No problem. Sent. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

Wesley Weber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the second time I have had to protect myself from defamatory practices. Can you please delete the comments associated to reference (8)? The referenced link contains no information. The reasons I believe it violates the biography is because it is completely inaccurate and libelous, there is absolutely no valid reference. Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasestopattackingwesley ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This document verifies the content that you are asking to be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Jorgie Porter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new user recently added a death claim (27 November 2015) but I'm not seeing anything about her death. I've reverted it as a precaution.-- Auric talk 12:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Pogge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/yale-ethics-professor

The article describes at length the allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas Pogge over the last twenty years. Christa Mercer, Martha Nussbaum, Fernanda Lopez Aguilar and other sources, whose names are not mentioned in the article, publicly speak out on these issues. Additionally, we are provided with two PDFs, one stating that Lopez Aguilar signed an agreement with Yale (Pogge's employer), so she would withdraw her complaints for a compensation of 2000 $. The other is a copy of the civil rights complained she failed entailing emails Pogge sent her, which support the allegations. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2840120-NDA-Yale-FLopez.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2840101-Yale-Title-IX-Complaint.html#document/

We've been already discussing the quality of the buzzfeed article here /info/en/?search=Talk:Thomas_Pogge

I, personally, consider this article to be a trustworthy source, allowing us to state the following: "In May 2016 Pogge was publicly accused of sexual harassment. Former students of his claim that he manipulated students "to gain sexual advantage." In a secret agreement in 2010, Yale university paid a student $ 2,000, so she would drop her charges. In October 2015 a federal civil rights complaint was filed against Pogge. The investigation of this complaint is still pending."

141.2.134.77 ( talk) 19:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yale Daily News also has an article. http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/05/21/philosophy-professor-accused-of-sexual-harassment/ They have looked at affidavits, and so forth. A cautious approach might (at a minimum) describe what Yale has decided so far, as reported by both Buzzfeed and Yale Daily News. Fanyavizuri ( talk) 21:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The YDN article is based on the Buzzfeed article and is not a separate reliable source, and on complaints made by the complainant only. It is, alas, not a reliable source for any inference concerning the accuracy of the complaint, or of any actions which might ensue. I note the Rolling Stone "rape article" had "affidavits" which turned out to have substantial problems, so Wikipedia requires that we act very conservatively where major damage to a loving person might ensue. Buzzfeed has its own problems [1] "Buzzfeed was the least trusted news outlet in a Pew poll on trust in journalism", [2] " Still...its BuzzFeed. I'm sure if the content is good enough the information is on a reliable source", so it would clearly be far better to use a better source than Buzzfeed where contentious claims about living persons are concerned. One might also note the problematic use of Buzzfeed as a source in the famed "GamerGate" contretemps. Any "news article" which has "Can someone fight tirelessly to balance the inequities of global power while at the same time abusing his own power? And can a discipline built on the quest to describe a just society — and suffering from a major diversity problem — afford to ignore these issues? " has become an editorial column, and thus not usable for claims of fact on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Buzzfeed has the problems you outline. Fanyavizuri ( talk) 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, in addition I have looked at the documents the article provides. Due to them being taken out of context, they are unverifiable. Jadeslair ( talk) 13:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well -- an IP has reverted the use of "editorial column" to "News article" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Pogge&diff=721453425&oldid=721450665 . I guess some folks do not understand that where editorial opinions are clearly expressed, that the article is editorial in nature. Collect ( talk) 00:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Time to request semi protection? Fanyavizuri ( talk) 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

For those not following along on the talk page, there is another article on this now:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/05/23/yale-philosopher-named-harassment-complaint

Fanyavizuri ( talk) 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Dimitri Soudas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article reads like promotional material - cut and pasted from promotional brochure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.14 ( talk) 14:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow! This is one of the worst examples of a promotional page I've ever seen. And it omits any mention of the several major controversies he's been involved in. Starting some cleanup, but looks like this will take a while... Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I finished an initial cleanup but there are still some major issues - see my comments here on the article talk page. Fyddlestix ( talk) 19:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm T. Elliott (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please refresh my brothers page to the state it was in including his details in CURRENT. These were in place for a number of weeks until the 20th May when someone keeps entering and changing the details. Thank you Wendy Elliott Otherwise could you kindly remove his entry from your pages and be done with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.188.247 ( talk) 23:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Names of spouses, family members, and especially children should not be included per WP:BLPNAME, unless it is well-sourced, reported in many reliable sources, and is directly related to the subject's notability. I have removed the other names for that reason, but think the entire section should be cut for lack of sources.

The article has multiple other issues of grammar, structure, and style that should be addressed, as it reads more like a facebook profile than an encyclopedia article. The article only has two sources, so notability may be borderline. If you prefer the entire article be deleted, you can bring this up at WP:Articles for deletion. Zaereth ( talk) 19:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That article was a cesspool of WP:OR, WP:BLP issues, grammar issues etc. I removed all the unattributed garbage but not much is left. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No argument here. That should make AFD all the easier. Zaereth ( talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Also note there is a COI/OWN aspect to some of the problematic article edits. Dl2000 ( talk) 22:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A number of editors are insisting in including in the article Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi the statement of fact that Qadhi is a Salafi based on the following sources:

• Grewal, Zareena (2013-12-02). Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority. NYU Press. p. 330. ISBN  9781479800889. today, American Salafis, such as Shaykh Yasir Qadhi of the AlMaghrib institute are offered as the solution.
• Elliott, Andrea (2011-03-17). "Why Yasir Qadhi Wants to Talk About Jihad". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. In the spectrum of the global Salafi movement, Qadhi, who is 36, speaks for the nonmilitant majority.... He came to identify with political Salafiya, denouncing secular democracies and declaring Sufis and Shia "heretics."

I dont dispute that these are reliable sources. However, the subject of the article has himself said, more recently than either of these sources, that he is not a Salafi. Here he writes in April 2014, on a website he operates, that

Because of this, I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed in the earlier section. ... While after more than two decades of continuous research, I do subscribe to the Atharī creed

There are other instances (Feb 2013) of the subject saying, for example, Well I guess 20 years ago when I was a teenager I definitely would have self identified as a Salafi Muslim but over the course of the last decade or so I’ve kind of sort of grown out of the movement now. Given the subjects self-identification as no longer being a Salafi, can the Wikipedia article say that he is one? nableezy - 05:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent self-identification trumps an older characterisation by someone else. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's just stick to Wikipedia guidelines on the reliability and use of sources. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 06:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course -- but I'd suggest that you know less about Qadhi's religion than does Qadhi himself. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn’t this violate the rule that reliable third-party sources are more preferable? Moreover, when looking at WP:SELFPUB, I see that articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources. An identification like this is a huge deal for the article: I prefer to stick to the third-party sources until something better shows up. Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC).

Yes, let's stick to neutral third-party sources. There was a consensus on this page until a few days ago an unregistered user, and possibly a sockpuppet (no I don't mean you, Nomoskedasticity), began pushing a YouTube clip and a blog as evidence in place of what in almost every instance on Wikipedia we consider better sources. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 07:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:BLPSPS which specifically allow self-published sources provided they are from the subject of the article. Also relevant, even though this isnt strcitly a category, is WP:CAT/R, which says Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. We should not be saying that somebody follows some religious ideology when that person flatly says they do not. nableezy - 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Glancing at the sources and articles: I suspect there are cultural issues (if not outright cultural disputes) here given how very differently Athari and Salafi movement present the same and similar information (which looks like very obvious NPOV violations). I don't keep up, but do any ArbCom findings apply?

If we don't have any detailed history to sort this out, I think we need to present that he's been past identified as Salafi, and he currently self-identifies more Athari. We need to be extremely careful what, if anything, we put in Wikipedia's voice. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont think you even need the passive for his past identification as a Salafi, he says he was a Salafi. He says he was a Salafi for 20 years in that youtube link (I didnt listen to the whole thing as I honestly dont have the patience for an hour and a half of a religious lecture I was just trying to find where in it he says he is no longer a Salafi as the IP just cited the whole video link). I think it can say he was a Salafi though he no longer identifies as a Salafi and follows the Athari movement. nableezy - 16:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Athari is a school of theology whereas Salafi is a modern reformist movement. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. i.e one can claim to be Salafi and Athari at the same time. So if Qadhi claims that he follows Atharism it does not necessarily imply that he has left the Salafi movement. Do we have any explicit evidence that Qadhi has stated that he is not a Salafi? I ask because one of the quotes above merely states that "I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed above...". Not being associated with a particular trend of salafism does not appear to be the same as "not being a Salafi". Also, one of the links provided above is from Feb 2013 whereas the book Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority was published in Dec 2013 so seems to be a more current source. Saheeh Info 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed above" -- this is sufficient to make it inappropriate for the article to include the passage "Qadhi is a Salafi", which is what we had [3]. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

So we're accepting Youtube as a reliable source now? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

YouTube isnt the source, its the medium. What we are doing is accepting Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi as being a reliable source on the religious beliefs of Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. nableezy - 21:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite. I would point out it doesnt have to be a 'one or other' situation, it would be perfectly fine to write he used to be a salafi (sourced reliably to third party & himself) but has since declared he no longer shares their views (sourced reliably to himself). A self-published source is considered reliable *absent contradictory information* for information about the subject. He says he was a salafi, the sources used that say he is a salafi are in the past, no contradiction. Now if you had a source that was current saying he is still a salafi, then there would be an issue. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand now; I favor keeping both sources (the old sources were deleted in the disputed edits which was part of the problem) but viewing YouTube as a "medium" makes sense, especially since the issue with YouTube is that the uploaders are not always reliable; that shouldn't be the case here since his speech hasn't been cut up. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

A user account ( Satyrrills5) is persistently posting incorrect and inflammatory information that slanders the name of a living person. The sources referenced are [attempted outing redacted] news reports that made no mention of the Michael Oulton. Further, there are no criminal charges (never have been) and no accusations against the Bishop other than this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.251.59 ( talk) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Satyrrills5 to this discussion. I agree with the anonymous editor that after looking at the reverts, which have been done on other articles regarding the same copypasted content, had sources which did not refer to the content at all. However, both editors have been edit warring on not only that article, but other articles with the same contested content. Optakeover ^{(U) (T) (C)} 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Mike V. The other involved editor here, 194.187.251.59 has also been edit warring with the user you blocked, User:Satyrrills5. Optakeover ^{(U) (T) (C)} 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no "edit warring" when reverting BLP edits. I didn't check other articles, but I concur that the edits in this article don't assert what it's supposed to be, based on the source provided. I have RPP until this dies down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted part of your post, please no WP:OUTING other editors. Agree there are issues with the edits though. Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with the anonymous editor that the content he has been removing should be removed. However, an admin has blocked both users and currently the anon he is IP hopping. @ Mike V: for your information and immediate action, the IP is IP hopping: See [4]. Optakeover ^{(U) (T) (C)} 18:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

IP has been unblocked, and should remain unblocked. Reverting BLP is allowed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The content that he is removing is also on non BLP articles: see [5] and [6]. Though I fully agree with the anon that the content shouldn't be there as the sources quoted don't back it up, since an admin has made his action I think I should let him take note. Optakeover ^{(U) (T) (C)} 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP is not on the article, it's on the edit. What he is reverting is defamatory information that is not sourced. Sir Joseph ( talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Yes I think we're in agreement the edits should have been reverted. Multiple articles affected: Grenville Christian College, Michael Oulton, Community of Jesus, Diocese of Ontario, George Bruce (bishop), Allan Read, Peter Mason (bishop), St. George's Cathedral (Kingston, Ontario), Henry Hill (bishop). Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Fyddlestix and Sir Joseph. Optakeover ^{(U) (T) (C)} 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Repinging the blocking admin User:Mike V as I would like his opinion so far, especially since the IP is IP hopping. Optakeover ^{(U) (T) (C)} 18:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reblocked the IP range because it belongs to a hosting service. I'm still looking into this. Mike V • Talk 18:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Does this policy govern all language versions of Wikipedia or just the English language version? -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@ HighKing: WP:BLP applies only to en.wiki. However, this applies to all projects. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Bipolar disorder. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Opined. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegedly Lega-C wants the page to be deleted. I have reverted the blanking. Please supervise. Xx236 ( talk) 08:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I came across this as a speedy for the below reason. Obviously the rationale is too contentious to really fall under speedy criteria and the IP user makes some fairly good points. Do you guys think that this would be a good AfD candidate? Also, I'm concerned by the fact that this was created by a sockpuppet of a now blocked user.

Here's the rationale:

Insignificant, cruft article. Roma gypsy Americans keep their indentify and ethnicity a secret due to discrimination and stereotypes. Kesha is not Roma and Facebook is not a reliable source. Roma people don't have their own nation and this article will not expand soon due to Roma gypsies keeping their identity a secret again due to discrimination. Most of these people on this list aren't American. Ian Hancock is British, Sophia Santi is Canadian

What do you guys think? This does fall under BLP territory given the claims. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Its a list. So it has to abide by list rules, which means those included must pass the reliable source requirement. If someone cant be reliably sourced to be a Roma gypsy (self-identification would actually qualify here, not *everyone* is ashamed or secrative of their heritage), then they should be removed from the list. I think there probably is enough notable Americans of Romani heritage to make such a list possible. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying that, I remove Kesha from the list as its unsourced on the list and at the article. Some of the others are sourced, but to primary sources which should be fine. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on the IP's talkpage pointing them here, as they have reinstated material that fails sourcing for information about a BLP's ethnicity. (and removed the info again).

While technically I suppose no policy prohibits it, they then redirected once the CSD tag was removed. Not sure why they have a bee in their bonnet about it. Currently the only people listed there have either self-identified in interviews or it has been reliably sourced. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly urgent or anything but this article is being used as a coatrack for objections to a development by this person. Multiple SPAs acting to reintroduce the information, albeit pretty infrequently. The information itself is sourced, though is definitely from one POV, and lends undue weight to this one issue, which is not really suitable for a BLP. I don't know what the best option is - semi-protection, or just raising it here for more people to watchlist. (It's a fairly obscure article so won't have many watchers). Polequant ( talk) 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for some advice. Several issues with this page:

• Completely unsourced
• fails WP:NACTOR in my opinion
• being regularly edited by IPs claiming to be the subject, most recently in a promotional aspect away from acting [7]

As it's existed since 2007(!) it isn't possible to WP:BLPPROD.

Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 09:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've listed it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Stafford. Polequant ( talk) 12:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Little birdie suggested this might be a BLP violation. I am not sure one way or another. Drmies ( talk) 23:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a violation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Bbb. Drmies ( talk) 00:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. The reference unequivocally states "alleged". Moriori ( talk) 03:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would prefer 'alleged' as well given the subject - however in context technically it is not a violation. The foundation was set up to fund a private prosecution for child neglect. That is a fact. The crime was alleged, but not the reason for the foundations creation. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Libby Garvey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I initially filed an AfD on this (IMO) unnotable local politician, but I'm disturbed by not only the awful writing, but more so at language that tried to create a "guilt by association" by linking a quote on a municipal issue to the late Rob Ford, and then listing all of his dastardly deeds. The article uses sources such as "Patch" and uses original research such as saying "local papers said XYZ" when it was a single article. Could someone take a look and see if they can fix this article to remove the OR and poor sourcing? That man from Nantucket ( talk) 04:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• This article is still suffering from seemingly minor but grossly misleading claims that contravene the BLP policy. Please see the talk page, but an editor seems insistent on stating that multiple (as in more than one) Toronto based journalists claimed the BLP subject is a rogue member of local government" and "Virginia's Rob Ford, which considering the colorful history of Ford had damned well better be sourced. But the article only cites one journalist from an "alternative" news operation, which like most similar operations make rather flamboyant statements that while may be properly sourced is not fit for usage in an encyclopedia. I'm afraid that my first impression, which I've kept to myself until now is that the raison d'etre for this article may be to attack a living person for a political position they took (which in fact was ultimately backed by 80% of her fellow local politicians), only one of which has a Wikipedia article and that's due to them actually having passed the GNG bar.

  Please watchlist this article and opine on the articles AFD entry. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 03:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• update: That man from Nantucket has been revealed to be a bad faith sockpuppet... Geo Swan ( talk) 21:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, that's actually not as clear as it might have seemed, but in any event, discussion can continue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article is written in a rather effusive style - not complying with 'neutral point of view' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polecule ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look, and while 'effusive' they do tend to reflect the language used in the sources provided. Granted wikipedia is meant to be neutral, but at one point we are citing the encyclopedia of ballet and that is not exactly written in a neutral style. It could probably be trimmed a tad in places, but given her accomplishments in her field, a lot of the praise is well deserved. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't perceive any BLP policy violations on the article. Any issues can be addressed by ordinary editing, and talkpage discussion if needed. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

On the Richard J. Jensen page--that's me!-- user:WikiEditorial101 has been adding attack tags -- attacking my credibility and honesty and alleging another editor: "also strongly suspect that this is Mr. Jensen's sock)" He fails to discuss the issue of the talk page saying that "Excuse me, Mr. Jensen, but tags are not material, much less contentious material." I argue that I have followed the rules a) Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion and b) Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. Rjensen ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jensen seems to be a long-retired history professor focusing on social history of the American midwest with one book of note. I question notability. More important is his apparent obsession with his page, which he has repeatedly edited and which has grown quite unwieldy and messy. What is an "attack tag"? Avocats ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

the notability question has been discussed at length at [ [8]] with the strong consensus for notability. The rule at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is that 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. see The American Historical Association "James Harvey Robinson Prize" "is offered biennially for the teaching aid that has made the most outstanding contribution to the teaching of history in any field.... 1996 H-Net, based at Michigan State Univ.; Richard J. Jensen, executive director, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago...." Rjensen ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think Jensen is notable, but just barely. Certainly it is not a BLP violation to suggest that he may not be, as Jensen himself is currently argueing (and editwarring) in his own BLP. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seems notable per googlescholar and other sources. If you really feel the professor is not notable, AfD is "over there." And where contentious claims are made without strong reliable sourcing, Satan himself should remove them. Collect ( talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jensen is removing the notability and POV tags, stating that the tags themsels are violations of BLP. This is clearly not in line with policy, and encouraging BLP subjects to agressively remove anything they disagree with in their BLPs is a really bad slippery slope towards having people managing their own biographies. That is not how I think the BLP rules are supposed to work. Jensen of course, being a long time editor, should know all of this. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Maunus says "This is clearly not in line with policy" -- he made that up and is unable to quote any wiki rule or policy. the rule (top of this page) = "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." he says "material" does not include tags -- his imaginary new rule made up today. Rjensen ( talk) 23:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss at how an experienced editor can even arrive at the idea that the editorial tags might possibly fall under "contentious unsourced or poorly sourced content". The tags are not content at all, and requires no sources, only an ongoing editorial discussion. DO you really believe that BLP subjects have a right to remove editorial tags they disagree with from the articles about them? You shouldnt even be adding or removing content from that article at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This looks like clasic disruptive editing to me. If he continues removing appropriately placed maintinance tags WP:ANI is that way ==> PS "under attack" really?!!? BLPN requires neutral headers, again something a long time editor should know. Jbh ^Talk 00:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What we have is: Adding tags for non-obvious problems - without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems - is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags, such as

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

or

This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text.

, you should explain yourself on the talk page and/or in an edit summary. It can help to refer to applicable content policies. from Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems Note that "applicable content policies" are all about material and does apply to tagging. Rjensen ( talk) 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

However the tags you removed included {{ notability}} [9] [10] and based on the conversations on the talk page they seem to have been well explained. Certianly they have been explained to you now. Jbh ^Talk 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

well no -- the "notability" issue was well covered a year ago. Did you miss Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #2  ? Rjensen ( talk) 01:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh--it's getting worse. One editor keeps alleging illegal sock puppets on my part--with zero evidence. That is a very negative accusation in Wikipedia and violates BLP rules. (He did not actually take the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I deleted this BLP violation and another editor reinstated it, saying in the edit summary, "This is discussing behavior ans is not a BLP violation. Certianly not to the level of redacting amother editor's comments." Nope. the rule is " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" Rjensen ( talk) 02:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It may well be a violation of WP:NPA and sanctionable at WP:ANI but it is not a freeking WP:BLP violation. Nor is WP:SOCKing "illegal", there are no laws on Wikipedia, it may be against the rules and you may get blocked if true but "Using multiple illegitimate accounts on Wikipedia" is not going to show up on your bloody police blotter. Your inappropriate BLP claims make it very difficult to find and address any legitimate claims you may have. Having your own article does not give you any special rights or privlages like making spurious BLP claims in non-article space editing disputes. Jbh ^Talk 03:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101 has agreed to step away from this article, and I believe this discussion can be closed. Any further issues can be addressed through ordinary editing, or talkpage discussion if needed. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions regarding the lead and Occupation description at my bio on the Talk page.[ [11]] These suggested edits are based upon reliable sources listed and linked.[ [12]] Some editors agreed and were helpful in organizing the sources. I have some concerns about the tone of other editors blocking changes supported by reliable sources. In response one editor said,"it is time for a ban"[ [13]], while another categorized me as on the "fringe." [ [14]] I was previously told that I could make suggestions at the Talk page of my bio. And I have acted in good faith and made suggestions based upon reliable sources within Wikipedia guidelines. What do you think? Are the suggested edits well supported? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 21:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to bring up user conduct issues. You may want to try ANI. For the suggested edits to be accepted, you have to build consensus on the talk page. I don't see a WP:BLP policy issue here.- Mr X 21:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Two editors block edits, while others are open and helpful. The tone of those two editors is often quite negative. Should a bio be controlled by two editors? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have evidence of misconduct, go to ANI. Otherwise, please read and understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. Perhaps the two editors have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind and are following our policies, and perhaps you have your own interests in mind and are disregarding the advice of experienced editors.- Mr X 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. In my experience most of the Wikipedia volunteers are reasonable people. I have studied the Wikipedia policies. I am not an editor and am confined only to the Talk page where I can provide reliable sources and make suggestions per the previous advice of the BLP board. Other editors have been helpful in guiding me through the format and process and can appreciate the reliable sources I have cited and linked to support my suggestions. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• @ Rick Alan Ross: You are not going to get far complaining about behavior when you misrepresent other editor's words. The whole quote is "The only thing I can think of is to have Rick Alan Ross put his proposed edits to WP:RFC. If they pass fine, however, if there is yet again no consensus for them to be added and he brings of up the issue again without significantly better sources then it is time for a ban." [15] (ul added) Please do not do that again. Anyway ANI is the right place for your behavioral complaint and I believe another editor is opening a thread at WP:FTN for the content issues. Jbh ^Talk 21:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No. You suggested a process for me to be banned from the Talk page of my bio. I think you have suggested that before. You and Ronz have persistently blocked reasonable proposed edits based upon reliable sources, while other editors have not. Do you and Ronz want to dominate and control my bio? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggested to you the process all Wikipedia editors follow when they have reached an impass on the talk page. If you are unwilling to accept the outcome of an RfC then I suspect the tolerance the community has been extending you will end.

As to your other comments above link some WP:DIFFs at WP:ANI. I will be more than happy to have my behavior and judgement reviewed by the community. I strongly suggest that you not misquote me as you did above when you make that complaint though - that is not only deceptive but rude as well. Jbh ^Talk 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have never been rude to to you and there was no impasse. Editors other than you and Ronz acknowledged that the sources I listed supported the suggested edits. I will continue to act in good faith. You did previously suggest that I might be banned from the Talk page of my bio. Why do you persistently reject reliable sources, block edits and continue suggesting the idea that I might be banned from the Talk page of my bio? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:FTN discussion started: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rick_Alan_Ross_-_deprogrammer. My apologies for the delay in starting it. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about how Ronz is attempting to use "fringe theory" to edit my bio. IMO Ronz has a POV and he wants it expressed through my bio. Rick Alan Ross ( talk)

Yes agree the fringe noticeboard is not the correct location to discuss at all. Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FRINGE issues were identified on the talk page. Editors agreed that FTN should be used. There's agreement at FTN that the FRINGE issues are real. This is exactly what the noticeboard is for. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ronz: Your statement is misleading. Editors agreed that the reliable sources I listed and linked were good. Editors agreed that the suggested edits to the bio were fair. You and another editor dismissed the sources and sought to block edits. Now you are attempting to use "FRINGE issues" to leverage your position to block edits. IMO you are gaming the system. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 18:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Suit yourself Ronz but there is nothing WP:FRINGE about deprogramming or whatever it is that he is now either. IMHO the treatment of Ross by the majority of the wikipedia volunteers is, has been very poor and has recently got decidedly worse. He is discussing in good faith and the suggestion to ban him from his own article talk page is totally undue and excessive. Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please understand that the majority of Wikipedia volunteers have been reasonable and often helpful. Ronz and Jbhunley are the exceptions, especially Ronz. He has been bullying and tag teaming with Jbhunley. I have followed the rules, provided the sources and so now they are blocking and gaming. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 19:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ow good, in regards to your comment that, " Please understand that the majority of Wikipedia volunteers have been reasonable and often helpful" . I agree with you that you are being very poorly treated at the moment. Govindaharihari ( talk) 19:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. IMO Ronz wants my bio to read according to his POV. I am what he says I am regardless what reliable sources I cite and link. Hopefully someone from Wikipedia will intervene and explain to Ronz that he is operating outside the rules. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 20:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"but there is nothing WP:FRINGE about deprogramming" I'm afraid that the consensus is clearly the opposite. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that consensus was the opposite. Myself and someone else asked for clarification, which we never got. Otherwise the conversation was off-topic. (I'm referring to the conversation on WP:FT/N.) —PermStrump (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Jason Whitlock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First line - calls him a "racist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.242.128 ( talk) 17:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nyle DiMarco (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello all,

IP editors have been adding an unsourced birth date to Nyle DiMarco all day, and have been reverted, including twice by myself. Now User:Fuccbui has added the date, and sourced it to famousbirthdays.com. My understanding is that this is not a reliable source because it is user-generated content (see this thread on WP:RSN). I would like to note that I have not seen the date published in a more usual reliable source, like an interview. I would like more opinions on this, because we should be using only high quality sources for BLPs per the policy. Comments would be welcome. I just wanted more editors' eyes on this. MisterRandomized ( talk) 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Birthdates are typically considered private information, and are covered under WP:BLPPRIVACY. They should only be included if widely sourceable, which is a good indication that the subject probably won't object. In most cases, the full date is really unnecessary for understanding the subject, so is trivial at best, thus the year alone is usually sufficient. Zaereth ( talk) 00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That is what I thought, thank you Zaereth. MisterRandomized ( talk) 03:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[20] shows an IP editor repeating an attempt to add the Hulk Hogan funding rumour to the Peter Thiel BLP.

"In May 2016, it came to light that Thiel had been funding Terry Bollea's lawsuit against Gawker Media for publishing footage of him fornicating with a married woman. The case, Bollea v. Gawker, was initially decided in Mr. Bollea's favor for $140 million and is currently being appealed by Gawker. The trial was notable for including Bollea's sworn testimony affirming the discrepancy between the size of his penis and the size of Hulk Hogan's penis. The trial was also notable for excluding the racist comments made post-fornication by Bollea while moralizing about his daughter's sex life; Gawker had opted not to publish these as part of the sex tape in deference to his privacy. When these comments were made public by other sources, they ruined Bollea's career and he was made an unperson by the WWF. Although publication of these comments resulted in significant financial damage (as indicated by the need for Thiel's financial assistance), Bollea instead opted to sue Gawker for the more media-friendly "intentional infliction of emotional distress.""

Sourced to the famous reliable source:

empty citation

An earlier version which did not make as strong a claim was sourced to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/gawker-founder-suspects-a-common-financer-behind-lawsuits.html?_r=0&mtrref=undefined&gwh=8EB856CA694BEE35DAD21A061BACB400&gwt=pay which is carefully worded attributing the claim to Mr. Denton (Gawker head) who is quoted as speculating that Thiel is behind Gawker's legal woes. ("Mr. Denton has begun to question whether Mr. Harder has a benefactor, perhaps one of the many subjects of Gawker’s skewering coverage.")

As it stands, I am not allowed to remove the fornication claim from any article - so ask that others view this rumor claim material which has no substantive fact connection to Thiel, and is likely a BLP violation concerning Hogan. Collect ( talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thiel secretly backed Hulk Hogan's multi-million dollar lawsuit against Gawker Media [93] in an attempt to bankrupt the publication as revenge for writing critically of him. sourced to Forbes is still in the BLP. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#7ab014227805

Problem is that the article specifies:

On Tuesday, in an interview with The New York Times, Gawker founder Nick Denton said he had a “personal hunch” that the financial aid could be linked to someone in Silicon Valley. “If you’re a billionaire and you don’t like the coverage of you, and you don’t particularly want to embroil yourself any further in a public scandal, it’s a pretty smart, rational thing to fund other legal cases,” he told the Times.

And attributes all other claims to "According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity," which I rather think means "anonymous sources". "attempt to bankrupt" appears on its face to be a claim of a criminal act. And is not in the source given. Collect ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have watchlisted it, I saw MrX has had a look too so I imagine he has. Suffice to say the IP is so very far from being correct I doubt 90% of that material is useable failing BLP, UNDUE and sourcing. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

All that is actually sourced is that Thiel appears to have paid some of the legal costs - but placing stuff about penises etc. into Thiel's BLP is absolutely against BLP. Collect ( talk) 13:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that mentions of Hulk Hogan's penis really have no place in Peter Thiel's article. I will also be watching this article to prevent future policy violations. Mr Ernie ( talk) 17:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• For reference, the BBC have published this an hour ago. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

... at White Nationalist and Supremacist Support for Donald Trump in 2016. I don't have enough time to properly cleanup this article and it definitely needs some attention.- Mr X 11:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Erik Kramer

Someone is adding unverified information and personal attacks towards the deceased son of the person of interest in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.176.212 ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The user has been reverted and warned. Giant Snowman 11:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Read this: /info/en/?search=Talk:John_Cryan

He was born in SUNDERLAND, not in Harrogate: https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/429/ressort/finance/article/riding-with-the-king I quote this above-mentioned article: "It was actually a coincidence that Mr. Cryan became a banker. He was born into a middle-class family in SUNDERLAND, a tough working-class city in the northeast of England. His mother died when he was a child. He went to Cambridge to study physics, where Stephen Hawking was one of his professors. After graduating, Mr. Cryan wasn’t sure what to do. He thought about pursuing a PhD. But his father, a jazz musician in the legendary London club Ronny Scott’s, had died while Mr. Cryan was a student. So he needed money. After a short spell as an auditor, he joined the British investment bank SG Warburg." - "Handelsblatt reporter Daniel Schäfer spent a week on the road with Deutsche Bank Co-Chief Executive Officer John Cryan – and soon-to-be sole CEO – as the two trotted the globe from Singapore to London to Frankfurt. Along they way, they shared a flight, carpooled, met customers and colleagues, attended a company meeting, traversed a busy trading floor, and enjoyed a Sunday brunch. Never has a journalist come this close to the most powerful banker in Germany. What the author discovered is that there is much more to this media-shy British-born banker than meets the eye. Mr. Cryan unveiled himself as charming, humorous, even mischievous – and always up for surprises. (...) In addition to being granted unprecedented access to the top banker, Mr. Schäfer met with countless current and former colleagues, customers and investors. Among them was Mr. Cryan’s long-time executive assistant. And if anyone knows the boss, it’s his secretary, who revealed one of the Deutsche Bank CEO’s quintessential qualities: He can be fierce, even furious, but never does he lose his cool."

Will someone now PLEASE correct the article on John Cryan !!!

Thank You. 78.52.193.9 ( talk) 20:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though we have two conflicting sources - BBC and Handelsblatt regarding Cryan's birthplace. Not sure one source should override another since both are reliable. Any suggestions from others? Meatsgains ( talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What about the following source stating Sunderland as well (klick on "Find") ? http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl?type=Births&districtid=all&surname=Cryan&given=John&sq=4&start=1960&eq=4&end=1960&countyid=all Furthermore, the Handelsblatt-source is not merely an article ABOUT Mr Cryan as are all other sources inclunding the BBC, but it is an article based on an actual interview WITH Cryan himself. Therefore we have good reason to assume that Mr Cryan HIMSELF has authorised the relevant parts, especially those about his private life which include the City of Sunderland stated as his place of birth therein ! 78.52.193.9 ( talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether FreeBMD is a reliable source and have posted to RSN to acquire feedback from others. Also, you noted "all other sources"... could you provide links to these sources you are referring to? Meatsgains ( talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading all of that here, it is Wikipedia itself that is the only source unreliable, I'm afraid ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.81.106 ( talk) 18:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

FreeBMD is not completely reliable in all respects; spellings are often wrong, for example. The bigger issue is that it's a primary source, and it's hard to use without synthesis. Even an uncommon name can occur surprisingly often, so demonstrating that the record you find in FreeBMD corresponds to the subject of an article is usually original research. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Page lists two birthplaces, Auburn California and Nevada City, California.

I will raise this at the F1 project. Eagleash ( talk) 19:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

His official website states Auburn. Article amended (ref'd) accordingly. Eagleash ( talk) 20:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am writing about a defamatory and clearly a copyright and trademark infringement of Marcus Schrenker. I've attempted to correct he page to what is factual and the author keeps changing it back to what I might call "fiction".

The article is malicious and sites sources that are tabloid at best. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is about a higher level of writing that is factual and correct. Marcus Schrenker is alive and well and not a financial advisor as the article claims. He never went to federal prison nor did he own aircraft, homes, and have a luxurious life that the article contends. Here is an example of the inaccuracy of the article. It claims that Marcus Schrenker plead guilty to faking his own death. I called the courthouse, where he plead guilty, and asked if this is true. They said there is no such crime, "faking your own death."

Here is the other issue. Marcus Schrenker and Marc Schrenker are two totally different people. Wikipedia is pulling Marc Schrenker into this article. Google Marc Schrenker an it points to the Marcus Schrenker article. Big problem!

Something else to ponder. Marcus Schrenker has not granted his copyright or trademark rights to Wikipedia (according to my discussions with him). This whole article smells like someone is merely trying to destroy his name and write the very worst article possible about him. My recommendation is to take it down or find an author that can write in an unbiased and balanced manner.

Concerned, Beach Pens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachpens ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia has nothing to do with what Google does. If Google returns the Marcus Schrenker article if someone searches for "Marcus Schrenker" there is nothing we can do about that. I looked at the Marcus Schrenker article and it is about an actual person named Marcus Schrenker. Is your "Marcus Schrenker" the person who is discussed in the Wikipedia article, or someone who is unfortunate enough to have the same name? If so, that too is not Wikipedia's issue. But if that is the case and your "Markus Schrenker" meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, we could create an article about him and disambiguate the two. Jytdog ( talk) 02:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Should this biographical article include discussion of criminal acts or allegations committed by the subject's adult child when there is no source which makes any connection between the subject and her child's alleged acts? As per precedent established in the biography of George W. Bush, which does not mention unrelated criminal acts committed by his daughter Jenna Bush, I believe it should not, and have removed such material. More eyes on the subject will be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree - because Noerdlinger was not directly involved, it should not be included on her BLP. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rashida Strober — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:4001:7790:B44D:49:592B:980 ( talk) 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What about it? Meatsgains ( talk) 02:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There was some attack material in there but looks like it's already been removed. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I see [21]. I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Washington_Post_opinion_piece regarding the recent State department audit of Clinton's email practices. In particular dispute about the suitability of a WashingtonPost piece by the Wapo editorial board [22]. Additional voices familiar with BLP would be welcome. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The material in question, [23] sourced to the Washington Post's editorial board, described Clinton's behavior an "inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules". This is a highly derogatory, potentially harmful, contentious statement that was challenged by at least a couple users on BLP grounds. Calling something inexcusable applies a negative value judgment rather than any description of facts, and "willful disregard" depending on circumstance is a key element in calling something a crime. These kinds of claims, inherently, cannot be reliable. No amount of fact checking, opportunity for correction, editorial oversight, or so on, apply because they express opinion. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to show where BLP mandates such a standard. Here's what BLP actually says...

• Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources
• In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article
• Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.

Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The standard that poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be excluded? That's the bedrock statement near the beginning of the policy, which I have invited you an equal number of times to consider: "Contentious material about living persons … that is unsourced or poorly sourced … should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." You're looking for an exception to that policy, and there is no exception for editorial writers who are not experts or related to the events in question offering derogatory value judgments about a person, certainly not the ones you listed. No secondary source has been offered to state that the Washington Post calls her behavior inexcusable. There is no reliable source saying that her behavior is inexcusable. There is no noteworthy allegation, suspicion, or accusation Clinton committed a crime, certainly not from the Washington Post. The Washington Post's editorial is not used to support the incident and FBI investigation concerning her email server, as those are reliably sourced to other articles and already covered in the article. - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is that the Washington Post is not a reliable source for (very harsh) criticism of Clinton.By extension that reasoning would extend to the dozens of other sources Critizing Clinton in the context of this report, and in deed all criticism of every person everywhere on Wikipedia. That is a bullshit argument. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You should probably calm down and stop cursing at me, also take a little time to reflect on the reliable source guideline. The source here is an editorial which, RS points out, is reliable only as a primary source as to what the editorial states. There is no reliable secondary source here. - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

They are commenting about the audit. Its a secondary source for the audit. You are asking for a tertiary source. The content is attributed to them. Its clear it is their opinion. If you think BLP policy mandates that every opinion be commented on by an additional tertiary source, I think you should run a big RFC on to confirm your radical interpretation of RS and then get started with AWB, because there are a few million articles that need cleanup. But that is NOT what policy says. "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." WP:YESPOV WP:BIASED WP:WEIGHT WP:RSOPINION Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The argument here, so far as I can determine, is about whether these comments negatively addressing Clinton's behavior are "well-sourced" or not. If they are from the Washington Post's editorial board, while I am not necessarily a personal fan of that journal, I have to say given its reputation it qualifies as being at least a reliable source for that opinion as an opinion, and probably one of the better sources available for opinions as opinions regarding this matter.
• Now, there may be an additional question, whether the content of the article merits having such opinions included in it. Given that this is a rather significant matter, and one which has gotten some degree of attention already and is likely to get more, I think that somewhere in wikipedia some outside opinion on the conduct involved deserves to be mentioned, and I have every reason to think that this opinion from the WP's editorial board is probably one of the best possible ones out there. It may not be the only one, and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing comments from the NY Times or Time or Newsweek or U.S. News or whatever else included as well if and when they become available, but that is probably a bit of a separate matter best resolved when such material is available. John Carter ( talk) 21:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[EC, addressed to Gaijin42] You are not trying to introduce the editorial as a secondary source about the state department audit. That report is already sourced just fine to stronger, non-editorial sources. What you're trying to introduce here is the scorn that the editorial board personally voiced for Clinton, which as RS correctly says is a primary source for that opinion. The BLP exception you are claiming here is that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". If you can find secondary sources duly noting that Clinton suffers criticism from her use of email servers, which surely there is, then we move away from BLP and start getting into matters of weight, POV, and how to present that criticism. Indeed, the article does in a number of places present sourced content saying that various people have criticized or accused Clinton. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Another point to consider is whether the editorial itself received secondary coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I don't see it as a violation of BLP to include a short summary of the editorial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Not all of those are reliable sources or even sources at all (one just reprints the editorial), but at least one of those is a reliable secondary source as to the Washington Post running the editorial. That, not the editorial in isolation, moves things away from BLP territory. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The link to the editoral was broken for me. It is here. In my view, a statement by the editorial board of a major newspaper like WaPo deserves WEIGHT, should be attributed, and is not a BLP violation. It would be useful to put this in a paragraph with statements of other editorial boards of major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, maybe the LA Times; not politically niche or small; major ones) to ensure NOPV; this one should not just be plucked and stuck in. That said if no other major newspaper's editorial board has weighed in, I would reconsider and wait until others have so we have some encyclopedic content and context. Jytdog ( talk) 08:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Editorials are pretty much good only for citations of opinion. In many occasions (including, it seems, this one), verifiable facts are better determined by more "straight" sources. Guy1890 ( talk) 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Over the past three days, an anonymous IP editor added a bunch of unsourced or unreliable content to Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. I've removed the offending content, but this article could use some more eyes on it to keep the poorly sourced dreck off it. Thanks. Neutrality ^talk 15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Steve Lombardi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ladies and gentlemen. Numerous times, people have changed his place of birth to Detroit, which is entirely fabricated.

A copy of his birth certificate CLEARLY states that he was born in Brooklyn, hence, the Brooklyn Brawler nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhkzero ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Brooklyn Brawler" was a gimmick. Kamala wasn't really from Uganda, The Undertaker Mark Calaway wasn't really from Death Valley, etc. Just because someone grew up in one city doesn't mean they weren't born elsewhere. Where is this birth certificate? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Aditya Rudra is the Managing Director of Victoriya Machinery Consulting LLP- India and Kazakhstan. which was established in 2011 as an organization under the Companies Act of India, aimed for the provision of Consulting advice in relation to establishment of business and representation of Indian partners in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditrudra ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At top of article is placed a warning regarding "biographies of living persons". Ms. Wayne passed over 30 years ago. For the author's sake, this warning should be removed, as it is inaccurate. I have no personal interest in the outcome, this is just a noticed error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.145.72 ( talk) 04:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The tag is there due to BLP policy violating information about someone else (who I assume is living) being in the article. The tag is badly worded, and I am not sure if there is a more appropriate one. Really it needs one that says 'Any information about living people' rather than implying the subject is still alive. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The template 'BLP others' is the appropriate one for the talkpage (Credit to Jytdog), so I have put that up. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed some material from this article which I feel violates BLP policy. I outlined my rationale on the talk page. Can others please review my rationale and join the discussion? Thank-you. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 02:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Mary Cullinan incorrectly reports the percentage by which Dr. Cullinan received a vote of "no confidence" from faculty senate. The wikipedia article reports that she received a vote of 76% "no confidence," but in fact she received a vote of 63% "no confidence." The figure of 63% can be found in the minutes for March 10, 2014 on the following website: http://www.sou.edu/senate/minutes/2014/index.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.104.148 ( talk) 09:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

140.211.104.148, I looked into this, and I am moving this discussion to the article talk page. I'll meet you over there. — Prhart com♥ 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Easwar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fellow editors, I have reverted a few additions on the basis that they contained contentious material which was either unsourced or poorly sourced to a YouTube video, and requiring significant interpretation of that source. Additional input would be appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your revert on the BLP. The information was contentious and unsourced. I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains ( talk) 23:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Parag Khanna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some overly promotional concerns for this article. Article appears to have been largely neglected, or I wouldn't bother posting here. I don't have time to rewrite the article, but I think it would be best if someone with the time could look it over. See my brief comments on the article's talk page . . . but it should be pretty obvious what the problems are just reading through it. Thanks! -- Jp07 ( talk) 00:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard Cole

John Bindon

A proxy hopper has attempted to insert this text into these articles. [24]

There are two issues with this text. The first is that 'assault' might be read in the legal sense, and there is no evidence the subject was ever prosecuted. The second is that few if any sources state as fact that the guard struck the boy, most only acknowledge some kind of confrontation that MAY have involved physical contact.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because the same text from likely the same proxy editor was repeatedly inserted into the Peter Grant (music manager) article before a request on this noticeboard [25] and the comments of the editor who responded to the request on the article's talk page [26] brought that activity to a halt, at least for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.76.220 ( talk) 18:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added Cole and Bindon's articles to my watchlist. I already had Grant's after the last incident. For anyone interested, Cole's biography/account of his years as tour manager for Led Zep is a fascinating insight into the backstage of a touring band. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

While it may be a fascinating read, I think Cole's version of events and "the truth" don't necessarily align together particularly well, and I would not particularly consider anything he has ever contributed in print to be a reliable source for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh god no I totally agree. Except possibly the story about the red snapper... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As reported at AN/I, a section on a social media storm was removed from Balgonie Castle, apparently by someone linked to the castle who mention legal proceedings. I have warned them about COI and NLT, and I semi-protected the article and revdelled the content as it was not sourced. However, this incident did get some press coverage in the UK (mostly tabloids), with some of the coverage here: [27] [28] [29]. Does this deserve a mention and if so how should it be included? Fences& Windows 20:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Obvious vandalism, removed. Krelnik ( talk) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Tom Vilsack

The "Early Political Career" section appears to be under cited for what appears to be exceptionally salacious claims. 71.197.86.93 ( talk) 19:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Drew Wolfe

Thanks for the heads up, this was entered in one hunk on May 23 by an account that has vandalized other articles. I have removed it. -- Krelnik ( talk) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fellow editors, Input is requested at a discussion at WP:RSN (or at Talk:Zoë Quinn), regarding the inclusion of the statement Harassment associated with Gamergate resulted in widespread recognition of misogyny in gaming. in a biography of a living person. While the statement does not directly involve a named person, is this statement supported sufficiently to be a relevant inclusion to document the article subject? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello there -

Some of you may recall that I posted a request in the BLP Noticeboard some weeks back, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2016_May_17#Javad_Marandi. In the interest of full disclosure, I work at PR agency Weber Shandwick on behalf of Javad Marandi. After consulting with an Administrator, it was recommended to me that I again engage via the BLP Noticeboard as the content in Javad Marandi's Wikipedia page is in violation of the following two BLP guidelines regarding the use of reliable sources:

Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1) is unsourced or poorly sourced

Again, the two edits I am requesting are:

1. After legal action, the Guardian Media Group has decided to remove articles in the Guardian/Observer which are citations 4 and 6 on Javad's Wikipedia entry. Owing to the fact that these articles have been removed and the publisher refuses to stand by their content, I do not believe they constitute verifiable third-party sources and in the interest of honest and accuracy, references to these citations should be removed from his page. You can see the removed article here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/09/tory-donor-was-trusted-middleman-for-oil-firm-involved-in-bribes-inquiry.

2. Additionally, Director Magazine has made corrections to their article about business in Azerbaijan to accurately reflect Javad's business interests. Specifically, he is not an owner of Pasha Construction (the 'construction company' mentioned in his Wikipedia article), but rather he is an adviser. Additionally Chinar is actually a restaurant in Baku, and Javad Marandi does not own it. We feel this sentence should be altered to more accurately reflect the content within the cited article: "Marandi owns a company in Azerbaijan called Chinar, the country's "largest distribution business" and a construction company.[3]" A more accurate statement would be: "Marandi owns the country's largest distribution business and is an adviser to a construction firm." The Director Magazine article is citation 3 on Javad's Wikipedia page and you can find it here: http://www.director.co.uk/9071-doing-business-in-azerbaijan/. If you look through the article, you’ll see what nowhere does it corroborate the information contained within Javad Marandi’s Wikipedia page.

Again, as with my previous attempts to get these rectified, I hope you'll agree that I'm not seeking to embellish or editorialise, but rather to have this article accurately reflect correct information, and I'm attempting to do so within Wikipedia's own COI guidelines. I'm reposting this request again to specifically point out which of Wikipedia's guidelines are being violated within Javad's Wikipedia page.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions or concerns. Btgolder ( talk) 14:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done a bit of clean-up in connection with the Guardian source. Most of what was being supported by that source is supported also by the Sydney Morning Herald article. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nomoskedasticity for your time and consideration. It's very much appreciated. I should mention that Javad Marandi’s legal team has actually made a formal complaint to the Sydney Morning Herald owing to libellous material contained within their article as well, so I will very likely be in touch soon to request edits based on the outcome of this activity. Thanks again for taking the time. Btgolder ( talk) 09:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Note I happen to follow this noticeboard. Another editor has done:

[30] restoring the following which seems to be undue as no major reliable source has made an issue of the person:

Marandi is named in the Panama Papers and has been described as a "trusted middleman" for Unaoil.

The source given is http://www.smh.com.au/business/unaoil-scandal-and-the-panama-papers-20160409-go2jr7.html . The source does not use the term "trusted middleman" , nor even the word "trusted" nor the word "middleman." I consider the use of quotation marks for material not in the source is misleading and an affront to WP:BLP.

The editor also added "well-known" to create

Marandi and his wife Narmina are well-known donors to the Conservative Party (UK), with donations totalling nearly £150,000."

Using the exact same source.

The source states "The revelation of Mr Marandi's link to the Unaoil affair is likely to create headlines in the UK, where he is well known as a major Tory party supporter – he and his wife, Narmina, have donated £150,000 ($280,000) since 2014 – as well as being the owner of exclusive London properties who flies between London and Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, in private jets."

The issue is whether the phrase "well-known" is misused here when it refers only to him being known in the UK -- but the Panama Papers stuff is not sourced to UK reliable sources at all, and the term would reasonably have to have been used in the UK.

Several people here are aware that I read this noticeboard, but the editor involved made a snarky comment: oh, but are you following me around?? I now assure the (expletive) editor that I do not follow him around at all and that I regard such snark as ill-suited to anyone on Wikipedia. I am, in fact, amazed that anyone would so write about a person who has made a significant number of edits (over 1250) on this noticeboard. Only SineBot has more edits than I. Warm regards. Collect ( talk) 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just anecdotally, I would say he is well known in the sense that anyone who has paid attention to tory party donations when they come up in the press will have heard of him. Not 'well known' in the pop star sense. No idea how that would translate to 'well known as a tory party donor'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 21:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I find the UK press does not use the term - so it is possible the Australian press is more qui vive on this than the Daily Mail is. YMMV. Collect ( talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, The Sydney Morning Herald appears to have removed its article from its archives. Collect ( talk) 15:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Tanya Nicole Kach strikes me as a BLP1E, though the particular 1E did engender a lot of news coverage at the time. The legitimacy of the article is somewhat complex:

• Tanya Kach within Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2: opened 2 June 2007, closed on 7 June by User:Xoloz. The close is hard to understand: Xoloz says that her name needn't be removed, and may or may not say that the article should be turned into a redirect (I'm not sure)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach: opened 2 June 2007, ended inconclusively one day later by User:Doc glasgow as an undesirable overlap with DRV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach (second nomination): opened 2 June 2007 (by User:Xoloz), closed as speedy delete the same day by User:Doc glasgow. On 10 June, Doc glasgow added "I undeleted to allow a merge/redirect which meets the BLP concerns and seems to be an effective compromise."
• Tanya Kach → Kidnapping within Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 27: Closed by JLaTondre on 6 March: "The result of the discussion was Deleted. Content was not kept in target so no need to keep history."
• log for "Tanya Kach" article
• log for "Tanya Nicole Kach" article

I'm not sure that this article is of legitimate here (whether it can/should be summarily deleted as an illegitimate recreation of material deleted via AfD), or whether the material has encyclopedic significance. Since the biographee has chosen to coauthor a (minor) book about it ( Amazon sales page), it can be argued that she's no longer a private person. If the material remains, I suspect that it should be in a differently titled article. But tabloidy material is of little interest to me and I have no appetite for editing it myself. Comments? (And yes, I realize that this page is no substitute for launching an AfD or even an RfD.) -- Hoary ( talk) 04:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing about this event, but have taken a quick look... It looks like someone has added a few paragraphs in an attempt to reduce the events to a 'he said, she said' type controversy instead of a case where someone has pled guilty to holding her captive. I've done a quick and dirty excision of the worst of it without prejudice to the whole thing being deleted or redirected if the event isn't notable enough. Daveosaurus ( talk) 05:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good work. I dislike the result, but a lot less than I did before your intervention. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed many of the talk page comments and collapsed the whole discussion per WP:BLPREMOVE - there were comments speculating on details of the case to suggest a lack of guilt or that the victim was lying, with no reference to sources. I have informed the most prolific IP editor of this and asked them to only use high-quality reliable sources when discussing controversial issues relating to living people and also to read Wikipedia:Child protection#Apparent on-wiki advocacy. Fences& Windows 11:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The article, if retained, should be at Kidnapping of Tanya Kach. We title articles like this for the event, not the person. Fences& Windows 11:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ahmad Thomson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since Kashmiri has today added an autobiography tag to this Article, I would just like to repeat the point that I posted on the talk page at 20.12 on 07 May 2011 (UTC) after Zakhalesh had added a COI tag to this Article:

I would simply like to point out (as is clear from the contents of the discussion on the Talk page) that this Article was originally started back in 2005 in order to attack me.

As was quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG) where the Request for an Article (No. 24) on me was first made : "Hey, check it out! After Klonimus put up this request I threw together a quick stub on Ahmad Thomson. Now Ahmad Thomson himself (or someone claiming to be him) has now created an account on Wikipedia and is edit warring over the content! He seems to have stopped for now, you'll have to go through the history to see his first person additions and apologetics. Babajobu 08:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"

In response, I did not remove the inaccurate allegations, but rather gave my replies to them. In so doing I have been careful to maintain an NOPV ~ which is why the Article still contains the inaccurate allegations originally made against me.

It appears that over the years some of the editors have not exercised an NOPV to put it mildly!

I am not even permitted to post my year of birth or my ethnicity, even though I have been directly aware of both for more than 66 years!

If this Article was an autobiography, believe me, the content would be very different in many respects and far more positive.

In conclusion, I would also like to point out that my personal reputation in this world, whether it is based on fact or fiction, is of minimal importance ~ ultimately God is our judge on the Last Day.

And I would also like to thank Wikipedia for the number of times it has enabled me to find the piece of information that I was looking for ~ which is why I have been happy to make a small financial contribution each year, even though it has been used to attack yours truly!

Thank you. Ahmad Thomson 15:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Thomson ( talk • contribs)

User:Bangabandhu is repeatedly adding the name of the subject's wife, and the fact that he lives with her and his two children to this BLP. I have reverted, but the editor persists. I think that this information, although well sourced, is not sufficiently notable to be in the article and, because the subject is known to be rich, might provide an incitement for crime. There has been discussion at Talk:Alain de Botton. What do editors think? Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

My view is as follows: I don't think privacy is truly a consideration at this point; he's discussed his family, especially his wife, at length in interviews, and most importantly has freely given information about his wife and sons in the press. This is very widely published. I am a big proponent of scrubbing details of this sort from the articles of marginal figures, but Mr. de Botton is not a marginal figure. To me, the sheer number of times this has been published in reliable sources rebuts the presumption of privacy from WP:BLPPRIVACY and leads me to go with WP:BLPNAMES. I think you could make the argument about possible incitement to crime about every notable person with non-notable children – even very famous celebrities whose children get mentions and even photo spreads in People magazine upon their births (substitute your equivalent celebrity mag if not from the US). These are just my thoughts. MisterRandomized ( talk) 07:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. My own inclination is to go for maximum privacy of persons incidental to a BLP, unless omission would compromise the article. I would have been happy with something like "he lives in London with his family". Best wishes. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

After reading policy more closely, I also don't think it is essential to an understanding of the article and this is a very borderline case for inclusion. We also have Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value from WP:BLPNAME, an official policy. The fact is, his sons' names are probably irrelevant, though you could make an argument for his wife Charlotte based on the articles linked at the talk page. I won't shed any tears if it is removed. MisterRandomized ( talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Filbert007 is a close contact of the subject and has serious concerns abourt most of the sources used in the article - see talk:Peter Wyngarde and user talk:Nthep#PETER WYNGARDE BIOGRAPHY. Such is the level of concern that Filbert007 has drafted a new article at WYNGARDE PETER (Authorized Biography). I aam sure that the article as it stands has issues but other eyes are needed to look at the concerns raised re DoB, sexuality, criminal conviction and assess veracity and relevance. Note from the discussion on my talk page I do not think that legal action against Wikipedia is considered nor is the account being wrongly used by more than one person. I believe the opions are genuinely held but I think compromise may be difficult to find. Nthep ( talk) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, first, forks are not typically allowed on Wikipedia, second his comments in this section, especially on the bottom create a really chilling effect. He's not outright making a legal threat , but he's close to it. I see his draft was declined and that you started a discussion with Filbert007 on his talk page as well. Good job. I'll drop by as well and try to encourage him to work with us on the original article. KoshVorlon 16:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A user has called multiple living people notorious anti-Semites and neo-Nazis on multiple article talk pages, here and [31], citing an article in FrontPageMag (found unreliable on this board in the past) by Steven Plaut, who has been convicted of libel against another Jewish academic he called a Judenrat Wannabe (Neve Gordon). Is it acceptable to call living people "neo-Nazis"? Ive asked the user to refactor his comments, he refused, so Ive brought this here. nableezy - 20:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not without the STRONGEST of sourcing. If reliable sources call someone a neo-nazi we can call them a neo nazi. We can even discuss on talkpages that sources may have called them a neo nazi. What we dont do is call people neo-nazi's sourced to a single frontpagemag opinion piece by someone who has been successfully sued for libel. As they have refused to refactor their comments, I have removed them as BLP violations. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 20:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see when you raised it with them they labelled you a Hezbollah supporter in response. Glad to see where their POV lies then! Depending on where in the world you are, that would be a serious personal attack, as many countries proscribe Hezbollah (or sections of it) as a terrorist organisation. I'm pretty sure that accusing someone of supporting terrorists (even if it is true) is still a PA around here. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 21:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not take a look at the userbox in question first? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes? They could be a supporter of the Basque seperatists, the IRA, or the Cornish Liberation Front. It would still be a personal attack. Also *I* support armed and violent resistance to an aggressor. So in fact do most people in the western world. Its why national defense forces routinely have strong support from the voters. The problem is of course, who defines what is armed resistance ;) Still, irrelevant to the BLP issue. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to get too much into this, if you click on the link in the box it takes you to the Hezbollah userbox MFD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking if we can say FPM has reported such and such or can someone just call someone an anti-semite or neo-Nazi and then claim since FPM did, we can do it on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We would be unlikely to say, even attributed to FPM, that someone has been described as a neo-nazi. FPM not being a reliable source for contentious claims like that. The closest policy allows is for us to discuss on a talkpage if claims like that could be included in the article and discuss the sourcing. BLP policy does not allow for stating living people are neo-nazis when that is not a topic for discussion on their article and the source is unreliable. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would FPM not be a reliable source? If we are reporting on something it makes sense to say that FPM has reported that person to be such and such. Furthermore, if someone is a neo-nazi as reported by "reliable sources" then that can indeed be discussed since it's extremely notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read the archives for RSN, FPM has rarely been found to be a reliable source due to it being a right-wing advocacy site with no real history of editorial standards or fact checking. Going back to 2007. Its not a 'RS' due to its highly partisan stances on almost every subject. As such its only a usable source for its own opinion, and its own opinion has almost never been found relevant enough to use. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone inserted libelous and unfounded information on the webpage about myself Carlos Gershenson. I removed it and answered false claims in the Talk page. I would appreciate neutral opinions to end the silly discussion and edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgershen ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Eric_Donaldson#Biography says: "In 2005 he was arrested on St. Vincent for possession of marijuana, and in 2011 was fined $100 in Jamaica for a similar offence."

I was thinking about removing this information (even though it is probably true, and the source seems fine) because it seems to be rather irrelevant. He is a Jamaican reggae singer-songwriter. If he was a major drug kingpin then of course we should mention that (if reliable sources exist) but it seems to me that this was a small amount of marijuana for personal use. I live in Amsterdam, so to me possession of a small amount of marijuana is not the crime of the century.

I would like to know what other people think about this. I always try to be extra careful with WP:BLPs. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 22:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the closer to silly season we get, the more inane the "crimes" which people insert into biographies - I have even seen the equivalent of jay-walking added in some cases, or being given a speeding ticket for going all of 18km/h in a 15km/h zone. I agree that using Wikipedia for such trivia is about as hateful a purpose as could exist, but someday we will have to face facts and stop having "new editors" appear who seem to hold quite different standards for those they favour and those they hate. Collect ( talk) 23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (mea culpa)

Thank you. I will remove that sentence. Stuff like this is not comparable to, for example, Oscar Pistorius. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 23:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Grant Starrett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be a campaign article promoting a single candidate. Early life and education is poorly cited; Article contains irrelevant information.

Looks like Nomoskedasticity took an ax to the page already but I also went through and removed some of the campaign fluff and promotional tone. Meatsgains ( talk) 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter W. Galbraith is running for Governor in my state, so I looked him up; I found his article excessively promotional and poorly sourced. (Most of it turned out to be WP:COPYVIO from his self-descriptions on book jackets and the like). I've been going through line by line, hunting down impartial and reliable sources, bringing the article into line with them, and carefully reinstating several controversies which had been scrubbed from the page. I think I've done a decent repair job, but I'd be grateful for more opinions. Also, I noticed along the way that the article on Kai Eide, one of Galbraith's political enemies, is unduly concerned with their spat (compared to what comes up in a Google Books search) and seems non-neutral; that needs fixing.

I'm learning that the field of recent diplomatic history is often bitterly partisan, with apparently-reliable, scholarly, secondary sources unexpectedly making semi-substantiated accusations left and right, so I'd appreciate help with these articles, especially Mr. Eide's. FourViolas ( talk) 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Zigzig20s keeps trying to list Brian Chesky as Jewish (he's of Italian-Polish Catholic descent). The source he's using is: 1. A list of names. 2. Doesn't even strictly speaking say that Chesky is Jewish. 3. Has two other errors (out of something like 10 names in total). It lists the name of Samantha Power, an Irish Catholic immigrant, right next to Chesky's. And it also lists Reid Hoffman, who also isn't Jewish. Obviously, such a source (that doesn't even strictly speaking say Chesky is Jewish) is totally unacceptable in a BLP. How can something that's already been proven error-filled be used to make such a claim? "Sure, we got two names wrong, but the other eight names are accurate?" Dohodho ( talk) 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Article is not written from a NPOV. text mostly written in a braggy tone, some directly from the website of the subject. Most importantly, the huge controversy regarding very young mountaineers and exposing young children to the inherent dangers of climbing is completely ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.237.242 ( talk) 16:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you tagged the article? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Appelbaum has recently been accused of "sexual mistreatment" by some members of the Tor Project. Most of the coverage in sources mirrors the statement from the executive director of Tor who originally made the accusations public shortly after Appelbaum departed Tor. My concern is that there are a couple of eager editors who keep adding details to the article about Appelbaum's alleged sexual encounters, sourced to websites like the Daily Dot. At least one editor has repeatedly posted a link to a website where apparently anyone can post allegations with a lot of intimate detail.

Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that we should not be a platform for potentially damaging someone's reputation. In any case, I would appreciate a few more eyes on this article. Thank you.- Mr X 02:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I want to know if there is any problem with using {{ Infobox criminal}} in the article. SLBedit ( talk) 02:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his detainment can be, and is, supported in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is with regard to the page of Gian Kumar,

He is the author of 7 books and his personal website is http://www.giankumar.com/

We can find his books in online stores such as flipkart and amazon ( http://www.flipkart.com/know-thyself-english/p/itmefqak3ppmbz6z, http://www.amazon.com/Gian-Kumar/e/B00E58S6IG)

He also writes in speakingtree.in ( http://www.speakingtree.in/gian-kumar-1)

Please let me know what are the most trusted sources from these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.23.33 ( talk) 09:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• None of the above sources are the type of independent, reliable sources that can show notability. What you need are things like news articles written about Kumar, published in places like the Times of India. Avoid anything that has been published in self-published sources like blogs, as those almost never undergo the type of editorial scrutiny Wikipedia would require to be seen as a WP:RS. WP:PRIMARY sources and e-commerce sites cannot show notability for Kumar and e-commerce sites should not be used as a source on Wikipedia at all. Their purpose is to sell you something and as a result putting these links in pages can actually make articles seem extremely promotional. Now as far as writing and publishing goes, writing things and having books for sale does not automatically mean that someone passes notability guidelines. Being prolific can sometimes make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's never a guarantee. Offhand I'm not really finding much to suggest that Kumar passes notability guidelines, as almost all of the non-primary links are in self-published sources or they go to e-commerce sites selling his work. The rest of the sources are "junk" hits, the type that will come up with almost any word combination. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am the subject of this article which is so biased that it is practically libellous. All writers are subject to criticism, but the author of the article has only picked the most scathing. Some of my books have been highly praised – most notably The Empress of South America and my biography of Ike Turner, Takin' Back My Name. Four of my publishers tell me that I am the most published author in the UK with 175 titles to my name, so I must be doing something right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.58.146 ( talk) 09:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the criticism section. It was pretty much entirely original research on someone's behalf and was sourced with an Amazon link, something that is not considered a RS on Wikipedia except in extremely specific circumstances. And this is not one of those circumstances. You might also want to look at Goodreads since it contains some of the same information. We don't view Goodreads as a RS, but it's still out there.

Now on a side note I do see that you have been the focus of criticism. I removed the prior criticism section since it was improperly sourced and written like it was someone's own research, but we cannot stop the creation of a new criticism section that is properly sourced and isn't written in a sensationalistic manner. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This page was created by BarkingSpiderArrse on 16:56, 5 February 2009. This was done by members of the website http://www.arrse.co.uk. This was done after they got several British tabloids to publish defamatory and libelous articles. Those listed in the article go to those sites. They do not meet the requirement of valid sources any more than an article in the National Enquirer does in the US. Mr. Shortt has been trying to get this biography removed for years. Per you policy on biographies on living people, this is not a neutral or unbiased article. He is not a notable person either. The only reason there is anything about him in the general press is because of the vendetta by ARRSE.

This is link to their page about him: <ref> http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Baron_of_Castleshort </ref>

As you can see, they think rather poorly of him. This all started when Mr. Shortt was appointed as a security adviser to the British government. This group seems to have nothing better to do than defame people and talk negatively about anyone and everyone. On their website, they can have all the fun they want, but here, this is very wrong and the page just needs to be deleted.

These people are highly skilled at using false identities to keep this page up. An example is this user E.M.Gregory. As you can see from the last attempt to remove the page, he fought it aggressively. No article about Mr. Shortt was every published in the London Times. They have real news to report on.

Thank you, SterlingSpots ( talk) 15:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added nowiki tags around the ref tags, because references always appear near the bottom of the page. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 02:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that E.M.Gregory is part of an anti-Shortt group, given that he's been editing here since 2014 and has only made one edit to the article, which was done while the article was at AfD. He and I have only crossed paths on a few occasions, but I know enough about his editing style to know that if he was avidly interested in the article he would have made more direct edits under his account. He's never given me reason to suspect that he's using alternate accounts, so I'd like to ask that you refrain from making comments that suggest that he's using false identities to edit the page or that he's part of some off-Wikipedia agenda to malign Shortt. Comments like these can be seen as WP:ADHOMINEM attacks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you, User:Tokyogirl79. I do weigh in with multiple comments at AFD, and am more likely to do so when a number of editors weigh with strong opinions that appear out of keeping with material I can find in even a quick search. I weighed in on such an AFD just now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Thomson, although I had never heard of Ahmed Thomson or James Shortt before finding them at AFD. Other editors can access that Times of London story, I just checked the link I left on the AFD page. It works. Searches, of course, vary. SterlingSpotts could easily have run a good faith search that failed to produce the article that popped right up on my Proquest search. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There was a detail from the Joshua Ryne Goldberg article that bothers me. The infobox currently describes a list of "alternate names" that he used as handles in online conversations, e.g. "Australi Witness". I think I've seen this before, and that it is a misleading practice that puts people in a bad light.

Typically, we think of aliases mostly as something that criminals use. And there's a reason for this: an alias is a name that someone gives when his real name is expected, with an implication of some underhanded purpose. I would even go so far as to say that aliases refer only to when the name is intended to be conveyed to a person, rather than typed into some software registration screen to preserve privacy. Definitely an online handle would not qualify, except I suppose on Facebook or other Chinese media outlets where real names are required by law. I don't think it would be reasonable to say that "Wnt" is my alias per se, because nobody really thinks that's my name; to illustrate further, had I suffered an unfortunate accident in the global username merge, would "Wnt~enwiki" become an alias potentially worth listing in some article simply because WMF changed it on its machine?

In the current example, I'd propose simply to fix this by having a separate infobox category for online handles -- though there are many persons for whom listing them all this way would seem improper to most people, at least in this case it makes sense. Or perhaps " pen name" would be a better umbrella term. But is some kind of policy or guideline needed to encourage people to fix this wherever they encounter it? Wnt ( talk) 13:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Wnt: I think using "also known as" would fix this problem; it does not have negative connotations (AFAIK) and it works for both online handles and real names for those who are better known under a stage name. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 'a.k.a.' has negative connotations, even if 'also known as' doesn't; and again, I think it confounds situation in which a screen name is normal with those where an assumed name is given. Wnt ( talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

News to me. I've never heard of these negative connotations, as I've seen these words used in many contexts, and not always referring to humans. (ie: Denali, aka, Mt. McKinley). A quick dictionary search reveals no such connotations either. "Alias" itself is an ancient Latin word. The English version is "else" (Old English "elles.") I think the term is very precise with an easily discernible definition, especially for non-native speakers, unlike "handle," "moniker," or many of the other synonyms. Zaereth ( talk) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker. To me, "a.k.a." and "also known as" do not have negative connotations (but I would prefer "also known as"). Some people only know the word alias from reading about aliases used by criminals, but the word itself is neutral. One of my favorite writers uses many pseudonyms in addition to his orthonym. Maybe the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language can help? The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 15:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Also known as" is used almost universally in nearly all articles, both on an off Wikipedia, from chemistry to taxonomy to military, etc... The definition is very broad, encompassing everything from aliases to stage names to call signs.

"Alias" has a very specific definition, which is an assumed identity, thus narrowing its use quite a bit. (This can just as much apply to undercover police-officers, spies, actors, etc...) While the two are synonyms, they are not wholly interchangeable.

"Formerly known as" is almost never seen, except in cases like capacitors (formerly known as condensers), in which the name change is long established and the old name is only found in old texts. (I mention this because of the great battle between aka and fka at the Denali article after its official name change.) I personally think "also known as" should be the preferred choice most cases (definitely not acronyms), unless "alias" is truly needed for clarification. Beyond that, I don't see anything about them as being a BLP violation and is best handled on the talk pages of individual articles. Zaereth ( talk) 01:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Using "also known as" seems to be the best, and most frequently used, option. I prefer not using the acronym but I as far as I am aware it doesn't have negative connotations. Compare the searchqueries also known as, a.k.a., formerly known as, pseudonym, alias, alternate name & alternate names. In some cases it may be a good idea to specify if it is, for example, a stagename or online handle or pseudonym etc. The Quixotic Potato ( talk) 02:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If Charles ever ascends to the throne, could we please edit the lede of his article to say that he's "the royal formerly known as Prince." David in DC ( talk) 15:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Telethon Kids Institute recently held an open forum on vaccination, at which a number of anti-vaxers turned up. As a result of their protest, the forum was closed early. One of the people in attendance was Judy Wilyman. Almost all of the coverage of the event (limited though it was) focused on the anti-vaxers, but none mentioned any by name. However, The Australian in their "High Wired" column alleged that Wilyman was one of the protesters who had it shut down [32]. She was certainly there, but whether or not she should be highlighted as one of those who caused it to be shut down is unclear to me, as the only source mentioning her by name is the one column in The Australian which has been running a campaign against Wilyman for some time. On the other hand, she is mentioned in The Australian, she was present at the forum, and she called for anti-vaxers to attend to forum and ask questions in her newsletter.

So my question is whether or not she should be named in the Telethon Kids Institute article. I'm concerned as some editors have been very active in trying to add negative material about Wilyman and those connected to her in multiple articles, and trying to keep some balance to this is proving challenging. We've now reached a point where they are threatening my job in order to get this material included, so this isn't a pleasant topic to wade into. I'm not sure on the correct answer in this case, so alternative opinions would be welcome.

(And just because it is likely to be raised, as the accusations have been thrown up a repeatedly - I have no connection with Wilyman, her supervisor, or anyone or anything else involved in this issue, and I am opposed to her views. My interest here is in maintaining BLP, not her agenda). - Bilby ( talk) 13:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

On the article and the talk it's an overreaction to say threats have been made, only the raising a possible COI for a workplace. And you have also made the last edit to the article about the Wilyman person, which shows your satisfaction with the final outcome. I can't see what the problem is. Best of luck. 189.1.164.169 ( talk) 14:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather find consensus without continuing to edit war over the content. - Bilby ( talk) 15:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You are involved in a few articles mentioning this person's activism. Consensus seems to have been found mostly, but you then disagree with it. The edit wars I saw, seems you use one policy to remove something, then when that fails, use another policy to try same removal again. I understand you are or were part of the Wikimedia Foundation, then admitting to "continuing to edit war" is not a good look. Still can't see what the problem is, maybe just drop the stick. 189.1.164.245 ( talk) 21:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking here to get the opinion of independent editors. That might help. - Bilby ( talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Which suggests that you consider editors involved so far, including yourself, are not "independent" and you've added you're involved in "continuing to edit war". I still can't understand what your problem is, just drop the stick. 189.1.164.244 ( talk) 22:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm involved - I've been editing the articles. I'm looking for opinions from editors with more distance. - Bilby ( talk) 23:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is terribly written, like a company brochure or website, describing their goals and achievements followed by long lists written as if they were paragraphs with complete sentences. The grammar is poor with far too many pronouns. Heck, it even gives directions on how to find it. In short, it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.

Notability is questionable at best. Aside from the above mentioned incident, its lack of independent sources is troubling. The incident seems far more notable than the institute.

As for the incident itself, the source only mentions "Judy and her friends" in passing, and in a very odd sort of way, which is uncharacteristic for a reliable news source. I'm not familiar with The Australian, but its style and format remind me of one of those local-town free-papers that report on stuff that would only interest the locals. (Here in Anchorage we have The Press.) If so, then these are very biased and typically unreliable sources of information. They gave no reason why they would mention her, and I see no reason why we should either, because there is no indication that it is necessary for understanding the incident. Err on the side of caution. Zaereth ( talk) 01:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the main source linked from that link, it doesn't mention her and it does mention Shawn Dhu as a major protestor who was filming the proceedings. The blurb linked directly above is essentially an editorial (a really short one) that singles her out to link her to some new dean at the same university. Therefore, it is not clear that she played a major part. For BLP purposes a source should say something, not imply it. I would be leery of saying anything beyond that she was there from this source, if that, but I have not examined the article at all at this point to see if other sources exist. Wnt ( talk) 23:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC) OK, looking at that section, the sentence about her holds up on its own - it just says she was there, and reading her article, that doesn't seem like it's any astounding negative revelation about her. It's never a "negative" thing to say someone believes what she believes. The trouble is that the paragraph there starts off saying she was there in a way that reflects the implication of her prominence among them, based on that same blurb; I don't know if that's really warranted. Then it goes on to talk about what the anti-vaxxers did. I think it might help things just to move the one sentence back, so that it's clearer that it is (AFAIK) just a detail, rather than implying she was the ringleader which I didn't see a source for yet. Wnt ( talk) 23:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This article was originally posted by a staff member of Mr Rynning 1 May 2015. Recently, later references to Mr Rynning's performance as CEO of Origo Partners Limited have been removed to reduce the article to more of a LinkedIn page with no substance. If the information in the article posted 11 Jun 2016 is acceptable by Wiki policy, I suggest that the article be locked to prevent further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.140.221 ( talk) 11:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I just came across this page: /info/en/?search=Tom_Guerra There is not sufficient citation to establish notability and recommend rapid deletion of the page. I checked all of the sources and they are not main stream media but for one brief mention in a barely sufficient article which isn't enough to establish notability in my opinion. More citations are needed to avoid deletion. 162.207.0.9 ( talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree - reliable sources need to be added as soon as possible for this article to remain a BLP on Wikipedia. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I realize this article was already brought up in another notice, but I am an experienced editor and my take on the article is different. I request assistance on reviewing of the sources used in the article. This article was originally created as an attack page and was AFD'd for being so, but the result was a provisional keep (that is, to improve the article) since there seem to be sources about the article's subject. The problem is that very few of the sources seem to be available online, so I need verification. Some of the sources also deal with subjects areas I am very inexperienced with, such as Irish and UK nobility/peerages.

I also want to stress that thus far, users that have commented on the article, including the recent AFD do not seem to fully comprehend the requirements for notability of a BLP article, feeling that brief and sometimes incidental mention in the news is tantamount to notability. One user even recently attempted to claim a self-published wiki page was a reliable source, and had to be told by myself and administrator this was not the case. And three times I have had ad hominem attacks aimed at me for my mere questioning of this article notability, rather than actual addressing of my WP:NOTEBIO policy concerns. So I would appreciate some more experienced eyes on the article. Thanks. Legitimus ( talk) 12:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree re the self-published source. But it's not a problem if there are sources not available on-line ( WP:SOURCEACCESS). Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes I know they don't have to be online (I deal in medical journals in my normal editing sphere), but I need people to verify them for me since I can't and the original posters had ulterior motives. Though considering three of them are satirical, such as Private Eye, I still fail to see how they meet WP:RS, and even if truethful, why they make the subject notable. Legitimus ( talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

United States and White House have not yet confirmed his death and further there have been several reports earlier of his death which found to be wrong.Do feel we need to remove the death tag from his article until it is confirmed. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Pratt (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I outlined an edit request over at Talk:Anthony Pratt (businessman) 12 days ago. I realize the requested edits list is backlogged and that " there is no deadline." However, was hoping one of the editors who regularly visits this noticeboard might be willing to take a look and give feedback. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz ( talk) 18:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the process of reviewing your request and making the changes. Meatsgains ( talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Meatsgains ( talk) 21:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit of mine is being disputed at the article talk page, and outside opinions could be helpful. Thanks. The issue is whether the bolded material below is necessary to comply with WP:BLP, or violates WP:BLP, or neither:

In my view, the bolded material is not contradicted by any reliable source, and it is necessary for NPOV, especially since the article in question involves two living persons, both Trump and Curiel. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence in the bolded section stands out like a sore thumb. It gives undue prominence to Trump's theory. Attributing it to CNN gives it a false ring of authority and the construction of the paragraph seems to violate WP:SYNTH.- Mr X 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So, we ought to say that Trump's views are racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary, while omitting any hint of any shadow of an actual conflict of interest per the uncontradicted reporting of CNN? That sounds to me like Wikipedia is endorsing Hillary Clinton, quite frankly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Come on now. We're not saying that; we're reporting the opinions of legal experts. Note that the source for that sentence is the Wall Street Journal, which is not commonly regarded a liberal scandal sheet (that's called litotes). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reporting the opinions that editors like (WSJ) while omitting stuff that editors dislike (CNN) even though there's no evident conflict between them. I say include both. Even if there were some conflict here among the sources, the CNN article is the latest in time. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We weight things based on their prevalence in reliable sources. I see zero reliable sources giving any credence to the suggestion that that membership creates either the existence or the appearance of bias. It would only make sense to mention it as "balance" if we had a much, much longer section extensively deep-diving the vast, overwhelming consensus that Curiel is not biased and that Trump's claims are absurd, specious and wholly unfair. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Undue weight, neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, without giving minority views as much description as more widely held views. The CNN report is the most recent of the sources cited, and no other source contradicts that CNN report, so it's not a minority view. Even if it were, it would deserve a mention. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But taken together, those two sentences (that one and the next) are not a fair summary of what the CNN article says; they clearly don't reflect its town or overarching focus. We have to consider weight and WP:TONE in terms of how we use a source; that is, our weight and tone needs to reflect our sources. The overarching tone and weight of the CNN piece is extremely harsh on the legal basis behind Trump's position, so pulling out one sentence and giving it weight equal to the entire rest of the article (as summarized in the next sentence) is clearly giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Note that the article does quote Trump's position specifically further down; the issue is that the sentence you want to add here is not one that seems to be particularly prominent in the sources (even the CNN source you're using only mentions it in passing.) EDIT: I'd also add that you're arguing on the talk page there that the CNN source supports the idea that this is why recusal is being requested; it specifically does not say that (it quotes Trump's statements as a vague reference to "reported associations with certain professional organizations", then mentions the Latino association in a speculative manner as what Trump was possibly referring to, with further speculation about why he might have done so.) None of that supports your assertion that this is significant enough to pull that one sentence out and use it as our summary of that article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As Aquillion notes, the CNN article clearly does not take the viewpoint that the membership creates either the appearance or the existence of an actual conflict of interest. In fact, the article cites a legal expert saying precisely the opposite: But Curiel's membership in a Latino bar association, and his appointment by a Democratic president, according to Bloch, would likely not be grounds for recusal. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The tone of the CNN piece is accurately conveyed by saying "Legal analysts interviewed by CNN said that requesting the judge's recusal in the Trump case could be risky, and lawyers who make unfounded recusal requests may be sanctioned." The problem is that this sentence would be difficult to understand if we don't give the reader some idea of why a recusal request would happen in this case, and the most relevant argument in such a request would be that the judge agrees with (or might agree with) his association's boycott. Omitting the latter information obviously has the effect of making a BLP subject (Trump) appear to be a crazed lunatic (or more of one). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is some cognitive dissonance here, because you just literally ignored the article's quoted legal analyst specifically rejecting the idea that membership in the organization would be grounds for recusal. Any proposed addition of the material in question here based on that source would certainly have to include that part of the source's analysis. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Bloch said that Curiel's membership in a Latino bar association would likely not be grounds for recusal. That's not a statement as to whether grounds for recusal would include agreement with a boycott of a defendant by the Latino bar association. If people would like to include Bloch's statement then I have no objection, though the bolded sentence that I quoted at the top of this section already strongly implies that a recusal motion would be very risky absent any indication that the judge agrees with the boycott. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

All of which relies on entirely unfounded speculation about his opinion of the organization's position, and as Curiel cannot legally make any public comment about the issue as it would be a clear violation of judicial ethics, there will never be any way to know what it is. So what you're doing is setting up a speculation trap which can never be resolved but which you believe can be leveraged to create FUD and insinuate bias where no evidence exists to support it. We shan't be doing that in Curiel's biography. No. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Has CNN insinuated bias? I think not, and we can likewise mention the boycott without insinuating bias. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention in Curiel's biography one particular political position of a nondescript professional association which Curiel has made no public comment about, and indeed, can make no public comment about. That's pretty much the long and short of it. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• You're going way, way beyond what the source says. Nothing in it supports the idea that this is the "most relevant argument"; in fact, they mention that Trump first presented a different argument, then later shifted tack to say that two of his concerns were the fact that the judge was appointed by Obama and "reported associations with certain professional organizations". CNN devotes a single sentence to speculating about what Trump might have meant by that, but nothing in the source gives that speculation the degree of weight that you're implying. Pulling that sentence of speculation out, highlighting it by presenting it in a central position in a much smaller block of text, and framing the paragraph in a way that implies that it is clearly the main reason behind Trump's request is completely inaccurate and misleading in multiple ways. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not suggest we say in the BLP "most relevant argument". The CNN source says: "In a statement Tuesday night, Trump shifted focus, saying his concerns were not just the judge's ethnicity, but also the fact that he was appointed by President Barack Obama, and has 'reported associations with certain professional organizations.' Curiel is a lifetime member of the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott of all Trump business ventures -- although it is not clear whether Curiel personally agrees with the boycott." I don't read that as CNN speculating about anything. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The rhetoric you're using is a Chewbacca defense. Our article about Curiel says nothing about Trump being "a crazed lunatic." Rather, it does say that legal scholars and reliable sources overwhelmingly reject his claims about Curiel and consider them to be unfounded, politically motivated, specious, etc. What that insanely-well-sourced and established conclusion might imply about Trump's "sanity" or fitness for office of the presidency is left to the reader to decide. The facts are what they are. If anything, giving Trump's fallacious, speculative attacks on Curiel's character and judicial impartiality undue weight and credence in the judge's own Wikipedia biography is a far greater violation of BLP than anything suggested about Trump here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump mentioned the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations and Trump said He's a member of a society, where you know, very pro-Mexico. He did not mention names of groups, but Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson on Monday said that "Judge Curiel had been member of a group that has been overtly against her candidate." She said, "I think what's really interesting about this particular judge — as Mr. Trump refers to him as a 'Trump hater' — is he even mentions on his judicial questionnaire that he was a La Raza Lawyers Association member," Pierson said in an interview on CNN. several RS say that Trump was confused about two entirely different groups with "La Raza" in their title. a) Curiel says he belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a noncontroversial, nonpolitical local group. b) He does NOT belong to "the National Council of La Raza" a much more political national group. see details at http://www.snopes.com/judge-curiel-la-raza-kkk/ Rjensen ( talk) 07:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Anythingyouwant: You came here seeking other people's opinions on a subject which is in dispute - at least that should have been your approach because that's what this board is for. You have gotten opinions from several people now. All of them have disagreed with your position - just as everyone has disagreed with you at the talk page. Your response by now should be "OK, thanks for your input, everyone; it looks like I don't have consensus to include this." Instead your response is just an extension of your response on the talk page: Argue, argue, argue. Insist, insist, insist. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here and at the talk page is clear. It's time to take the advice you asked for, and accept what is obviously the consensus to leave this out. -- MelanieN ( talk) 08:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Come on, Melanie, give me a break. I have to abide by consensus, and refrain from editing against consensus. I don't have to agree that the consensus is right when I sincerely believe it's totally wrong. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if you don't agree with the consensus (which happens to all of us sometimes) - does there come a point where you accept it and stop arguing? -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I'm not going to argue with you about arguing. Have a good day.😊 Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• My position is almost entirely consistant with Baranof's last statement "If anything, giving Trump's fallacious, speculative attacks on Curiel's character and judicial impartiality undue weight and credence in the judge's own Wikipedia biography is a far greater violation of BLP than anything suggested about Trump here." Its like he is reading my mind. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in death|talk Absolutely agree with that. This material has no place in the judge's BLP. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

95.93.220.31 ( talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced information, and removing sourced information from João Vale e Azevedo, in an apparent attempt of WP:ADVOCACY. SLBedit ( talk) 14:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User has been informed about this but continues adding unsourced content to the article. SLBedit ( talk) 16:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits over the last few days have significantly changed the article into reading like more of a CV (like with this edit, though this one in particular is a smaller concern) and glossing over controversies relating to Bundgaard (like here, here, and here). Most of the new material was added by user:Nurse12, whom I will notify after finishing this post.

Nurse12 has made some helpful edits too, including some basic biographical information and perhaps the addition of some other relevant work performed by Bundgaard. I can't undo some of the broader, problematic revisions and would like someone with rollback or other permissions to review the recent changes to this article. Thank you! Lizzius ( talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nurse12 has also made an at Ron Gould which also seems to violate BLP. This would indicate Ron Gould is a political opponent of Scott Bundgaard. Lizzius ( talk) 13:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a newbie. Lizzius has taken an odd interest in 'biting' this newbie WP:DBN. Lizzius has been casting aspersions at my intentions, as I have picked one person - a washed up Arizona politician - and attempted to round out his biography. The edits I've made are consistent with other BLPs, such as adding community involvement, in order to maintain focus on Scotts political activity. (See Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio or Arizona Governor Doug Ducey's "Business career") With no evidence, other than my desire to jump into this new world of Wikipedia and to be Bold, Lizzius has suggested that I have a COI and that I should consider a WP:Clean start, which is offensive. Granted, Lizzius has a few months more experience than I do on WP, but I have years of experience, depth of knowledge and expertise in reporting on politics in Arizona. I would welcome an objective user with some authority User:DGG, perhaps, due to his previous overview and expertise in BLP to review the edits made to this page. This page was edited heavily in 2011 and 2012 during a heated political controversy by political adversaries and reduced to a political hit piece on Scott. I'd like to try my hand at rounding out this bio without the nitpicking and undue criticisms from a user with a few months of 'experience' on WP. Nurse12 ( talk) 16:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)nurse12

That's not really an accurate assessment of how this has played out, though I think that will be apparent to anyone who reviews what I actually said on the three relevant talk pages. I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, and of course welcome any suggestions on how I may do that better. Lizzius ( talk) 18:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A new BLP that is well-sourced and appears to be well over notability guidelines. Subject is a former naturopathic doctor who now advocates against alternative medicine. She seems to be the only naturopath who has flipped over to science and has gotten a lot of coverage for this, which makes an entry on WP just fine, especially with coverage in Forbes, Vox, CBC, National Post, etc. and with coverage by notable physicians in the skeptic movement. Article was recently nominated for deletion with the suggestion that it should be blown-up per WP:TNT because of alleged promotional tone. This seems like overkill and a bit odd. More eyes and opinions needed. Delta13C ( talk) 10:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if someone could in fact rewrite it. It has to emphasize the person, not the harms of naturopathic medicine. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This person's very claim to fame is that she points out the harms of naturopathic medicine. It's difficult to accurately describe why she's notable without at least mentioning those harms. A bio of a person known for their ideas has to cover those ideas. -- Krelnik ( talk) 19:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This page is up for speedily deleted. I have expressed my feeling on the talk page and outside opinions would really help. First off, it's full with information about the boxer. It meets suitable standards and guidelines set by Wikipedia also. This particular article obviously wants to be made after the amount of previous attempts which have occurred. He has won a regional title and currently is ranked in the top 100 by a sanctioning body. I personally feel this is ridiculous to be up for deletion after I have given plenty of references and information throughtout this article. He's a top prospect and plenty of readers want to know information about him, so why not have a page for this young boxer? Kidsoljah ( talk) 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's outside the scope of this noticeboard. The issue with the article is whether he meets the WP:NBOX criteria; he did not before he won his New Zealand title, and that's why it was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Hemi Ahio. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am commissioned by Irene Cara to assist in the removal of all her private information for security and safety purposes. We are attempting to remove all references to her maiden name and any home address data. I have made the appropriate edits but, the information has resurfaced. We are in process of communication with the referenced sources for the removal as well. What do we need to do to remove this data immediately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intltech2016 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this name. The name is widely publicized. See: BBC, TV Guide, People Magazine, Todo Musica (in Spanish), Telestar (in French), IMDB, Discogs. David in DC ( talk) 17:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Normally Wikipedia is strict about this sort of thing due to WP:BLPPRIVACY. However, there is no real bar to hiding material that is available in multiple reliable sources. Random example: Michael Caine was born Maurice Joseph Micklewhite on 14 March 1933. There would be little point in removing Irene Cara's birth name from Wikipedia if it was available in umpteen other places in a web search. There is also the risk of setting off the Streisand effect by doing this. Please explain this to Ms Cara. Thanks for your time.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Normally Wikipedia and BLP have much higher standards than Google searches, that BBC link, or IMDB. Does People Magazine give her birth name? No. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

People magazine [33] specifically identifies her father as Gaspar Escalera. In fact, many news sources note the name "Escalera". Collect ( talk) 12:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So your birth name is your current name plus your father's surname, right? These are good examples of below par referencing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, "below par" is good. One under par is a birdie, two under par is an eagle. Just like bowling, where birds are also good. (Three strikes in a row is a turkey.) What's bad is a score above par. Bogie, double-bogie, etc.
More on point, the BBC really ought to be enough for a person's birth name. When it's an American TV actor, the BBC plus TV Guide surely ought to be. David in DC ( talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My bad. But has anyone actually looked at the BBC link? "Read more at Wikipedia"... As for TV Guide, well.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm way wronger on the BBC than your minor (and non-dispositive) error in usage of "par". I apologize for both my error and my snarkiness. I'll STFU now. David in DC ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you were commissioned for this job, she got ripped. Your edit Irene Cara (born Irene Cara) didn't even create a text that made any sense. Meanwhile, what you didn't say is that she is probably being mistreated by IP users who keep adding all sorts of completely unsourced stuff talking about drugs and abuse together with relationships and the names and ages of all her kids; without sources this stuff indeed can't stay in the article, and there are options like article protection and even revision deletion that Wikipedia admins might find appropriate to use here. I'd encourage them to take a look at it, and call it charity to a not very good paid editor. But all she would have had to do was ask; I'm sure she could have worded it better herself. Wnt ( talk) 00:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit was made on 10 June 2016 at Irene Cara. It is over the top with unsourced material and should be revedeleted. Likewise, this edit on 12 March 2016 and this edit on 28 February 2016 and this edit on 23 August 2015 should also be revdeleted. Someone has added material that isn't within BLP guidelines, but her birth name on its own isn't a big secret. Some more eyes are needed at Irene Cara as someone has been adding excessive material that fails WP:BLPPRIVACY.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think most if not all of that section could be justified, provided it had good sourcing; it's not really the material that is the issue but whether Wikipedia is being asked to publish what others have not. This isn't the site to break the news. Wnt ( talk) 15:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

IanMacM has rightly spotted those BLP violations. I think someone is repeatedly hoaxing - the biographical details change each time - different dates, names (including her own), but always multiple marriages and lots of children, tales of woe. I have revdelled more and semi-protected for three months. This latest account may be part of this but in any case is a company name, so I will softblock and warn about COI. Fences& Windows 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Lonette McKee is another apparent hoax target, IP who edited Cara's page also added fantastical tale to McKee's. I will revisit tomorrow.

For Cara, two more issues: 1) unsourced allegations on the article talk about her. If they cannot be verified I will revdel. 2) her actual 1986 marriage to a stunt man was removed in the process of removing the hoaxes: http://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/04/14/Oscar-winning-singer-actress-Irene-Cara-married-veteran-stuntman-Conrad-Palmisano/4744513838800/ Fences& Windows 00:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hey guys. I just thought I'll leave a note here about the above RFC. Those interested in commenting may leave their opposes, supports or comments here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Addition of a separate BLP protection section. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 15:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I get some BLP eyes over at Death of Jo Cox. Specifically the information about the suspect, and application of WP: BLPCRIME. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 20:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The article was speedily kept at AfD, with BLPCRIME as the main motivation for the nomination. Most, but not all, of those who supported keeping seemed pretty dismissive about the argument – now that the discussion has closed I would invite opinions here, as the implication of that close is that I have misjudged community consensus on BLPCRIME's relation to other policies, and I'd therefore appreciate guidance. Did not want to attract undue traffic to that conversation whilst an AfD was live.

Jo Cox is also worth watching – related article and top of ITN at time of writing. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If I had actually voted in that discussion it probably would have been keep, there is a pretty good amount of non-blp violating material so I don't think BLP is justification to delete the whole thing. On the other hand BLPCRIME needs to be enforced as well. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I didn't anticipate the level of unanimity on that front, my personal view was that if you take out the excessive level of reaction, rather than give a representative indication of its strength, and you took out anything which violated BLPCRIME, then it was essentially a fork of Jo Cox with little hope of becoming anything else for some considerable time. Consensus was otherwise (the majority of those who voted did not actually consider the matters at hand, but among those who did the direction of travel was clear) and I'll just have to accept that. But the BLPCRIME issue remains a concern. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 21:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This BLP could use a major overhaul. She is notable for being openly transgender and a Malaysian pop musician, also for her big wedding. The problem is the article is extremely promotional seeming, as it details far too much about her works in a tone inappropriate for WP. There are few sources in English, so an editor with Chinese language skills would be a great help. Delta13C ( talk) 04:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Cannon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP removed File:PatrickCannonMugshot.jpg which was being used in the infobox with this edit and has also changed the number of Cannon's children with this edit. The same IP's only other two edits were to the article as well, so there be some connection between the Cannon and the IP. The original content about the children is supported by a citation to the The Charlotte Observer, but I cannot find an online version of the article to verify what it says. The photo is freely licensed and I agree it's not flattering, but not sure if that is simply enough to justify its removal even if Cannon's family and friends find it offensive. This does not appear to be a highly watched article, so I am posting here in the hope of getting some feedback. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored the photo -- though I took out the word "mugshot" from the caption. The photo itself isn't bad. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Nomoskedasticity -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is a DAB page called "John D Doe" and inside that DAB page there are several links to the various Does, is it appropriate to have a red link for "John D Doe (surfer)"? What about "John D Doe (pedophile)"? What about the case where none of the entries passes GNG, but are mentioned in a section of another article? My concern is that by creating such links allows the subject to be indexed through search engines, and unduly raising their internet profile when they fail to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That man from Nantucket, you asked similar questions at Help talk:Disambiguation#Can someone explain how this is supposed to work?. I believe the same answer supplied there applies here. I believe the relevant wikidocument is WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links. I suggest you try looking there, first. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Accordingly, creating a BLP redirect to an another article's subsection is inappropriate because the BLP is not notable, and so would the disambiguation. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 02:12, 1Related image7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Are you sure you understand wikipedia notability?

Some individuals have enough notability factors that we agree they merit a standalone article. Other individuals, most individual, have zero notability, and they get zero coverage here. But there are millions of individuals who have some notability, enough notability to merit some coverage on the wikipedia, just not enough to merit a standalone article. A portion of a larger article can cover such individuals. They can have a redirect to that larger article. They can merit an entry on a disambiguation page. Geo Swan ( talk) 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understand the notability policies. I believe "faux links" designed to have non notable people indexed in search engines is an abuse of that policy inasmuch their privacy is being violated. I'd prefer to hear other people's opinions on this subject. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Although Seraphimblade wrote, in part: "If there is no article to navigate to, there is no reason for the disambiguation page to list it," I urge you not to cherry-pick this part of their answer, and ignore the rest, as WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Items appearing within other articles says: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." Geo Swan ( talk) 20:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid BLP trumps this. One could quite easily remove all red links to BLP subjects, on the basis of not passing GNG. And then follows the DAB. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 21:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Disambiguation pages are intended as navigational aids. If there is no article to navigate to, there is no reason for the disambiguation page to list it. Navigation to a section of another article where the subject is covered to some significant degree would generally be acceptable, it would still help the reader to find the information they're looking for. Such links would still be subject to BLP, though, and should never present the subject in a false light. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• If the person is not notable enough for a standalone article or is not mentioned elsewhere, there should be no link on a DAB page. If someone is not notable enough for their own article but does appear on others (a lot of crime-based pers/victims fall into his category) then you could justify a DAB entry to the relevant article. With living people all DAB links are subject to the BLP Policy, so you would be unlikely to get away with 'John Doe (pedophile)' unless it was well-referenced. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Would the same hold true for BLP articles that exist to redirect to another article? eg, Jane Doe redirects to actresses who portrayed Juliet? Jane Doe fails GNG, but the article's real purpose is to Google index her. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• That man from Nantucket, the answers you seek are in WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic specifically says: "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article".

  WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Where redirecting may be appropriate offers an example of using the redirect James Carrey, similar to the question you raise. Geo Swan ( talk) 10:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment An RfC which is tangental to this discussion might provide some further context. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 18:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Gotta fix sentence which says that Paul Manafort seen eating Lewandowski's remains — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C470:DFAF:6C8D:84FE:B46C:7CF3 ( talk) 17:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Done by someone else at the same time you were writing that:) Thanks for letting us know! DMacks ( talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone has edited the article replacing the name of his University as well as the amount of points in the 1st 2nd and 3rd paragraph. Also somewhere instead of the Celtics I read the Greers. I don't know how else to report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:E004:900:901B:E7E7:9FB:82D6 ( talk) 08:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a fine place to report it. I fixed it. DMacks ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this edit this edit is potentially libelous and should be redacted. 77.130.195.10 ( talk) 13:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You have undone the edit...which is a good thing...If you are asking for it to be hidden please see WP:REVDEL Eagleash ( talk) 13:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Kim Min-hee (actress, born 1982) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been noticing repeated contentious/insulting edits made to the 'Occupation' section of Kim Min-hee's page /info/en/?search=Kim_Min-hee_%28actress,_born_1982%29 (edits describing her as a 'Homewrecker', 'Fox', 'Concubine', to name a few) and I suspect this is the result of recent news about her personal life, and may also be the work of individuals with an agenda given that I made edits to remove the contentious material and the insults were back on the article within minutes).

I strongly recommend closing Kim Min-hee's wiki article/locking it against further edits for at least a day, given that the edits appear to be made by people with an axe to grind against the actress for whatever reason. Please take action to prevent this.

I've watchlisted the page and will keep a close eye on it. Meatsgains ( talk) 16:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also w/listed and would agree that in view of the seemingly persistent disruptive edits it might need protecting temporarily. Eagleash ( talk) 16:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have requested at WP:RFPP. Eagleash ( talk) 16:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Now protected for 7 days. Eagleash ( talk) 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki article David Bergstein is undergoing continuous edits, which I believe it be in violation of the living person policies. The new introduction to the article appears to have been created to disparage the subject, and makes claims about bankruptcy which do not have citations. While the article details Bergstein's career, business involvement etc., the introduction has been modified to focus on financial activity related to his companies, and over-emphasize this at the expense of what Bergstein is known for (his work in producing films, equity and advisory sector). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katieshey ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the references to bankruptcy do have cites in the body of the article. It therefore wouldn't be usual to include in the lead. Eagleash ( talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)