This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This IP has been adding and removing content from these two articles without, it seems, a regard for what sources say on the matter. I have been disputing with the IP on my removal of content not cited by RS ( [1] [2] [3]). This is while Horse Eye Jack has been disputing with them over at Eddie Perez (politician) for the IP's even more nonsensical changes ( [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]). While we do have WP:NOT3RR#EX7, I am trying to not keep reverting them, so I really don't know what the solution for this is. Fresh eyes would help, though. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Betül Tanbay has asked me by email for the removal from her article about the paragraph on her recent detention and release by the Turkish government, on the basis that it is inaccurate and not an important part of her story. She has supplied no sources to me that could be used in place of the three sources already used there for this incident. I am unsure whether the paragraph should stay. Anyone else have an opinion here? WP:AVOIDVICTIM may be relevant. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The headline of Eric Swalwell bio is that he is a Russia-gate conspiracy theorist. The source for this claim was poor and disreputable. This sentiment by the editor for this claim was politically motivated by recent events and lacks credible evidence for the claim.
Anzør Alem Artistes congolais [1]
This article has been tagged as an attack page twice, once in August of last year [9] and a second time, by a different person, yesterday. [10] Several other users have tried to address some of the article's problems, but there has never been any long-term improvement, so it was suggested that I should raise the issue here.
In its current state, the article is about 90% negative, and most of the negative material is poorly sourced. Here is my analysis of the article's sources. Most of the article's sources contain no actual commentary about Meisenberg or mention him in only one sentence, and almost a third of the sources (five out of 17) literally don't mention him at all. Of the three sources that do criticize him in more than a single sentence, one appears to be self-published, and the most recently added source is a book that hasn't been published yet. ( Amazon gives it publication date as May 21.)
Based on how scanty Meisenberg's coverage in reliable sources has been, I am not sure if this individual is notable enough to deserve his own article, so if someone else wants to create an AFD discussion for this article, I would approve of that solution. Otherwise, I would like advice and help about bringing this article into compliance with BLP policy, which requires articles about living people to be better sourced than this one is. 2600:1004:B128:E28D:7523:957D:6FF8:7502 ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Can some others please take a look at the newly added "Lawsuit for Sex and Age Discrimination" section in Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai? It's a serious issue but the manner in which it is described in the article might raise BLP concerns especially since these are allegations raised in a lawsuit that has not yet been tried. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 21:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am the author of the original item on the lawsuit. I think to omit it entirely is not just. The allegations are very, very serious - and they are spelled out in a very, very detailed legal filing in a federal court. This is not some frivolous, off-hand comment at a cocktail party. The suit has also been covered in several news media of high regard, including Science. Two of the people named in the suit are well-known worldwide in their fields and by no means are 'private individuals' in their professional capacities. We are not discussing something that allegedly occurred in their private lives but something that allegedly occurred in the course of their employment at a major medical institution. The issues raised in the law suit have significant implications for science, medicine, and public health. So, these are assuredly public matters, pertaining to a pubic institution and involving public figures. Drs. Sing and Carney have their own wikipedia pages, and I believe that mention of their names in the entry here is reasonable given their stature in the field. Right now, the paragraphs in question have been moved. Shall I take another pass at writing one and post it here? Eksilverman ( talk) 23:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
How about: In April 2019, the Icahn School was named in a lawsuit filed against Mount Sinai Health System and several employees of the Icahn School's Arnhold Institute for Global Health.[29] The suit was filed by eight current and former employees for age and sex discrimination, including against the Dean of the Icahn School, the Director of the Arnhold Institute, and the Institute’s Chief of Staff. Allegations also include improper reporting to funding agencies, misallocation of funds, failing to obtain Institutional Review Board approval prior to conducting research in violation of Mount Sinai and federal guidelines, and failing properly to adhere to the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA. Eksilverman ( talk) 14:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
A proposed revision: "In April 2019, the Icahn School was named in a lawsuit filed against Mount Sinai Health System and several employees of the Icahn School's Arnhold Institute for Global Health.[29] The suit was filed by eight current and former employees for age and sex discrimination as well as improper reporting to funding agencies, misallocation of funds, failing to obtain Institutional Review Board approval prior to conducting research in violation of Mount Sinai and federal guidelines, and failing properly to adhere to the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA." Eksilverman ( talk) 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Added the paragraph to the page, in line with comments, and also cited a new development in the case/affair. Eksilverman ( talk) 13:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thurnscoe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the article headed 'Thurnscoe' and the section for 'Notable People' the citation for Alan Moore, refers to the wrong Alan Moore. The Alan Moore from Thurnscoe should read,
'Alan Moore was born in Thurnscoe on the 18th December 1944. He was educated at Houghton Road Junior School prior to attending The Hill School. He then went on to Mexborough Grammar School, were he met a young lady, Beryl, who would eventually become his wife. Alan has lived and worked in Thurnscoe, for most of his life. He is proud of Thurnscoe and it's people, the most genuine people, on the planet. He has had a total of seven books published on Amazon an d is also proud of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggasdad ( talk • contribs)
An editor is insisting on adding
diff to
Polish American Congress about the BLP
Jimmy Kimmel. Past edits -
diff also included Wikipeda stating in its voice that the "incident also included the show host repeating WWII-era Nazi propaganda"
. Originally this was sourced to
[12] -
Canada Free Press (per Wikipedia - an "online conservative tabloid") that does not seem to be a source appropriate for BLP. And now (what appear to be copies of the first source) -
[13] (phi966.org seems to rail against mainstream media and has a
whole section promoting various theories - see
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#Conspiracy theories) The second source
this seems to be an obscure internet portal. All 3 links contain rather strong accusations vs. Kimmel. Some prior discussion
User talk:Piotrus/Archive 61#BLP sourcing. The
Polish American Congress (the PR piece being issued by someone affiliated with them) itself has received little independent coverage (there are some pieces by people affiliated or paid by PAC), independent coverage includes incidents such as -
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18].
Icewhiz (
talk) 09:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
See [19]. We had several back and forth reverts here between me and User:Icewhiz, and I think we need a BLP expert third+ opinions. While I think the mention of this incident is worded neutrally and has no bearing on BLP, the other editor clearly feels differently. Thoughts? PS. Regarding the sources used, they are a minor Polish-American NGO and a P-A news website. No better sources could be found for this incident. I feel that the sources suffice for neutrally worded report of this incident. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There has been a long-running no-discussion edit war on K. K. Aggarwal over whether we should include the claim that he was once listed as "Chief Patron" of a predatory open-access publisher. The sourcing of the claim is a blog post by Jeffrey Beall, who arguably meets the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS, so I think it is reliable (despite the fact that for unrelated reasons Beall was later forced to take the whole blog down and we only have an archived copy). But that alone does not necessarily mean that the claim should be retained in the article. Anyway, finally semiprotection has forced the person or people who want to remove this claim to use the talk page and start a discussion at Talk:K. K. Aggarwal. Let's reward this good behavior by contributing to the discussion there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Currently Bill Shorten is one of the two people expected to become the next Australian Prime Minister, and since just before the election was called (it ends in two weeks, to great relief), there has been a push to prominently feature a rape allegation made against Shorten in the article. The allegation surfaced about 6 years ago and related to an alleged incident about 30 years prior. The police investigated and found that there was no case to answer and no charges were laid. As the Australian media chose not to cover it during the investigation, it only hit the media for about one news cycle, when Shorten announced that he had been investigated and that the investigation had been dropped. It was mentioned a couple of times in the following months when the accuser claimed to be pursing other action, but since then has had almost no mentions in the media, and no other actions have eventuated. As far as I can tell it has not had any impact on his career.
The consensus was originally not to include the material, but recently a short description was added under "personal life" [20]. However, since the election was called there have been ongoing attempts to provide greater emphasis on the accusation by placing the text in it's own subheading of "Sexual assault allegation" and locating it under "Leader of the opposition" rather than in "Personal life" [21]. My feeling is that this is undue, so I have reverted accordingly and raised the issue on the talk page, but the IP has not engaged there. Is this being undue an accurate reading, or should it be given greater prominence? - Bilby ( talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the gender identity, name, and pronouns of a juvenile suspect in this recent shooting. Funcrunch ( talk) 19:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Over at Laura Loomer, multiple editors are adding "well sourced" BLP incest claims, which are based on zero evidence. The victim has previously received death threats from people of similar motivations. wumbolo ^^^ 22:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Page Olavo de Carvalho is not respecting WP:BLP.
Please moderate.-- DDupard ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You have not provided evidences of what you're saying.
Agreed:
Disagreed:
-Which opinions are stated as facts?
-Where's the attack? Please provide examples.
-Which biased sources are given undue weight?
-Which language is judgmental? Please provide examples.
-Please provide examples it is written like a tabloid.
Cool, thanks. You certainly have a point here. The problems, as I see it, are more nuanced than the notion of "attack" conveys though. More than a malicious intent to smear him there are objective informational biases -- as he is essentially known for his controversies, there isn't a lot of information about him or his non-controversial ideas (if these exist). I'll try to work on it. Shakula34 ( talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Adrian David Cheok ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Adrian David Cheok would benefit from a check by experienced editors. I suspect that the BLP policy has been violated in a few places.
There's been repeated Edit Wars; at least one article editor has been blocked and a new one has emerged recently only to undo edits or delete whole sections with confrontational language.
I have contributed edits attempting neutrality and objectivity but as a human being I am subjective too and not an experienced editor so help from experienced editors would be appreciated. Starting this page in good faith hoping it helps to improve the article; I worry Edit Wars will continue otherwise.
Can an exprienced and neutral editor help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predicatecalculus ( talk • contribs)
---
On 18 May 2019 Bilby deleted the page Adrian David Cheok claiming "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Foundational copyvio from https://web.archive.org/web/20101112001709/http://www.ece.nus.edu.sg/staff/bio/cad.html)". Adding for the record!
Predicatecalculus ( talk) 15:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This is regarding a "NPOV dispute" where it is stated, "This article was clearly written by James Cappleman or a biased supporter. In the last election in April of 2019 Cappleman won by 25 votes in a ward of more than 50,000 residents. He is widely known for being one of the most corrupt and dishonest members of Chicago's City Council. Clearly 50% of the voters in the last election understand this. His lies, unethical, discriminatory and yes, illegal acts have been documented in mainstream news sources for years and will be added to this article."
There is no information within "NPOV dispute" that backs up these claims that are clearly libelous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptown resident ( talk • contribs)
The article has been edited in a way that is not entirely neutral, not enough sources are cited, there are 2 errors (somewhat) in the bottom of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoss Chrysalis ( talk • contribs) 07:38, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Guy_McPherson&diff=896997148&oldid=896994688
Green C continues to vandalize my edit corrections to a previous and incorrect edit that does not represent the facts of what Guy McPherson does, says or believes. Green C also continues to restore potentially libelous material from questionable links. Green C also removed a photo of a shirt with the logo of Guy McPherson's website stating it was potentially COI and promotional, which is nonsense. Photos of individuals in Extinction Rebellion Tshirts abound.
His edits are arbitrary and suspicious and he changed information that was corrected by Guy McPherson himself. 68.129.132.213 is Guy McPherson. How do I know? I'm his partner, PESchneider, and was sitting next to him editing the site when Green C began to vandalize the site. Who knows best what Guy McPherson means than McPherson himself. Please stop Green C from changing these edits anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=896994688&oldid=896992738&title=Guy_McPherson
Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content. And now that ass has permalinked it so it will only show his incorrect edits.
PESchneider ( talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the only WP:COI is Green C's for refusing to allow corrective edits, for removing photos from Guy McPherson, and for not having a conversation with me about the edits he was concerned with. He did not "talk" to me. He did not ask me about my edits. He began an editing battle that I was not even aware of at first. However, when my edits did not stick, I became perplexed. And lo, a vandal was at the gate. It would seem that Green C has a vendetta against Dr. McPherson and will not allow any positive, scientific articles to be posted. Now there is evidence of true WP:COI by Green C. He is very quick with removing them and keeping the defamatory and libelous, unscientific, articles on the BLP. Is that Wikipedia's idea of neutrality? Only negative articles? I hope not. I will regret all my donations to the Wikster over the years.
PESchneider ( talk) 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 14 May, 2:26am New York.
I admit I am new to this editing of Wikipedia and am still learning much about how this even works. All the cute code is darling. Still learning. I was unfamiliar with this three-revert-rule and did not understand why my edits were not sticking. The warring was begun by Green C, who, having more experience as an editor and knowing the rules better than I do, and without contacting me at all to talk about my edits, removed my valid, and cited edits which were not promotional. The critical POV was not from a reliable source and is potentially libelous. A critical POV by Michael Mann that I attempted to add was also removed by Green C. It seems Green C broke the The_three-revert_rule. Now, how about a team of actually neutral editors to assess this situation objectively? Is Wikipedia capable of that? I keep asking for a team to help with this, and not just someone's opinions, or references to "puffery", which is an unhelpful comment by Slatersteven. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule PESchneider PESchneider ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 2:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC) New York.
PESchneider, you're a new user, but you need to be very careful about making comments like "This could become a legal issue as it seems Wikipedia promotes the misrepresentation of an individual on his BRP" as you did on your talk page. You're risking a block, per WP:NLT. If you believe that something in the article rises to the level of "libelous," then you should contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether or not to mention that Ilhan Omar was arrested for trespassing at a hotel in 2013. The arrest is briefly mentioned in a 2018 article from The Minneapolis Star Tribune about her House campaign. The authenticity of the arrest and mugshot (though not the arrest report itself) were confirmed by Snopes in a May 3rd article. The charges were apparently dropped. I have not found coverage of the incident in other reliable sources beyond those two. and Omar herself has not commented on the arrest.
Should this be included in the article? Thanks Nblund talk 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In 2013 Minnesota police arrested Omar for trespassing after she refused to leave a hotel lobby where the Somali president had delivered a speech; the charges were subsequently dropped. Omar's political opponents would later utilize a mug shot from the arrest in attack ads against her during her 2018 run for Congress.
I agree it weighs only enough to warrant a brief mention. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources...The reliability of a source is probably the most important criterion for determining weight. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with most here, not needed at all. She wasnt charged and it has had no impact and is barely covered in later sources. nableezy - 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly the coverage is limited, and this is certainly not a major scandal. However, BLP does not require that we omit negative information simply because it is negative ("cause harm"). WP:HARM#TEST lays out some helpful, far more specific guidelines, asking editors to consider 1) whether the information is public, 2) whether it is factual and verifiable (definitive), and 3) whether it is given due weight. In this scenario, 1) and 2) are clear: the information is public and has been fact-checked by reliable sources. There is clearly disagreement on 3), and while I acknowledge that this arrest received less coverage than say, the legal issues of Beto O'Rourke to name an example, it still carries enough weight for simple inclusion when a national fact-checking site and a state-wide paper both make note of it. I think that the ill-defined criteria being argued for here about weight and "BLP" are dangerous, because they are too easily stretched or contracted to fit editors' personal opinions about politicians and what information about them should be presented. Weight is not a simple "include or don't" test, it's an analysis of how much attention should be given to something. Based on the admittedly limited coverage, I do not think this content should be addressed with more than two brief sentences, but I believe it would be a mistake to leave it out entirely. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the prevailing trend: even a mention of this is undue weight. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing court case concerning Brian Wong's indictment of sexual assualt, but there appears to be a WP:SPA continually adding a growing expanse ff language that appears in clear violation of WP:BLPBALANCE. Earlier edits have already been flagged and addressed as such, but similar edits continue to be added (eg. [1], [2])-- User:GatoradeFrost
Original IP here. Just saw this page. it seems what was flagged as BLP issues were fine with editors at least from a sourcing perspective and no mentions of it previously while there were specific issues today regarding it. I had researched and consolidated the various sources who provided the information as well as the well known news entities. Seems like no editors cleaned it up on what was or was not relevant. I'm still learning how this works so learning the rules along the way. Ad exchanger is considered reputable source within the advertising space Wong was in but not that well known outside of the advertising community (think more industry specific publications).
Thoughts on whether or not sexual assault allegation (in this case a grand jury indictment should be included): If it was a normal executive or CEO running a company, the answer likely should be no. However, Brian Wong made himself continuously relevant to the media within the last 10 years across hundreds of media outlets, exposed to millions of people, speaking around the world, doing book tours, etc which is representative of someone who is a celebrity and considered semi well known figure.
Many actions were taken as a result of the sexual assault allegations including being removed and replaced as CEO of Kiip, various entities deleting any association with him and distancing themselves, so without this context, it is very difficult to explain any of this result.
Regards to use of primary sources like Travis county records and court documents: As I mentioned, still learning the rules along the way and learning about the sensitivities of such issues. Primary sources were mostly used to supplement and provide more details and support the info the reputable secondary sources has mentioned through media reporting.
What is the reason allegation or conviction of sexual assault or criminal charges are included in such biographies? Is it to provide a neutral stance on the person that is true good and bad? To warn the public so they can make a more informed decision, etc?
At least for now, won't make any more edits regarding this and leave it to the editors to decide.
"If it is a BLP violation in one place, it remains a BLP violation elsewhere." Could you judge based on the actual writing and evidence presented. The original information on Kiip was written by a PR company or internally and outdated. This has led to various inaccuracies some entities uses wikipedia as a starting source for research or info and cite the info (everything from funding quoting from $15 million to wikipedia $32 million to Brian confirmed $40 million etc). Most recent corporate valuation of $25 million posted by 1800-junk founder via twitter and confirmed by Brian. Additional information added were those presented by Kiip or Wong confirmed himself. Corporate lawsuit is irrelevant to BLP as it is the actions of the corporate entity and not a specific individual. Any information if added would have been before any announcement of sexual assault allegations. The corporate lawsuit issue dealt with user data privacy collection without consent even while the app is turned off and should be considered relevant to the corporate entity.
":I don't know whether the material belongs in the article (Wong has not been convicted), but I do know that the section about it is WAY too long, too detailed, and full of inappropriate material, e.g., court case numbers. It's seriously WP:UNDUE." It is very hard at this point to get a balanced view because much of the details presented is from the State of Texas as the plaintiff, and the details from the sexual assault victim. The information from Wong's side has only been his legal counsel proclaiming it was consensual sex (which is what happens in most cases whether or not one is guilty) so there is not much info to go on from the defense side other than the legal counsel quote. The whole issue falls on whether or not it is consensual sex. However, to have an indictment and court dates means that there is at least some credible evidence to go on vs. just a sexual assault allegation without evidence. More info was added so that what is irrelevant could be removed and edited out and there is enough info to be summarized. As time passes, some of the sources get pushed down in the search engine and become harder to find making it harder to put together a complete and hopefully accurate picture. 2001:569:7E43:7900:6487:DFEC:8CC7:10E2 ( talk) 04:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Admin Bbb23 told me to shorter my response significantly so will only respond to address the relevant points as well as to make my case that Brian Wong is a public figure and BLP: Crime does not apply.
No conflict of interest: I don't have a conflict of interest as per the wiki definition pointed to by user Collect. Currently it is very hard to get a neutral point of view without much information from the defense to go on and much of the public information is provided by the plaintiff which is the State of Texas.
Brian Wong is considered to be a public figure and thus would not fall under BLP:Crime which covers non-public figures.
Relevant Definitions: "(WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN" Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime
"A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]" Source: /info/en/?search=Public_figure
Brian Wong is between the boundary of portrayed business leader and media personality or both. What evidence can we show that this might be true?
Quantitative evidence:
Brian Wong is a Linkedin influencer given exclusively to 500+ people in the world and has over 715,800 followers: In addition to the hundreds of media interviews and news articles which I won't list, his Linkedin is followed by over 715,800 people. These are professionals with real profiles and linkedin considered him a business leader and influencer. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongbrian
Linkedin definition of an influencer: "LinkedIn Influencers are selected by invitation only and comprise a global collective of 500+ of the world's foremost thinkers, leaders, and innovators. As leaders in their industries and geographies, they discuss newsy and trending topics such as the future of higher education, the workplace culture at Amazon, the plunge in oil prices, and the missteps of policymakers.Our list of Influencers includes Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Arianna Huffington, and Mary Barra." Source: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/49650
What does this mean: It means the media helped to establish his credibility and has built trust not only within the advertising industry but also with the general public as well. To professionals, he would be a business leader while to the general public, it would be a social media personality (analogy: think of the dragons in the dragons den show). The media reports briefly what happens but fails to provide some of the evidence behind what they say so people don't have an opportunity to judge for themselves. Moreover, his legal counsel specializes in cases where public figures including sports stars or politicians are accused of sexual assault and defends them.
Brian Wong meets the Instagram definition of a public figure with a blue check mark: Instagram has a "Verified badges help people more easily find the public figures, celebrities and brands they want to follow. Learn more:" What is a verified badge? "A verified badge is a check that appears next to an Instagram account's name in search and on the profile. It means Instagram has confirmed that an account is the authentic presence of the public figure, celebrity or global brand it represents." Source: https://help.instagram.com/1080769608648426
Brian Wong's instagram account was public which he used to promote himself which was later made private due to the criminal investigation. Even though it is now private, the account has the blue check mark given to public figures, celebrities and brands. Please see: https://www.instagram.com/brianwong/
Summary: The question is would you consider Brian Wong a public figure based on some of the information presented, the media, and other sources point him to be such or it is something he is trying to establish as his image. If you consider him a public figure based on the definitions and information presented, then BLP: Crime would not apply and the criteria for well known would apply meaning the indictment information would be included after the editors take out some of the info which may not meet wikipedia guidelines or BLP. Without a place for such information to provide a middle ground and for people to look at the primary evidence and judge for themselves, you would get many more instances of people basing their opinion on speculation vs. presented evidence up to the point the public knows. 2001:569:7E43:7900:443E:87E7:5889:412A ( talk) 07:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As best as I can tell, Wong has been replaced as CEO at Kiip due to the charges (not convictions) of sexual assault, and that's well sourced in RSes [22], [23]. This clearly qualifies as a career-affecting issue, so it should be covered, just not in as much detail eg "In March 2019, Wong was indicted on charges of sexual assault that were claimed to have occurred during the 2016 SXSW Festival. Kiip has denied the event occurred. Kiip's board replaced Wong as CEO after these charges were made public." (I would readily add Kiip is a public figure, due to his past success, so this is not a question of victimizing some non-notable person). -- Masem ( t) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@ user Collect. What I originally pointed out is that Instagram blue check mark is only one small piece of evidence and cannot be taken alone as an indicator and that this information has to be taken along with his hundreds of media appearances, interviews, live talks, etc. I also mentioned Linkedin promoting him as a trusted business expert and giving him Influencer status which is only given to 500+ people in the world as I mentioned in my reply above (and much more exclusive than Instagram blue check mark which can be given even to minor public figures e.g. C lister actresses. Instagram indicates someone is a public figure but not how prominent they are as a public figure.) as well as over 700,000 Linkedin followers which are real people and significantly more than most public figures. These evidence when taken together should be addressed instead of addressing selective evidence that Instagram blue check mark does not mean public figure and therefore he is not public figure. Moreover on Brian Wong's public Facebook page which he manages himself with over 10000 followers, he listed himself as a public figure. Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/brianwongkiip/about/?ref=page_internal
The question is: is Brian Wong a public figure based on these evidence as well as the hundreds of media mentions, his personal interview, giving life and success tips, etc taken together. Whether or not he is will help to build a case law justification like insurance company paper trail for future situations and if others challenge the decision. The second is if he is a public figure how much in depth he should be covered. The more popular and famous a public figure, the more in depth the coverage. Then links to the relevant sources. For someone to appear on Inc magazine and BNN Bloomberg business section front cover online, and sent to over 10 million people (including 2x for BNN Bloomberg's 5+ million twitter followers) that sexual assault indictment occurred is a big indicator for notability. If someone is not notable, then they would not be worth mentioning in the major news publications and may only appear in minor local news. Brian Wong didn't get removed from the company due to the sexual assault indictment but due to the fact that he hid this critical information from the board which they only learned due to it coming out in the news and put the company at risk which warranted being removed as CEO. 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 ( talk) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Another issue I wanted to bring up is editor revival of dead links via archive.org for Brian Wong page and others which are no longer valid: I'm not sure if it is always something done or dependent on circumstances because some organisations, newspapers remove the article in question due to it no longer being accurate, wanting to distance themselves from potential negative news, no longer promoting the person. I don't know if these should be included or each verified as to the purpose it is removed. E.g. not archived correctly vs. deliberate removal. Something minor which could be clarified 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 ( talk) 00:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on the link matter. A few more clarifications: Brian Wong didn't say that he was innocent even though he may think this way. It was his lawyer talking to the media that it was consensual sex and the lawyer has experience with high profile media cases so it is standard language whether or not they are guilty. This is what you are supposed to do which is to remain silent and let the lawyer handle it for you because anything you say can be used against you. Proposal for public person as well as notability: Public person: If the social media account is controlled by the person and they self identify as a public person publicly in addition to a blue check mark, I believe this should be good enough to fit the public person criteria. Whether they are famous or warrant mention aka. notability is another matter. Notability: user:collect talked about this a bit so I would discussion my thoughts on notability a bit. I think if one can be a Linkedin Influencer given only to 500+ people AND remain there for 2+ years (first year could be testing if it is a good fit, there is interest in their content) can be one of many indicators to seriously consider that someone is notable and warrants further investigation into their background for more evidence. The criteria is more objective because it is not a paid membership one signs up for and there has to give evidence to be top or widely known in their field and appeal to Linkedin audience to quality. To get this Linkedin status means that the person is 1) top of their field and has authority or perceived authority to speak on the matter and other people would listen 2) produce content which either/and promotes the field or advances some of its understanding. 3) wider appeal which is relevant to a more general audience and higher chance of overlap with being a public figure. There is being notable among the general public e.g. Dr. Oz from his own show vs. a specialist known for being top in their field and being widely respected among their peers but unknown to the general public (only seen in university websites/industry publications). I'm not proposing this as a criteria for notability but as an indirect indicator of notability that if someone has this influencer status, further investigation to prove notability is warranted (basically high chance that the time spent to collect evidence and to prove the person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines would not be wasted). 2001:569:7E43:7900:14C0:761:1FFE:584C ( talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
User: Collect wanted more information that Brian Wong is a public figure. I included quote from Brian Wong UBC interview back in 2011 of his intention to become a public figure. “At UBC, Wong majored in Marketing, with a minor in Political Science. He says his decision to pursue business studies was influenced by his father, an accountant who started his own firm. “He showed me what was possible in this mysterious, elusive business space,” Wong says, “and it became very intriguing to me.” And as for his Political Science studies? “I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience.”" [1] 2001:569:7E43:7900:74C1:EE4F:280B:91FA ( talk) 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD for John Smelcer, an author who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed the page [24] as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and writer who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that claims to have been written by a native American author. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid agiainst him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs)
There is a reference to allegations of treats made against the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce but no reference to a report by the Commissioner For Legislative Standards for the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly in April 2014 that finds that the allegations were unfounded and false..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.boli ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
guy vallancien is a french surgeon, honorary professor of urology, member of the french academy of medicine, member of the parliament office of evaluation of scientific and technological choices, president oh CHAM ( convention on health analysis and management He is a pionier in robotic surgery and has published 350 scientific papers, served as adviser of different ministers of health and wrote books on the relation beetween humanity and artificial intelligence— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baeny ( talk • contribs) 17:05, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
At the page on the Séralini affair, there are BLP issues about how the page refers to A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of a scientific journal. Among other things, editors disagree about whether it is appropriate to describe him as a former tobacco industry executive when that was only a brief part of his career and the page is not about tobacco, and the degree to which it is appropriate to describe accusations that were made against him without also presenting his rebuttal. There is a discussion at Talk:Séralini affair#Wallace Hayes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
During the AfD for this article, some pretty serious BLP concerns were brought up in regards to this article. The consensus ultimately was to keep it, but given the nature of the allegations, some more eyes wouldn't hurt here. If anyone is particularly familiar with the reliability of Bulgarian sources, that would be especially useful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
We have consensus that certain sources noted for tabloid journalism like Daily Mail and The Sun are so bad at fact checking etc that there are very few things they can be used for especially on BLPs per
WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But for other sources primarily known for publishing tabloid journalism things are less clear cut. (I will refer to such sources as tabloids for brevity, please don't confuse this with the tabloid format.) For example for Daily Mirror and New York Daily News, the summary in our perennial sources guidelines says "is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism.
" (Editors may disagree on whether these descriptions are accurate so I'm not talking about any specific source only the general concept.) It seems clear per the wording of our policy and what editors are saying at
#Tommy Robinson, that their inclusion isn't precluded by BLP when we do have other sources. And IMO there would be a few cases when they would be useful despite simply repeating what is said in some other source we use.
But the number of cases relating to living persons is likely to be fairly small if we can't use them as the sole source of information. A simplistic reading of our policy suggests this is the case. But is it the correct interpretation? I found Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Clarification question on the policy which is slightly old now and predating even the deprecation of Daily Mail, that seems to have come to a different conclusion. The intention of the policy is to forbid tabloid journalism wherever it occurs. Mostly this came up in relation to tabloid journalism from source not mostly known for it. However some editors also opinioned that sources known primarily for tabloid journalism are not forbidden per se, only when they engage in tabloid journalism. (Nowadays, this wouldn't apply to deprecated sources like Daily Mail etc.)
Do people feel this is right?
Nil Einne ( talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not intending this to be a RfC or something needed a formal close, nor am I suggesting the policy needs clarification. I'm asking because when composing a reply for the Tommy Robinson discussion, I originally was going to mention that tabloids are also sometimes useful to flesh out details of something covered in better sources. But when reading our policy carefully I wasn't sure this is allowed. Yet IMO from previous discussions I've been in this is still how the policy is generally applied. Tabloid are sometimes also accepted for simple statements of fact. (To be clear, all of this is only for sources not deprecated.)
We still need to consider whether it's appropriate based on editorial judgement etc. So actual tabloid stuff still stays out e.g. whatever random person someone 'hooked up with', how they cheated on their spouse with 30 sex workers in one night or that they ate a hamster. Likewise a real name or birthdate only covered in tabloid sources should generally be excluded.
But it may be appropriate to mention a significant award someone received even if the sole source is a tabloid. It's a legitimate question whether the award is actually significant if it was only mentioned in a tabloid, but I would suggest it can happen. Another example a court case receives a lot of attention, maybe even the verdict. Sometimes this coverage is enough for us to mention it in some article. But by the time an appeal succeeds, no one cares any more. Even if available, we aren't supposed to use court records. However it may be appropriate to include limited info on the appeal even if the sole source is a tabloid. We would need to consider the possible effect on other living persons etc.
In case it isn't obvious, I chose these examples because they IMO illustrate a problem with completely banning tabloids from BLPs, there is the potential to harm subjects.
I'm putting aside op-eds or columns by the living individual concerned, as well as interviews or responses only mentioned in such sources. I think at a minimum the principles for self published sources apply. I.E. Limited use if they aren't unduly self serving, taken our of context and don't affect others etc. (They aren't self published, but I don't think it's sensible that when someone says something on their website we can use it, but not if it's in some tabloid even when we have confidence the source didn't make it up.)
User talk:82.207.187.7 has been repeatedly introducing defamatory content to the page. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it a BLP or NPOV vio to note that Conrad Black wrote a hagiography of Trump a year before he was ultimately pardoned by Trump? Virtually every RS that is covering Trump's pardon of Black note that Black wrote a hagiography of him, often in the headline itself about the pardon. Here are how some RS are describing Black's book about Trump:
Trump pardoned billionaire Conrad Black, who a year ago published a book called “Donald J. Trump: A president like no other.” The book is more hagiography than biography.Concur with Icewhiz, with respect to the use of that term explicitly, this is a question which answers itself. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Tommy Robinson (activist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over at Tommy Robinson a dispute has arisen over the use of this source [ [40]] over claims he had headbutted a man. The claim is this is not an RS (and thus is a BLP violation [ [41]]). Now as far as I know the Mirror has not been declared not reliable, and thus there can be no objection to using it as a source. I would like further input. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And now they are edit warring over it, which is why I brought this here. They seem to be unduly desirous to remove this. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, it should be clear there are cases when tabloid sources, in addition to other supporting sources are important even in BLPs. One example would be some cases where a something originated in a tabloid, but was widely covered in other sources. Examples where this may arise could be John Higgins and Mazhar Majeed which includes the defunct News of the World. Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign, Tiger Woods which includes the National Enquirer. And Paul White, Baron Hanningfield which includes, yep you guessed it, Daily Mirror.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessary to include the original source in all cases, or in any of these cases but rather there are definitely cases where their inclusion is fully justified in accordance with level of coverage and other sources. (Such things are hard to search and demonstrate given WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one possible example is Profumo affair. While not a BLP, Christine Keeler only passed in 2017, and it is a FA which uses/used [42] at least one direct case of Sunday Mirror.)
Other possible examples may be that in rare cases, it may also be better to include tabloid sources in addition to other sources when the level of coverage is different or the number of non tabloid sources is limited or are so spread out it's easier to use a tabloid source in addition to other sources rather than 10 different sources. (To be clear, consideration needs to be made of the appropriateness of including the sources, or covering the material in all such cases. But there are definitely cases when it does arise.)
If someone wants to change policy to completely ban the use of tabloid sources in BLPs, they are of course welcome to try although likely they'll want to explain how to address the issues I mentioned. WT:BLP is thataway and WP:RfC outlines how to start an RfC. In the mean time, we'll go with the policy we have which heavily restricts the use of tabloid sources in BLPs notably basically forbids us from including something only covered in tabloid sources, but doesn't forbid their use in every and all instances.
Again, it's perfectly fine to discuss whether this source adds anything or it's inclusion is harmful considering the specifics of the case. In this case, there has been zero explanation for why the inclusion of this source is harmful in BLP terms considering it doesn't seem to really cover more than is in the other sources. As already said, this may mean there needs to be due consideration of whether to exclude it, not because such sources are forbidden, but because it adds nothing. But it is utterly unacceptable to claim that policy forbids the use of all tabloid sources in all cases related to BLPs. I don't think I can emphasise enough that claiming BLP supports something which it doesn't or BLP concerns arise when they don't is incredibly harmful to real, actual BLP concerns.
It's absolutely a BLP violation. You are mistaken." and expect people to take me at a word. Clearly this isn't how things work. Actually I'll probably be blocked if I try that. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Amir_Tessler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amir is an Israeli child actor. He played the lead role in a popular movie and there's some of coverage on him on RS. However, I don't think he's notable enough to have an article written about him. When I first found the article I marked it as a stub, but I'm beginning to think this article shouldn't exist right now. Maybe in the future, he'll be successful and notable - but not now. Would it be okay to nominate as AfD? Alex.osheter ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Jos B ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
His article states that he's the prime suspect in the Death of Nicky Verstappen (no source for this), and also a YouTuber. The article relating to the murder is very interesting, but I don't think this alleged murderer is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The editor who created this article is fairly new and stated this is their first of many articles about Youtubers "who have been arrested and/or convicted concerning for example child sexual abuse".
Alex.osheter ( talk) 16:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Alex.osheter ( talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
At what point description of someone as right-wing activist, and accusations of anti-semitism (in lead) become a BLP issue? See [43]. Comments appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"In fact, there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies. Whoever these apparent evildoers are, they are undermining the Intermarium’s return (and he stresses a return following the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth before 1772)[45] or in this WP:RS on historiography:
"Chodakiewicz's work represents the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing[46],
"Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian in the postcommunist period who consistently casts Polish-Jewish relations in terms of conflict and uses conflication as an explanation and justfication of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland"[47]. A preponderance of WP:RSes covering Chodakiewicz as a subject, in English, focus on these aspects in his proffesional writing and/or on his political activism in the Polish far-right (writing, rallies). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Teal Swan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The link above is suspended ( https://medium.com/suspended)
It was has been suspended due to out of context and false content.
Please take this reference of Teal Swans Wikipedia information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.1.45 ( talk) 13:13, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
At the article Kellie Maloney, TellyShows ( talk · contribs) is persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, particularly birth dates. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Amy Sequenzia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm seeking advice regarding the appropriateness of including an alleged claim about autism activist Amy Sequenzia and, by extension, other notable non-speaking autistic self-advocates. Many of these people use facilitated communication, which is considered by skeptics to be a psuedoscience. However, FC has also been the subject of many studies discussing best practices and confirming authorship (i.e., Syracuse University). Sequenzia herself has talked about establishing best practices for FC.
Previous edits to the article have included skeptic Steven Novella's claims that, essentially, whoever is facilitating her words is influencing them. He has never met Sequenzia, and I don't believe that simply making a claim means it is worth considering. This one in particular, I feel, is WP:GRAPEVINE or at least WP:BLPGOSSIP; it accuses her of being a fraud. (Information about FC which only provides studies about it being debunked also occurs on Sue Rubin's page.)
Is there a policy regarding people whose authorship over their words is being challenged? The area is a particular interest, and I'd like to know the proper way to move forward for articles like these. -- Anomalapropos ( talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the facilitated communication article describes the technique as "discredited," saying "There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC does not work, and that the facilitator is in fact the source of most or all messages obtained through FC." I don't know if this applies to Sequenzia's case. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
These are all good points. I will try to find more sources which question Sequenzia's use of FC and report back. Ylevental ( talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And my mind has now wholly been changes, this is a discredited fringe practice that has not been demonstrated to have an validity. Thus anything that is acquired by it cannot be considered reliable in any way shape or form. Given the universal (not even almost) condemnation of this practice by all the studies done on it it is not down to us to prove anything. It is down to those who wish to use statements acquired through it to prove they are not fraudulent. We do not have to disprove eyewitness sightings of UFO's or Nessie, so why this? People really do need to see when they are being given leeway. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Criticism 2019 https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2019/01/22/bbc-series-falsely-portrays-turkish-beggar-as-syrian-refugee
In 2019 Dooley was caught out by a Turkish Newspaper over her report Sex in Strange places. In the episode, removed from the BBC Iplayer, Dooley paid to interview a woman claiming to be a Syrian sex worker who was, in fact, Turkish. The misrepresentation has not yet been addressed by the BBC or by Dooley and casts a shadow over her entire reporting career. Investigation into Dooley's claims27
Hi,
Hope this is in the right place. Advised to post here for help keeping an eye on pages for Tom Burke and Alexandra Dowling. Someone keeps posting private information. Both actors prefer to keeps their private lives private but someone seems determined to post it on these actors wiki pages. I've amended them back to remove it twice but obviously can't keep amending. It's an invasion of privacy as unless it's been sanctioned by the actor involved (very unlikely) how do I sort this out please? Many thanks for any help.
Angie 22/5/19 82.11.245.194 ( talk) 16:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi - yes that's the two pages and yes there is no tabloid or mainstream publications citing or confirming the info. My concern was the tenacity of someone who constantly sought to add the update with no grounds to do so that meet wikis criteria. As mentioned I was advised by the help forums just to post so it could be kept and eye on if it becomes unlocked again. :) If I need to do this somewhere else please let me know. Many thanks
Angie 22/5/19 82.11.245.194 ( talk) 19:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to "convince" whomever is responsible for the totally biased diatribe you published against Mark Levin that they were wrong in doing so; I'm just going to publicly state herein that you liberal a-holes will NEVER receive a donation from me again - DON'T even ask! Here's hoping and praying that Wikipedia suffers bankruptcy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7d49:3400:1402:40dc:fec3:48ac ( talk • contribs)
It's necessary to include the history here so that this can be put into context. Thank you for your patience in reading. It’s come to my attention that a long-time editor on Wikipedia is once again attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta against me. A clear conflict of interest. The first attempt to do this happened after he had been forced to apologize to me (in writing, by the university that employs him) for a vicious online ad hominen attack. In 2012, he used one of his own students as an unwitting proxy - that’s if the student even existed - to create the original page, “Rand Flem-Ath”. It was full of inaccuracies and outright lies. (It’s safe to say that when Wiki Education was introduced, they did not envision that it would be abused in this way.) When Wikipedia Administrators became aware of the circumstances of the page’s creation, they removed it - everything that he had written - and substituted the neutral POV, minimal version. He’s now attempting to succeed where he failed before, by again putting my name on a ‘wish list’ of articles he wants students to create or edit. Perhaps he thinks that enough time has gone by that this new effort won’t be noticed. Or he believes that his academic persona and long familiarity with Wikipedia will give him a free pass. So that, despite his demonstrated personal animosity towards the BLP subject, and his history with that page, that he will be free to edit it with impunity or encourage students (over whom he has a position of great authority) to edit it. An example of one slight-of-hand manipulation is exhibited here: “The role of the work of the Flem-Aths should also be considered in books about Atlantis by [name redacted] and others. Together, these may make the case for notability that is required by Wikipedia.” This is the most sickening, cynical aspect of this situation. The person he is trying to bring onto my page is associated with Nazis. This teacher is brazenly trying to convince the student (a person reliant on him for a grade) to set up a ‘guilt by association’ status for me on one of the most popular websites on the planet, simply because I offend him by writing about Atlantis, and he can’t forget the fact that he went so far over the line in attacking me that an apology had to be issued. This trivialization of the horror and terrible suffering inflicted by the Nazis - just so that a personal grudge can be satisfied – is contemptible. An Administrator - Bkissin - has rejected – for other reasons – I don’t think s/he is aware of this history - the most recent attempt to hi-jack the page. And now – May 15 - this instructor, who has had years of experience editing Wikipedia – has assumed a hands-on approach with the page to try and ensure its acceptance. I realize that an Administrator’s workload is heavy – but I would ask that someone keep a fresh eye on the page with my name on it. The first note on my Talk page was placed there in anticipation of exactly the situation that has now arisen. It’s regrettable that my concern has turned out to be justified. Please be alert for this. Flem-AthRand ( talk) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
[redacted] Flem-AthRand ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This congressman yesterday became the first Republican congress member to call for Trump's impeachment. Subsequently, the page has been full of BLP vios and vandalism, and there is every reason to believe it will continue. More eyes needed. I just deleted a sentence in his lede which claimed that he owned a firm that did extensive trade with China, sourced to a far-right crackpot website. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fonda Hawthorne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography states that Fonda Hawthorn was a Republican and that is not true. She was an elected DEMOCRAT from 2013-2015. Please fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.15.251 ( talk) 20:16, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
My name is Stuart Reid and I am a Scottish children's author, not the other Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer). I do not have a Wikipedia page but because my namesake Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer) does, this causes a great deal of confusion in schools.
Since I became a full-time author in 2012 I have performed in almost 2,000 schools, libraries and book festivals around the UK, Ireland, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Hong Kong, India and Australia, performing before quarter of million children. My live events can cause a great deal of excitement and pupils are often asked to research 'the author' or write a biography prior to my arrival. Obviously, with two Scottish authors of the same name, albeit widely different genres, this can cause the children some problems.
Occasionally, teachers are surprised by my appearance too, usually asking which skin care products I use (I am a youthful 51 years old, whereas historical writer Stuart is 65 years). There was even one (mildly threatening) visit to a school in Northern Ireland, where one teacher was not entirely happy when he 'discovered' I was a former soldier of the British Army (wrong Stuart). He did not believe my denials, and regarded me with great suspicion throughout my visit.
Once, an editor from Jane's Defence Weekly emailed me to write an article on Scottish involvement in the French Revolution between 1789 and 1799. My books are about boogers, butts and big bottom burps so sadly I had to pass on that commission. And as I have never met my namesake, nor can I find his contact details online, I could only suggest that the editor contact the Scottish historical writer's publisher.
My first book 'Gorgeous George and the Giant Geriatric Generator' won the Silver Seal at the Forward National Literature Awards in 2012, and was Top Pick in the Daily Record. My 7th book 'Gorgeous George and the Timewarp Trouser Trumpets' won the silver medal at the Wishing Shelf Book awards 2018. My 8th book 'Incredible Iron-Bru-Man Incident will be launched on 20th July 2019.
I have performed at dozens of book festivals inc. Wigtown Book Festival on 3 occasions and at over 250 shows at the Edinburgh Fringe.
I will let you judge whether I can be considered to be a valid subject article. Thank you for your time.
2A02:C7D:2E0D:5500:48EC:CF74:4D20:A40E ( talk) 08:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
Distinguish}}
--
Auric
talk 14:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)3 posts by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FCDA:360:83FC:88C3 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), each defamatory, 3rd containing threats of violence -
Ignoring the rest the call to kill someone was unacceptable, and I have reported this to ANI. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this has not been dealt with. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This IP has been adding and removing content from these two articles without, it seems, a regard for what sources say on the matter. I have been disputing with the IP on my removal of content not cited by RS ( [1] [2] [3]). This is while Horse Eye Jack has been disputing with them over at Eddie Perez (politician) for the IP's even more nonsensical changes ( [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]). While we do have WP:NOT3RR#EX7, I am trying to not keep reverting them, so I really don't know what the solution for this is. Fresh eyes would help, though. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Betül Tanbay has asked me by email for the removal from her article about the paragraph on her recent detention and release by the Turkish government, on the basis that it is inaccurate and not an important part of her story. She has supplied no sources to me that could be used in place of the three sources already used there for this incident. I am unsure whether the paragraph should stay. Anyone else have an opinion here? WP:AVOIDVICTIM may be relevant. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The headline of Eric Swalwell bio is that he is a Russia-gate conspiracy theorist. The source for this claim was poor and disreputable. This sentiment by the editor for this claim was politically motivated by recent events and lacks credible evidence for the claim.
Anzør Alem Artistes congolais [1]
This article has been tagged as an attack page twice, once in August of last year [9] and a second time, by a different person, yesterday. [10] Several other users have tried to address some of the article's problems, but there has never been any long-term improvement, so it was suggested that I should raise the issue here.
In its current state, the article is about 90% negative, and most of the negative material is poorly sourced. Here is my analysis of the article's sources. Most of the article's sources contain no actual commentary about Meisenberg or mention him in only one sentence, and almost a third of the sources (five out of 17) literally don't mention him at all. Of the three sources that do criticize him in more than a single sentence, one appears to be self-published, and the most recently added source is a book that hasn't been published yet. ( Amazon gives it publication date as May 21.)
Based on how scanty Meisenberg's coverage in reliable sources has been, I am not sure if this individual is notable enough to deserve his own article, so if someone else wants to create an AFD discussion for this article, I would approve of that solution. Otherwise, I would like advice and help about bringing this article into compliance with BLP policy, which requires articles about living people to be better sourced than this one is. 2600:1004:B128:E28D:7523:957D:6FF8:7502 ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Can some others please take a look at the newly added "Lawsuit for Sex and Age Discrimination" section in Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai? It's a serious issue but the manner in which it is described in the article might raise BLP concerns especially since these are allegations raised in a lawsuit that has not yet been tried. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 21:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am the author of the original item on the lawsuit. I think to omit it entirely is not just. The allegations are very, very serious - and they are spelled out in a very, very detailed legal filing in a federal court. This is not some frivolous, off-hand comment at a cocktail party. The suit has also been covered in several news media of high regard, including Science. Two of the people named in the suit are well-known worldwide in their fields and by no means are 'private individuals' in their professional capacities. We are not discussing something that allegedly occurred in their private lives but something that allegedly occurred in the course of their employment at a major medical institution. The issues raised in the law suit have significant implications for science, medicine, and public health. So, these are assuredly public matters, pertaining to a pubic institution and involving public figures. Drs. Sing and Carney have their own wikipedia pages, and I believe that mention of their names in the entry here is reasonable given their stature in the field. Right now, the paragraphs in question have been moved. Shall I take another pass at writing one and post it here? Eksilverman ( talk) 23:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
How about: In April 2019, the Icahn School was named in a lawsuit filed against Mount Sinai Health System and several employees of the Icahn School's Arnhold Institute for Global Health.[29] The suit was filed by eight current and former employees for age and sex discrimination, including against the Dean of the Icahn School, the Director of the Arnhold Institute, and the Institute’s Chief of Staff. Allegations also include improper reporting to funding agencies, misallocation of funds, failing to obtain Institutional Review Board approval prior to conducting research in violation of Mount Sinai and federal guidelines, and failing properly to adhere to the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA. Eksilverman ( talk) 14:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
A proposed revision: "In April 2019, the Icahn School was named in a lawsuit filed against Mount Sinai Health System and several employees of the Icahn School's Arnhold Institute for Global Health.[29] The suit was filed by eight current and former employees for age and sex discrimination as well as improper reporting to funding agencies, misallocation of funds, failing to obtain Institutional Review Board approval prior to conducting research in violation of Mount Sinai and federal guidelines, and failing properly to adhere to the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA." Eksilverman ( talk) 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Added the paragraph to the page, in line with comments, and also cited a new development in the case/affair. Eksilverman ( talk) 13:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thurnscoe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the article headed 'Thurnscoe' and the section for 'Notable People' the citation for Alan Moore, refers to the wrong Alan Moore. The Alan Moore from Thurnscoe should read,
'Alan Moore was born in Thurnscoe on the 18th December 1944. He was educated at Houghton Road Junior School prior to attending The Hill School. He then went on to Mexborough Grammar School, were he met a young lady, Beryl, who would eventually become his wife. Alan has lived and worked in Thurnscoe, for most of his life. He is proud of Thurnscoe and it's people, the most genuine people, on the planet. He has had a total of seven books published on Amazon an d is also proud of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggasdad ( talk • contribs)
An editor is insisting on adding
diff to
Polish American Congress about the BLP
Jimmy Kimmel. Past edits -
diff also included Wikipeda stating in its voice that the "incident also included the show host repeating WWII-era Nazi propaganda"
. Originally this was sourced to
[12] -
Canada Free Press (per Wikipedia - an "online conservative tabloid") that does not seem to be a source appropriate for BLP. And now (what appear to be copies of the first source) -
[13] (phi966.org seems to rail against mainstream media and has a
whole section promoting various theories - see
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#Conspiracy theories) The second source
this seems to be an obscure internet portal. All 3 links contain rather strong accusations vs. Kimmel. Some prior discussion
User talk:Piotrus/Archive 61#BLP sourcing. The
Polish American Congress (the PR piece being issued by someone affiliated with them) itself has received little independent coverage (there are some pieces by people affiliated or paid by PAC), independent coverage includes incidents such as -
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18].
Icewhiz (
talk) 09:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
See [19]. We had several back and forth reverts here between me and User:Icewhiz, and I think we need a BLP expert third+ opinions. While I think the mention of this incident is worded neutrally and has no bearing on BLP, the other editor clearly feels differently. Thoughts? PS. Regarding the sources used, they are a minor Polish-American NGO and a P-A news website. No better sources could be found for this incident. I feel that the sources suffice for neutrally worded report of this incident. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There has been a long-running no-discussion edit war on K. K. Aggarwal over whether we should include the claim that he was once listed as "Chief Patron" of a predatory open-access publisher. The sourcing of the claim is a blog post by Jeffrey Beall, who arguably meets the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS, so I think it is reliable (despite the fact that for unrelated reasons Beall was later forced to take the whole blog down and we only have an archived copy). But that alone does not necessarily mean that the claim should be retained in the article. Anyway, finally semiprotection has forced the person or people who want to remove this claim to use the talk page and start a discussion at Talk:K. K. Aggarwal. Let's reward this good behavior by contributing to the discussion there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Currently Bill Shorten is one of the two people expected to become the next Australian Prime Minister, and since just before the election was called (it ends in two weeks, to great relief), there has been a push to prominently feature a rape allegation made against Shorten in the article. The allegation surfaced about 6 years ago and related to an alleged incident about 30 years prior. The police investigated and found that there was no case to answer and no charges were laid. As the Australian media chose not to cover it during the investigation, it only hit the media for about one news cycle, when Shorten announced that he had been investigated and that the investigation had been dropped. It was mentioned a couple of times in the following months when the accuser claimed to be pursing other action, but since then has had almost no mentions in the media, and no other actions have eventuated. As far as I can tell it has not had any impact on his career.
The consensus was originally not to include the material, but recently a short description was added under "personal life" [20]. However, since the election was called there have been ongoing attempts to provide greater emphasis on the accusation by placing the text in it's own subheading of "Sexual assault allegation" and locating it under "Leader of the opposition" rather than in "Personal life" [21]. My feeling is that this is undue, so I have reverted accordingly and raised the issue on the talk page, but the IP has not engaged there. Is this being undue an accurate reading, or should it be given greater prominence? - Bilby ( talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the gender identity, name, and pronouns of a juvenile suspect in this recent shooting. Funcrunch ( talk) 19:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Over at Laura Loomer, multiple editors are adding "well sourced" BLP incest claims, which are based on zero evidence. The victim has previously received death threats from people of similar motivations. wumbolo ^^^ 22:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Page Olavo de Carvalho is not respecting WP:BLP.
Please moderate.-- DDupard ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You have not provided evidences of what you're saying.
Agreed:
Disagreed:
-Which opinions are stated as facts?
-Where's the attack? Please provide examples.
-Which biased sources are given undue weight?
-Which language is judgmental? Please provide examples.
-Please provide examples it is written like a tabloid.
Cool, thanks. You certainly have a point here. The problems, as I see it, are more nuanced than the notion of "attack" conveys though. More than a malicious intent to smear him there are objective informational biases -- as he is essentially known for his controversies, there isn't a lot of information about him or his non-controversial ideas (if these exist). I'll try to work on it. Shakula34 ( talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Adrian David Cheok ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Adrian David Cheok would benefit from a check by experienced editors. I suspect that the BLP policy has been violated in a few places.
There's been repeated Edit Wars; at least one article editor has been blocked and a new one has emerged recently only to undo edits or delete whole sections with confrontational language.
I have contributed edits attempting neutrality and objectivity but as a human being I am subjective too and not an experienced editor so help from experienced editors would be appreciated. Starting this page in good faith hoping it helps to improve the article; I worry Edit Wars will continue otherwise.
Can an exprienced and neutral editor help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predicatecalculus ( talk • contribs)
---
On 18 May 2019 Bilby deleted the page Adrian David Cheok claiming "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Foundational copyvio from https://web.archive.org/web/20101112001709/http://www.ece.nus.edu.sg/staff/bio/cad.html)". Adding for the record!
Predicatecalculus ( talk) 15:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This is regarding a "NPOV dispute" where it is stated, "This article was clearly written by James Cappleman or a biased supporter. In the last election in April of 2019 Cappleman won by 25 votes in a ward of more than 50,000 residents. He is widely known for being one of the most corrupt and dishonest members of Chicago's City Council. Clearly 50% of the voters in the last election understand this. His lies, unethical, discriminatory and yes, illegal acts have been documented in mainstream news sources for years and will be added to this article."
There is no information within "NPOV dispute" that backs up these claims that are clearly libelous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptown resident ( talk • contribs)
The article has been edited in a way that is not entirely neutral, not enough sources are cited, there are 2 errors (somewhat) in the bottom of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoss Chrysalis ( talk • contribs) 07:38, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Guy_McPherson&diff=896997148&oldid=896994688
Green C continues to vandalize my edit corrections to a previous and incorrect edit that does not represent the facts of what Guy McPherson does, says or believes. Green C also continues to restore potentially libelous material from questionable links. Green C also removed a photo of a shirt with the logo of Guy McPherson's website stating it was potentially COI and promotional, which is nonsense. Photos of individuals in Extinction Rebellion Tshirts abound.
His edits are arbitrary and suspicious and he changed information that was corrected by Guy McPherson himself. 68.129.132.213 is Guy McPherson. How do I know? I'm his partner, PESchneider, and was sitting next to him editing the site when Green C began to vandalize the site. Who knows best what Guy McPherson means than McPherson himself. Please stop Green C from changing these edits anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=896994688&oldid=896992738&title=Guy_McPherson
Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content. And now that ass has permalinked it so it will only show his incorrect edits.
PESchneider ( talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the only WP:COI is Green C's for refusing to allow corrective edits, for removing photos from Guy McPherson, and for not having a conversation with me about the edits he was concerned with. He did not "talk" to me. He did not ask me about my edits. He began an editing battle that I was not even aware of at first. However, when my edits did not stick, I became perplexed. And lo, a vandal was at the gate. It would seem that Green C has a vendetta against Dr. McPherson and will not allow any positive, scientific articles to be posted. Now there is evidence of true WP:COI by Green C. He is very quick with removing them and keeping the defamatory and libelous, unscientific, articles on the BLP. Is that Wikipedia's idea of neutrality? Only negative articles? I hope not. I will regret all my donations to the Wikster over the years.
PESchneider ( talk) 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 14 May, 2:26am New York.
I admit I am new to this editing of Wikipedia and am still learning much about how this even works. All the cute code is darling. Still learning. I was unfamiliar with this three-revert-rule and did not understand why my edits were not sticking. The warring was begun by Green C, who, having more experience as an editor and knowing the rules better than I do, and without contacting me at all to talk about my edits, removed my valid, and cited edits which were not promotional. The critical POV was not from a reliable source and is potentially libelous. A critical POV by Michael Mann that I attempted to add was also removed by Green C. It seems Green C broke the The_three-revert_rule. Now, how about a team of actually neutral editors to assess this situation objectively? Is Wikipedia capable of that? I keep asking for a team to help with this, and not just someone's opinions, or references to "puffery", which is an unhelpful comment by Slatersteven. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule PESchneider PESchneider ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 2:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC) New York.
PESchneider, you're a new user, but you need to be very careful about making comments like "This could become a legal issue as it seems Wikipedia promotes the misrepresentation of an individual on his BRP" as you did on your talk page. You're risking a block, per WP:NLT. If you believe that something in the article rises to the level of "libelous," then you should contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether or not to mention that Ilhan Omar was arrested for trespassing at a hotel in 2013. The arrest is briefly mentioned in a 2018 article from The Minneapolis Star Tribune about her House campaign. The authenticity of the arrest and mugshot (though not the arrest report itself) were confirmed by Snopes in a May 3rd article. The charges were apparently dropped. I have not found coverage of the incident in other reliable sources beyond those two. and Omar herself has not commented on the arrest.
Should this be included in the article? Thanks Nblund talk 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In 2013 Minnesota police arrested Omar for trespassing after she refused to leave a hotel lobby where the Somali president had delivered a speech; the charges were subsequently dropped. Omar's political opponents would later utilize a mug shot from the arrest in attack ads against her during her 2018 run for Congress.
I agree it weighs only enough to warrant a brief mention. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources...The reliability of a source is probably the most important criterion for determining weight. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with most here, not needed at all. She wasnt charged and it has had no impact and is barely covered in later sources. nableezy - 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly the coverage is limited, and this is certainly not a major scandal. However, BLP does not require that we omit negative information simply because it is negative ("cause harm"). WP:HARM#TEST lays out some helpful, far more specific guidelines, asking editors to consider 1) whether the information is public, 2) whether it is factual and verifiable (definitive), and 3) whether it is given due weight. In this scenario, 1) and 2) are clear: the information is public and has been fact-checked by reliable sources. There is clearly disagreement on 3), and while I acknowledge that this arrest received less coverage than say, the legal issues of Beto O'Rourke to name an example, it still carries enough weight for simple inclusion when a national fact-checking site and a state-wide paper both make note of it. I think that the ill-defined criteria being argued for here about weight and "BLP" are dangerous, because they are too easily stretched or contracted to fit editors' personal opinions about politicians and what information about them should be presented. Weight is not a simple "include or don't" test, it's an analysis of how much attention should be given to something. Based on the admittedly limited coverage, I do not think this content should be addressed with more than two brief sentences, but I believe it would be a mistake to leave it out entirely. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the prevailing trend: even a mention of this is undue weight. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 17:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing court case concerning Brian Wong's indictment of sexual assualt, but there appears to be a WP:SPA continually adding a growing expanse ff language that appears in clear violation of WP:BLPBALANCE. Earlier edits have already been flagged and addressed as such, but similar edits continue to be added (eg. [1], [2])-- User:GatoradeFrost
Original IP here. Just saw this page. it seems what was flagged as BLP issues were fine with editors at least from a sourcing perspective and no mentions of it previously while there were specific issues today regarding it. I had researched and consolidated the various sources who provided the information as well as the well known news entities. Seems like no editors cleaned it up on what was or was not relevant. I'm still learning how this works so learning the rules along the way. Ad exchanger is considered reputable source within the advertising space Wong was in but not that well known outside of the advertising community (think more industry specific publications).
Thoughts on whether or not sexual assault allegation (in this case a grand jury indictment should be included): If it was a normal executive or CEO running a company, the answer likely should be no. However, Brian Wong made himself continuously relevant to the media within the last 10 years across hundreds of media outlets, exposed to millions of people, speaking around the world, doing book tours, etc which is representative of someone who is a celebrity and considered semi well known figure.
Many actions were taken as a result of the sexual assault allegations including being removed and replaced as CEO of Kiip, various entities deleting any association with him and distancing themselves, so without this context, it is very difficult to explain any of this result.
Regards to use of primary sources like Travis county records and court documents: As I mentioned, still learning the rules along the way and learning about the sensitivities of such issues. Primary sources were mostly used to supplement and provide more details and support the info the reputable secondary sources has mentioned through media reporting.
What is the reason allegation or conviction of sexual assault or criminal charges are included in such biographies? Is it to provide a neutral stance on the person that is true good and bad? To warn the public so they can make a more informed decision, etc?
At least for now, won't make any more edits regarding this and leave it to the editors to decide.
"If it is a BLP violation in one place, it remains a BLP violation elsewhere." Could you judge based on the actual writing and evidence presented. The original information on Kiip was written by a PR company or internally and outdated. This has led to various inaccuracies some entities uses wikipedia as a starting source for research or info and cite the info (everything from funding quoting from $15 million to wikipedia $32 million to Brian confirmed $40 million etc). Most recent corporate valuation of $25 million posted by 1800-junk founder via twitter and confirmed by Brian. Additional information added were those presented by Kiip or Wong confirmed himself. Corporate lawsuit is irrelevant to BLP as it is the actions of the corporate entity and not a specific individual. Any information if added would have been before any announcement of sexual assault allegations. The corporate lawsuit issue dealt with user data privacy collection without consent even while the app is turned off and should be considered relevant to the corporate entity.
":I don't know whether the material belongs in the article (Wong has not been convicted), but I do know that the section about it is WAY too long, too detailed, and full of inappropriate material, e.g., court case numbers. It's seriously WP:UNDUE." It is very hard at this point to get a balanced view because much of the details presented is from the State of Texas as the plaintiff, and the details from the sexual assault victim. The information from Wong's side has only been his legal counsel proclaiming it was consensual sex (which is what happens in most cases whether or not one is guilty) so there is not much info to go on from the defense side other than the legal counsel quote. The whole issue falls on whether or not it is consensual sex. However, to have an indictment and court dates means that there is at least some credible evidence to go on vs. just a sexual assault allegation without evidence. More info was added so that what is irrelevant could be removed and edited out and there is enough info to be summarized. As time passes, some of the sources get pushed down in the search engine and become harder to find making it harder to put together a complete and hopefully accurate picture. 2001:569:7E43:7900:6487:DFEC:8CC7:10E2 ( talk) 04:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Admin Bbb23 told me to shorter my response significantly so will only respond to address the relevant points as well as to make my case that Brian Wong is a public figure and BLP: Crime does not apply.
No conflict of interest: I don't have a conflict of interest as per the wiki definition pointed to by user Collect. Currently it is very hard to get a neutral point of view without much information from the defense to go on and much of the public information is provided by the plaintiff which is the State of Texas.
Brian Wong is considered to be a public figure and thus would not fall under BLP:Crime which covers non-public figures.
Relevant Definitions: "(WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN" Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime
"A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]" Source: /info/en/?search=Public_figure
Brian Wong is between the boundary of portrayed business leader and media personality or both. What evidence can we show that this might be true?
Quantitative evidence:
Brian Wong is a Linkedin influencer given exclusively to 500+ people in the world and has over 715,800 followers: In addition to the hundreds of media interviews and news articles which I won't list, his Linkedin is followed by over 715,800 people. These are professionals with real profiles and linkedin considered him a business leader and influencer. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongbrian
Linkedin definition of an influencer: "LinkedIn Influencers are selected by invitation only and comprise a global collective of 500+ of the world's foremost thinkers, leaders, and innovators. As leaders in their industries and geographies, they discuss newsy and trending topics such as the future of higher education, the workplace culture at Amazon, the plunge in oil prices, and the missteps of policymakers.Our list of Influencers includes Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Arianna Huffington, and Mary Barra." Source: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/49650
What does this mean: It means the media helped to establish his credibility and has built trust not only within the advertising industry but also with the general public as well. To professionals, he would be a business leader while to the general public, it would be a social media personality (analogy: think of the dragons in the dragons den show). The media reports briefly what happens but fails to provide some of the evidence behind what they say so people don't have an opportunity to judge for themselves. Moreover, his legal counsel specializes in cases where public figures including sports stars or politicians are accused of sexual assault and defends them.
Brian Wong meets the Instagram definition of a public figure with a blue check mark: Instagram has a "Verified badges help people more easily find the public figures, celebrities and brands they want to follow. Learn more:" What is a verified badge? "A verified badge is a check that appears next to an Instagram account's name in search and on the profile. It means Instagram has confirmed that an account is the authentic presence of the public figure, celebrity or global brand it represents." Source: https://help.instagram.com/1080769608648426
Brian Wong's instagram account was public which he used to promote himself which was later made private due to the criminal investigation. Even though it is now private, the account has the blue check mark given to public figures, celebrities and brands. Please see: https://www.instagram.com/brianwong/
Summary: The question is would you consider Brian Wong a public figure based on some of the information presented, the media, and other sources point him to be such or it is something he is trying to establish as his image. If you consider him a public figure based on the definitions and information presented, then BLP: Crime would not apply and the criteria for well known would apply meaning the indictment information would be included after the editors take out some of the info which may not meet wikipedia guidelines or BLP. Without a place for such information to provide a middle ground and for people to look at the primary evidence and judge for themselves, you would get many more instances of people basing their opinion on speculation vs. presented evidence up to the point the public knows. 2001:569:7E43:7900:443E:87E7:5889:412A ( talk) 07:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As best as I can tell, Wong has been replaced as CEO at Kiip due to the charges (not convictions) of sexual assault, and that's well sourced in RSes [22], [23]. This clearly qualifies as a career-affecting issue, so it should be covered, just not in as much detail eg "In March 2019, Wong was indicted on charges of sexual assault that were claimed to have occurred during the 2016 SXSW Festival. Kiip has denied the event occurred. Kiip's board replaced Wong as CEO after these charges were made public." (I would readily add Kiip is a public figure, due to his past success, so this is not a question of victimizing some non-notable person). -- Masem ( t) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@ user Collect. What I originally pointed out is that Instagram blue check mark is only one small piece of evidence and cannot be taken alone as an indicator and that this information has to be taken along with his hundreds of media appearances, interviews, live talks, etc. I also mentioned Linkedin promoting him as a trusted business expert and giving him Influencer status which is only given to 500+ people in the world as I mentioned in my reply above (and much more exclusive than Instagram blue check mark which can be given even to minor public figures e.g. C lister actresses. Instagram indicates someone is a public figure but not how prominent they are as a public figure.) as well as over 700,000 Linkedin followers which are real people and significantly more than most public figures. These evidence when taken together should be addressed instead of addressing selective evidence that Instagram blue check mark does not mean public figure and therefore he is not public figure. Moreover on Brian Wong's public Facebook page which he manages himself with over 10000 followers, he listed himself as a public figure. Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/brianwongkiip/about/?ref=page_internal
The question is: is Brian Wong a public figure based on these evidence as well as the hundreds of media mentions, his personal interview, giving life and success tips, etc taken together. Whether or not he is will help to build a case law justification like insurance company paper trail for future situations and if others challenge the decision. The second is if he is a public figure how much in depth he should be covered. The more popular and famous a public figure, the more in depth the coverage. Then links to the relevant sources. For someone to appear on Inc magazine and BNN Bloomberg business section front cover online, and sent to over 10 million people (including 2x for BNN Bloomberg's 5+ million twitter followers) that sexual assault indictment occurred is a big indicator for notability. If someone is not notable, then they would not be worth mentioning in the major news publications and may only appear in minor local news. Brian Wong didn't get removed from the company due to the sexual assault indictment but due to the fact that he hid this critical information from the board which they only learned due to it coming out in the news and put the company at risk which warranted being removed as CEO. 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 ( talk) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Another issue I wanted to bring up is editor revival of dead links via archive.org for Brian Wong page and others which are no longer valid: I'm not sure if it is always something done or dependent on circumstances because some organisations, newspapers remove the article in question due to it no longer being accurate, wanting to distance themselves from potential negative news, no longer promoting the person. I don't know if these should be included or each verified as to the purpose it is removed. E.g. not archived correctly vs. deliberate removal. Something minor which could be clarified 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 ( talk) 00:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on the link matter. A few more clarifications: Brian Wong didn't say that he was innocent even though he may think this way. It was his lawyer talking to the media that it was consensual sex and the lawyer has experience with high profile media cases so it is standard language whether or not they are guilty. This is what you are supposed to do which is to remain silent and let the lawyer handle it for you because anything you say can be used against you. Proposal for public person as well as notability: Public person: If the social media account is controlled by the person and they self identify as a public person publicly in addition to a blue check mark, I believe this should be good enough to fit the public person criteria. Whether they are famous or warrant mention aka. notability is another matter. Notability: user:collect talked about this a bit so I would discussion my thoughts on notability a bit. I think if one can be a Linkedin Influencer given only to 500+ people AND remain there for 2+ years (first year could be testing if it is a good fit, there is interest in their content) can be one of many indicators to seriously consider that someone is notable and warrants further investigation into their background for more evidence. The criteria is more objective because it is not a paid membership one signs up for and there has to give evidence to be top or widely known in their field and appeal to Linkedin audience to quality. To get this Linkedin status means that the person is 1) top of their field and has authority or perceived authority to speak on the matter and other people would listen 2) produce content which either/and promotes the field or advances some of its understanding. 3) wider appeal which is relevant to a more general audience and higher chance of overlap with being a public figure. There is being notable among the general public e.g. Dr. Oz from his own show vs. a specialist known for being top in their field and being widely respected among their peers but unknown to the general public (only seen in university websites/industry publications). I'm not proposing this as a criteria for notability but as an indirect indicator of notability that if someone has this influencer status, further investigation to prove notability is warranted (basically high chance that the time spent to collect evidence and to prove the person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines would not be wasted). 2001:569:7E43:7900:14C0:761:1FFE:584C ( talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
User: Collect wanted more information that Brian Wong is a public figure. I included quote from Brian Wong UBC interview back in 2011 of his intention to become a public figure. “At UBC, Wong majored in Marketing, with a minor in Political Science. He says his decision to pursue business studies was influenced by his father, an accountant who started his own firm. “He showed me what was possible in this mysterious, elusive business space,” Wong says, “and it became very intriguing to me.” And as for his Political Science studies? “I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience.”" [1] 2001:569:7E43:7900:74C1:EE4F:280B:91FA ( talk) 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD for John Smelcer, an author who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed the page [24] as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and writer who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that claims to have been written by a native American author. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid agiainst him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs)
There is a reference to allegations of treats made against the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce but no reference to a report by the Commissioner For Legislative Standards for the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly in April 2014 that finds that the allegations were unfounded and false..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.boli ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
guy vallancien is a french surgeon, honorary professor of urology, member of the french academy of medicine, member of the parliament office of evaluation of scientific and technological choices, president oh CHAM ( convention on health analysis and management He is a pionier in robotic surgery and has published 350 scientific papers, served as adviser of different ministers of health and wrote books on the relation beetween humanity and artificial intelligence— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baeny ( talk • contribs) 17:05, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
At the page on the Séralini affair, there are BLP issues about how the page refers to A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of a scientific journal. Among other things, editors disagree about whether it is appropriate to describe him as a former tobacco industry executive when that was only a brief part of his career and the page is not about tobacco, and the degree to which it is appropriate to describe accusations that were made against him without also presenting his rebuttal. There is a discussion at Talk:Séralini affair#Wallace Hayes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
During the AfD for this article, some pretty serious BLP concerns were brought up in regards to this article. The consensus ultimately was to keep it, but given the nature of the allegations, some more eyes wouldn't hurt here. If anyone is particularly familiar with the reliability of Bulgarian sources, that would be especially useful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
We have consensus that certain sources noted for tabloid journalism like Daily Mail and The Sun are so bad at fact checking etc that there are very few things they can be used for especially on BLPs per
WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But for other sources primarily known for publishing tabloid journalism things are less clear cut. (I will refer to such sources as tabloids for brevity, please don't confuse this with the tabloid format.) For example for Daily Mirror and New York Daily News, the summary in our perennial sources guidelines says "is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism.
" (Editors may disagree on whether these descriptions are accurate so I'm not talking about any specific source only the general concept.) It seems clear per the wording of our policy and what editors are saying at
#Tommy Robinson, that their inclusion isn't precluded by BLP when we do have other sources. And IMO there would be a few cases when they would be useful despite simply repeating what is said in some other source we use.
But the number of cases relating to living persons is likely to be fairly small if we can't use them as the sole source of information. A simplistic reading of our policy suggests this is the case. But is it the correct interpretation? I found Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Clarification question on the policy which is slightly old now and predating even the deprecation of Daily Mail, that seems to have come to a different conclusion. The intention of the policy is to forbid tabloid journalism wherever it occurs. Mostly this came up in relation to tabloid journalism from source not mostly known for it. However some editors also opinioned that sources known primarily for tabloid journalism are not forbidden per se, only when they engage in tabloid journalism. (Nowadays, this wouldn't apply to deprecated sources like Daily Mail etc.)
Do people feel this is right?
Nil Einne ( talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not intending this to be a RfC or something needed a formal close, nor am I suggesting the policy needs clarification. I'm asking because when composing a reply for the Tommy Robinson discussion, I originally was going to mention that tabloids are also sometimes useful to flesh out details of something covered in better sources. But when reading our policy carefully I wasn't sure this is allowed. Yet IMO from previous discussions I've been in this is still how the policy is generally applied. Tabloid are sometimes also accepted for simple statements of fact. (To be clear, all of this is only for sources not deprecated.)
We still need to consider whether it's appropriate based on editorial judgement etc. So actual tabloid stuff still stays out e.g. whatever random person someone 'hooked up with', how they cheated on their spouse with 30 sex workers in one night or that they ate a hamster. Likewise a real name or birthdate only covered in tabloid sources should generally be excluded.
But it may be appropriate to mention a significant award someone received even if the sole source is a tabloid. It's a legitimate question whether the award is actually significant if it was only mentioned in a tabloid, but I would suggest it can happen. Another example a court case receives a lot of attention, maybe even the verdict. Sometimes this coverage is enough for us to mention it in some article. But by the time an appeal succeeds, no one cares any more. Even if available, we aren't supposed to use court records. However it may be appropriate to include limited info on the appeal even if the sole source is a tabloid. We would need to consider the possible effect on other living persons etc.
In case it isn't obvious, I chose these examples because they IMO illustrate a problem with completely banning tabloids from BLPs, there is the potential to harm subjects.
I'm putting aside op-eds or columns by the living individual concerned, as well as interviews or responses only mentioned in such sources. I think at a minimum the principles for self published sources apply. I.E. Limited use if they aren't unduly self serving, taken our of context and don't affect others etc. (They aren't self published, but I don't think it's sensible that when someone says something on their website we can use it, but not if it's in some tabloid even when we have confidence the source didn't make it up.)
User talk:82.207.187.7 has been repeatedly introducing defamatory content to the page. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it a BLP or NPOV vio to note that Conrad Black wrote a hagiography of Trump a year before he was ultimately pardoned by Trump? Virtually every RS that is covering Trump's pardon of Black note that Black wrote a hagiography of him, often in the headline itself about the pardon. Here are how some RS are describing Black's book about Trump:
Trump pardoned billionaire Conrad Black, who a year ago published a book called “Donald J. Trump: A president like no other.” The book is more hagiography than biography.Concur with Icewhiz, with respect to the use of that term explicitly, this is a question which answers itself. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Tommy Robinson (activist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over at Tommy Robinson a dispute has arisen over the use of this source [ [40]] over claims he had headbutted a man. The claim is this is not an RS (and thus is a BLP violation [ [41]]). Now as far as I know the Mirror has not been declared not reliable, and thus there can be no objection to using it as a source. I would like further input. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And now they are edit warring over it, which is why I brought this here. They seem to be unduly desirous to remove this. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, it should be clear there are cases when tabloid sources, in addition to other supporting sources are important even in BLPs. One example would be some cases where a something originated in a tabloid, but was widely covered in other sources. Examples where this may arise could be John Higgins and Mazhar Majeed which includes the defunct News of the World. Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign, Tiger Woods which includes the National Enquirer. And Paul White, Baron Hanningfield which includes, yep you guessed it, Daily Mirror.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessary to include the original source in all cases, or in any of these cases but rather there are definitely cases where their inclusion is fully justified in accordance with level of coverage and other sources. (Such things are hard to search and demonstrate given WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one possible example is Profumo affair. While not a BLP, Christine Keeler only passed in 2017, and it is a FA which uses/used [42] at least one direct case of Sunday Mirror.)
Other possible examples may be that in rare cases, it may also be better to include tabloid sources in addition to other sources when the level of coverage is different or the number of non tabloid sources is limited or are so spread out it's easier to use a tabloid source in addition to other sources rather than 10 different sources. (To be clear, consideration needs to be made of the appropriateness of including the sources, or covering the material in all such cases. But there are definitely cases when it does arise.)
If someone wants to change policy to completely ban the use of tabloid sources in BLPs, they are of course welcome to try although likely they'll want to explain how to address the issues I mentioned. WT:BLP is thataway and WP:RfC outlines how to start an RfC. In the mean time, we'll go with the policy we have which heavily restricts the use of tabloid sources in BLPs notably basically forbids us from including something only covered in tabloid sources, but doesn't forbid their use in every and all instances.
Again, it's perfectly fine to discuss whether this source adds anything or it's inclusion is harmful considering the specifics of the case. In this case, there has been zero explanation for why the inclusion of this source is harmful in BLP terms considering it doesn't seem to really cover more than is in the other sources. As already said, this may mean there needs to be due consideration of whether to exclude it, not because such sources are forbidden, but because it adds nothing. But it is utterly unacceptable to claim that policy forbids the use of all tabloid sources in all cases related to BLPs. I don't think I can emphasise enough that claiming BLP supports something which it doesn't or BLP concerns arise when they don't is incredibly harmful to real, actual BLP concerns.
It's absolutely a BLP violation. You are mistaken." and expect people to take me at a word. Clearly this isn't how things work. Actually I'll probably be blocked if I try that. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Amir_Tessler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amir is an Israeli child actor. He played the lead role in a popular movie and there's some of coverage on him on RS. However, I don't think he's notable enough to have an article written about him. When I first found the article I marked it as a stub, but I'm beginning to think this article shouldn't exist right now. Maybe in the future, he'll be successful and notable - but not now. Would it be okay to nominate as AfD? Alex.osheter ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Jos B ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
His article states that he's the prime suspect in the Death of Nicky Verstappen (no source for this), and also a YouTuber. The article relating to the murder is very interesting, but I don't think this alleged murderer is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The editor who created this article is fairly new and stated this is their first of many articles about Youtubers "who have been arrested and/or convicted concerning for example child sexual abuse".
Alex.osheter ( talk) 16:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Alex.osheter ( talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
At what point description of someone as right-wing activist, and accusations of anti-semitism (in lead) become a BLP issue? See [43]. Comments appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"In fact, there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies. Whoever these apparent evildoers are, they are undermining the Intermarium’s return (and he stresses a return following the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth before 1772)[45] or in this WP:RS on historiography:
"Chodakiewicz's work represents the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing[46],
"Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian in the postcommunist period who consistently casts Polish-Jewish relations in terms of conflict and uses conflication as an explanation and justfication of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland"[47]. A preponderance of WP:RSes covering Chodakiewicz as a subject, in English, focus on these aspects in his proffesional writing and/or on his political activism in the Polish far-right (writing, rallies). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Teal Swan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The link above is suspended ( https://medium.com/suspended)
It was has been suspended due to out of context and false content.
Please take this reference of Teal Swans Wikipedia information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.1.45 ( talk) 13:13, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
At the article Kellie Maloney, TellyShows ( talk · contribs) is persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, particularly birth dates. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Amy Sequenzia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm seeking advice regarding the appropriateness of including an alleged claim about autism activist Amy Sequenzia and, by extension, other notable non-speaking autistic self-advocates. Many of these people use facilitated communication, which is considered by skeptics to be a psuedoscience. However, FC has also been the subject of many studies discussing best practices and confirming authorship (i.e., Syracuse University). Sequenzia herself has talked about establishing best practices for FC.
Previous edits to the article have included skeptic Steven Novella's claims that, essentially, whoever is facilitating her words is influencing them. He has never met Sequenzia, and I don't believe that simply making a claim means it is worth considering. This one in particular, I feel, is WP:GRAPEVINE or at least WP:BLPGOSSIP; it accuses her of being a fraud. (Information about FC which only provides studies about it being debunked also occurs on Sue Rubin's page.)
Is there a policy regarding people whose authorship over their words is being challenged? The area is a particular interest, and I'd like to know the proper way to move forward for articles like these. -- Anomalapropos ( talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the facilitated communication article describes the technique as "discredited," saying "There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC does not work, and that the facilitator is in fact the source of most or all messages obtained through FC." I don't know if this applies to Sequenzia's case. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
These are all good points. I will try to find more sources which question Sequenzia's use of FC and report back. Ylevental ( talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And my mind has now wholly been changes, this is a discredited fringe practice that has not been demonstrated to have an validity. Thus anything that is acquired by it cannot be considered reliable in any way shape or form. Given the universal (not even almost) condemnation of this practice by all the studies done on it it is not down to us to prove anything. It is down to those who wish to use statements acquired through it to prove they are not fraudulent. We do not have to disprove eyewitness sightings of UFO's or Nessie, so why this? People really do need to see when they are being given leeway. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Criticism 2019 https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2019/01/22/bbc-series-falsely-portrays-turkish-beggar-as-syrian-refugee
In 2019 Dooley was caught out by a Turkish Newspaper over her report Sex in Strange places. In the episode, removed from the BBC Iplayer, Dooley paid to interview a woman claiming to be a Syrian sex worker who was, in fact, Turkish. The misrepresentation has not yet been addressed by the BBC or by Dooley and casts a shadow over her entire reporting career. Investigation into Dooley's claims27
Hi,
Hope this is in the right place. Advised to post here for help keeping an eye on pages for Tom Burke and Alexandra Dowling. Someone keeps posting private information. Both actors prefer to keeps their private lives private but someone seems determined to post it on these actors wiki pages. I've amended them back to remove it twice but obviously can't keep amending. It's an invasion of privacy as unless it's been sanctioned by the actor involved (very unlikely) how do I sort this out please? Many thanks for any help.
Angie 22/5/19 82.11.245.194 ( talk) 16:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi - yes that's the two pages and yes there is no tabloid or mainstream publications citing or confirming the info. My concern was the tenacity of someone who constantly sought to add the update with no grounds to do so that meet wikis criteria. As mentioned I was advised by the help forums just to post so it could be kept and eye on if it becomes unlocked again. :) If I need to do this somewhere else please let me know. Many thanks
Angie 22/5/19 82.11.245.194 ( talk) 19:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to "convince" whomever is responsible for the totally biased diatribe you published against Mark Levin that they were wrong in doing so; I'm just going to publicly state herein that you liberal a-holes will NEVER receive a donation from me again - DON'T even ask! Here's hoping and praying that Wikipedia suffers bankruptcy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7d49:3400:1402:40dc:fec3:48ac ( talk • contribs)
It's necessary to include the history here so that this can be put into context. Thank you for your patience in reading. It’s come to my attention that a long-time editor on Wikipedia is once again attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta against me. A clear conflict of interest. The first attempt to do this happened after he had been forced to apologize to me (in writing, by the university that employs him) for a vicious online ad hominen attack. In 2012, he used one of his own students as an unwitting proxy - that’s if the student even existed - to create the original page, “Rand Flem-Ath”. It was full of inaccuracies and outright lies. (It’s safe to say that when Wiki Education was introduced, they did not envision that it would be abused in this way.) When Wikipedia Administrators became aware of the circumstances of the page’s creation, they removed it - everything that he had written - and substituted the neutral POV, minimal version. He’s now attempting to succeed where he failed before, by again putting my name on a ‘wish list’ of articles he wants students to create or edit. Perhaps he thinks that enough time has gone by that this new effort won’t be noticed. Or he believes that his academic persona and long familiarity with Wikipedia will give him a free pass. So that, despite his demonstrated personal animosity towards the BLP subject, and his history with that page, that he will be free to edit it with impunity or encourage students (over whom he has a position of great authority) to edit it. An example of one slight-of-hand manipulation is exhibited here: “The role of the work of the Flem-Aths should also be considered in books about Atlantis by [name redacted] and others. Together, these may make the case for notability that is required by Wikipedia.” This is the most sickening, cynical aspect of this situation. The person he is trying to bring onto my page is associated with Nazis. This teacher is brazenly trying to convince the student (a person reliant on him for a grade) to set up a ‘guilt by association’ status for me on one of the most popular websites on the planet, simply because I offend him by writing about Atlantis, and he can’t forget the fact that he went so far over the line in attacking me that an apology had to be issued. This trivialization of the horror and terrible suffering inflicted by the Nazis - just so that a personal grudge can be satisfied – is contemptible. An Administrator - Bkissin - has rejected – for other reasons – I don’t think s/he is aware of this history - the most recent attempt to hi-jack the page. And now – May 15 - this instructor, who has had years of experience editing Wikipedia – has assumed a hands-on approach with the page to try and ensure its acceptance. I realize that an Administrator’s workload is heavy – but I would ask that someone keep a fresh eye on the page with my name on it. The first note on my Talk page was placed there in anticipation of exactly the situation that has now arisen. It’s regrettable that my concern has turned out to be justified. Please be alert for this. Flem-AthRand ( talk) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
[redacted] Flem-AthRand ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This congressman yesterday became the first Republican congress member to call for Trump's impeachment. Subsequently, the page has been full of BLP vios and vandalism, and there is every reason to believe it will continue. More eyes needed. I just deleted a sentence in his lede which claimed that he owned a firm that did extensive trade with China, sourced to a far-right crackpot website. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fonda Hawthorne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography states that Fonda Hawthorn was a Republican and that is not true. She was an elected DEMOCRAT from 2013-2015. Please fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.15.251 ( talk) 20:16, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
My name is Stuart Reid and I am a Scottish children's author, not the other Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer). I do not have a Wikipedia page but because my namesake Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer) does, this causes a great deal of confusion in schools.
Since I became a full-time author in 2012 I have performed in almost 2,000 schools, libraries and book festivals around the UK, Ireland, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Hong Kong, India and Australia, performing before quarter of million children. My live events can cause a great deal of excitement and pupils are often asked to research 'the author' or write a biography prior to my arrival. Obviously, with two Scottish authors of the same name, albeit widely different genres, this can cause the children some problems.
Occasionally, teachers are surprised by my appearance too, usually asking which skin care products I use (I am a youthful 51 years old, whereas historical writer Stuart is 65 years). There was even one (mildly threatening) visit to a school in Northern Ireland, where one teacher was not entirely happy when he 'discovered' I was a former soldier of the British Army (wrong Stuart). He did not believe my denials, and regarded me with great suspicion throughout my visit.
Once, an editor from Jane's Defence Weekly emailed me to write an article on Scottish involvement in the French Revolution between 1789 and 1799. My books are about boogers, butts and big bottom burps so sadly I had to pass on that commission. And as I have never met my namesake, nor can I find his contact details online, I could only suggest that the editor contact the Scottish historical writer's publisher.
My first book 'Gorgeous George and the Giant Geriatric Generator' won the Silver Seal at the Forward National Literature Awards in 2012, and was Top Pick in the Daily Record. My 7th book 'Gorgeous George and the Timewarp Trouser Trumpets' won the silver medal at the Wishing Shelf Book awards 2018. My 8th book 'Incredible Iron-Bru-Man Incident will be launched on 20th July 2019.
I have performed at dozens of book festivals inc. Wigtown Book Festival on 3 occasions and at over 250 shows at the Edinburgh Fringe.
I will let you judge whether I can be considered to be a valid subject article. Thank you for your time.
2A02:C7D:2E0D:5500:48EC:CF74:4D20:A40E ( talk) 08:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
Distinguish}}
--
Auric
talk 14:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)3 posts by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FCDA:360:83FC:88C3 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), each defamatory, 3rd containing threats of violence -
Ignoring the rest the call to kill someone was unacceptable, and I have reported this to ANI. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this has not been dealt with. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)