Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive227

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

Keshav Prasad Sharma

check this page...it is written in hindi language....and it is filled with promotional material lacking any reference or notability...and a tag is attached to it stating it ll be moved to hindi wiki...i request, need not move it to hindi wiki as it is promotional material...and should be deleted....Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I PROD'd the article because it is a BLP and unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RooshV

A user has recently added some unsourced allegations of criminal behavior to this article, both in the article text and in edit summaries. I removed the relevant text but can't do anything about the edit summaries, it may need a rev-del. Roosh V is very much "in the news" in Canada atm, and very controversial. Please help watch the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also it occurs to me that this user may be named after or impersonating David Futrelle, so that may need addressing too. Futrelle is an anti-mra blogger who has blogged about Roosh V very recently, and the editor has only edited on the topic of Roosh V. (note, I'm emphatically not suggesting that the editor is actually Futrelle here). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

He's already at WP:AE Brustopher (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: User has been blocked by an admin, the offending revisions have been rev-del'd. Discussion & disruption is likely to continue over this article though, more eyes & opinions welcome. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

George Ranalli

George Ranalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This professor is currently the active subject of a sexual harassment lawsuit, and his article is attracting some attention because of it. It has been heavily edited by his self-proclaimed wife, User:Annevalentino, but I believe that in the aftermath of an ANI discussion her edits likely conform to WP:COI.

It has also now been visited by three people who seem likely to be either the same or related - User:Women3001right, User:Realcampisifamily and User:FightLikeHell - who are very interested in adding content related to the lawsuit.

Some of this material has been removed as unusable under WP:BLP (including citations to a tabloid and a primary source link list), but the latest source - Gothamist - seems reliable. (I don't have a lot of time to look and would welcome correction there if I'm wrong.) I've accordingly just moved the content from its undue prominence in the lead. But I'd appreciate additional eyes. There seem to be a bunch of people with a conflict on keeping this article neutral and policy-compliant.

There's a note on the talk page with a bit more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing as a different IP, I first brought this article to Moonriddengirl's attention a few weeks ago, and offer a half-hearted apology for getting her into the mess. But her efforts in following-up have been exemplary. My snapshot take is that this merits mention now only because it's prompted his leaving the position--in other words, a sentence or two. Until and unless he's convicted of the charges, WP:BLP and the attendant guidelines on crimes would seem to discourage us from adding more. COI parties aiming to either play this up, or delete the leave of absence altogether, ought to be dealt with appropriately, and page protection would be in order if socks blossom. 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed even that one bit. WP:BLPCRIME is clear about this. There is no significant coverage about the issue as of yet, and no legal outcome. When and if that happens then it can be included. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That article is one hell of a resume. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is that, User:Drmies. And thanks, person using long IP address and User:FreeRangeFrog. :) I've been trying to keep an eye on the situation to keep it fair while also keeping it from being turned into pure spam, but my time on it is pretty limited and BLPs are not my main area by any means. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you've done some cleanup in the past. Thanks. Yes, I'm sure your time is limited: you're about to miss your lovechild's third birthday. He's growing into a fine young human. He likes trucks; I think he's been raised in too masculine a way, MRG. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also to GregJackP. If Anne Valentino would come to the talk page, perhaps we'd have something to talk about... Drmies (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sylvester Turner

Sylvester Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edit warring going on at this article. One user has removed lots of content from the article and claimed that the removed content was sourced to opinion pieces and has accused the editor who keeps restoring the removed material of "citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings." See here, PrimeNotice's talk page, and my own for examples of this. As there is a question about whether this content, in a BLP, is reliably sourced enough to include, I am bringing it here. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A Betancourt (Still not resovled)

Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills (talk) Righteousskills (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.

In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)

More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.

Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published.

I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's. I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points. Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies." And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars." Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached. Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company. Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing. The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation. You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP. It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC) It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it. I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators. I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best. A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company. According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered. Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Bump. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to "bump" threads here - we can all see that this is apparently still unresolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No one has addressed it yet. I have argued that the content should be added back. One user agreed with me. But I am not prepared to make any changes without more support or a user making a change there self. Righteousskills (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I feel I should comment, since in the discussion pasted above you have kept links to articles you used to make your point but you have removed all other relevant links, for example:

The five blocked IPs that where doing similar contributions to the article (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff)
The summary of pages created and edited by you prior to adding the information (see inside this section) in a biased way (see here) by using the term criminal and including the subject of the BLP as the target (WP:OR).
Here you were asked to stop edit warring, and at the end of this section you were told not to do original research.

There is detail answer above to the user that agreed with your claim, but you also forgot to include the comments by Collect who also thinks that "Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP."

In summary: As explained above WP:BLPCRIME should be followed as readers could infer that there is a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. The information is already included in the company page. It is not suitable for the BLP even if it is covered by the WSJ because its primary sources are still anonymous people, it is about an alleged preliminary investigation. One year ago it was said that it may or may not end up in an actual investigation. The company denied it and there have not been any news since to back up the anonymous claims. According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS there is no enduring notability to justify its inclusion on a BLP pending new and more tangible sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As I understand it, this is the fourth time the same issue has been raised here: [1][2][3]. If the two involved users are really having that hard a time settling the issue, and aren't getting a resolution here, I suggest starting an RFC or following other avenues for dispute resolution. Clearly the three previous posts here have not resolved the dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Mike Rossi

I just nominated this BLP1E for deletion, but looking it over, and looking at some of the sources, and I wonder if it shouldn't just be deleted on the spot as a violation. Your input is appreciated. Any admins, if you think it warrants deletion, go for it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xymmax has pulled out all of the attack stuff, and I don't see that it's a suitable A7 candidate (I knew I'd read about the gentleman when I read the first sentence of the article). Probably better to let it die a natural death via AFD I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

Rapper Nzulu Biography please help

I want to do my biography i am Hip-hop artist but i am struggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.83.12 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AUTOBIO for why this is a bad idea, and alternative suggestions. General Ization ^Talk 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jenny Kee

There have been a number of recent edits to this page by a new editor (whose username may or may not be a coincidence). Most are minor but unsourced, but content about a possible relationship with John Lennon has been changed from 'she claimed' to 'she said' and does not appear to be borne out by the source (previously in the article). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire page needs some help but I went ahead and removed some unsourced content from the page because it is a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Balkany

The article on Patrick Balkany is woefully inadequate. Specifically, it doesn't mention his long record of apparent criminal activity. The French version has a good listing of his achievements in this field. The English version should be updated, as he played an important role at the highest levels of the French government. The look should be extended to his wife, Isabelle Smadja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.50.189 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss inadequate biographical articles, but problematic ones. If you can propose improvements to the article, please do so on the article's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Desmond Howard

Appears his BIO has been altered and included such things as in the intro he was involved in "crack pipe walking" and list things he lettered in in high school it includes "cheese rolling and wife carrying" just in various places throughout seems like someone has hacked the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.108.253.253 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 18:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gemma Chan article

Also see this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And even if she is an attorney, she's clearly not WP:Notable for being one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

wrong use of WP:Notable - "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" - I have in no way stated she desearves a separate article for being an attorney - nor further am I argueing whether her article should even exist in wiki - these are the things that you are stating by saying that the word "attorney" is according to you not WP:Notable.--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You keep citing WP:Policies and guidelines wrongly. Do read up on them better than you have. I stated that "she's clearly not WP:Notable for being [an attorney]" as the reason that, if she is one, it does not need to be listed in her infobox. Her Wikipedia article exists not because she is an attorney, but rather because she is a WP:Notable actress. And like FreeRangeFrog stated when reverting you, "Having a law degree does not mean you are an attorney." Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP should desist until and unless they can produce a source that supports the claim that the subject is a practicing attorney or lawyer, because without that, she just has a law degree. That should be noted somewhere in the article of course, but in the infobox we only list the primary activities. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

She's an actress. Done. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Marietta Voge

An IP has raised an issue at WP:Help desk that probably should have better been raised here, pertaining to what the IP describes as false claims at this biographical article (though seemingly not a living person, and possibly a candidate for AfD). Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Margietta Voge. General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference cited in the article does suggest that someone with that name was listed in the Venona Papers. ~~I think this should be AFD'd though, the coverage in RS is super minimal as far as I've been able to find so far (still looking).~~ Fyddlestix (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Struck bit about AFD, she's independently notable as a parasitologist even if we removed the spy stuff. She's the author of a major textbook, there are enough sources to hang a decent article on. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This article may also present a problem BLP-wise. Lots of people listed with this as the source. Looks pretty dodgy. The source is unpublished, and the list article specifically states that being listed does not mean they worked for the Soviets. But if you look at the articles linked, at least some of them do say that the person spied for the soviets, with no or a very poor source to back it up. Rebecca Getzoff is another example. Still parsing it here but this may require considerable cleanup. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hate to forum hop, but since Voge is dead and this is really an issue of source reliability more than anything else, I have posted what I found looking into this and a request for feedback here, at RS/N. Please come comment! Fyddlestix (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure that Voge is dead; I made the assumption that the OP's grandmother Gusti Stridsberg, Voge's mother, about whom claims were made at this article, was no longer living because of the era in which she lived, but the OP didn't say. General Ization ^Talk 11:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the obit now. General Ization ^Talk 12:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, it seems her first name (or perhaps the name she used here in the US or in her professional life) was actually Marietta, not Margietta, but will wait to move in case there are other eyes on the article at this time. General Ization ^Talk 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the name is spelled wrong in the title, every source I've seen say Marrieta. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably retraced your steps and I put in the shell of a better-sourced biography of Voge as an academic and author. General Ization ^Talk 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

She is quite dead (1984) [4]. It is covered in several sources that she was mentioned (with code name "DAUGHTER") in the USSR archives, and that should be the fact stated. Yale University Press is considered an academic publisher of sufficient repute for use on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, her UC obit is already mentioned above. However, the information that someone born in a former USSR satellite who by that time was or was on their way to becoming an accomplished American academic was mentioned in some context by the KGB (as, I speculate, a potential recruit, but there is no known evidence that she signed on) is the flimsiest of evidence to declare them an American spy for the USSR (and Yale University Press did not do so). This is being discussed at WP:RS/N. General Ization ^Talk 13:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: What other sources did you find (that support the Soviet connection)? The only other thing I could find was copies of the cables themselves. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mentioned "several sources". Can you identify another one, other than the brief mention in the appendix of Haynes' and Klehr's book? General Ization ^Talk 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind and moved the article to Marietta Voge (from Margietta), since the original (though disputed) source for the article mentions her only by this name, as does every other source found thus far. Redirect was left. Have modified the heading and {{la}} above to match. General Ization ^Talk 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The translations and interpretations of which are secondary reliable sources per Wikipedia definitions. As are the NSA and related articles. Venona project reports are widely accepted as a source by academics, and the primary material is cited by 58 academic articles (including current Russian sources). [5] By the way, Yugoslavia was not a "USSR satellite" in 1918 - when Voge was born. Nor did it become one until well after she was apparently involved per the Venona documents. The claim in the BDP should, of course, read that the source is the Venona project proper. Collect (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

St Patrick's College, Goulburn

Removed in its entirety - completely unsourced.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandy Santos

Hi, I’ve been trying to make a few changes on this article somebody made about me on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Santos cause it contains WRONG INFORMATION (age, label etc..)due to a fake bio someone leaked years ago but I can’t, and now it’s blocked ..

I would like it to be deleated or at least let me modify it..

this one is ok:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_santos

please help me

Thank you very much (unsigned)

Where the year (1992 or 1993) is what is in dispute, the year should simply be removed. Sony ATV is not a record producer in itself - but a "music publisher" which means "Blanco y Negro" records does, in fact, release some of the Sony ATV catalogue. Also the "official website" is a "deadlink" now, so that should be removed. [6] shows one song on a Sony Music Entertainment album, and three uses in ByN compilations. The name "Amanda" does appear to be the right one AFAICT. I trust an admin will note this. Collect (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

chic (band) credits page

My name is Luci Martin and while collecting qualifying information for royalty issues, I notice that the biography section is correct, but the cast of players is not. I am not listed as one of the Lead Vocalist which is funny because it is my face on every album cover and not Norma Jean Wright. As bio indicates, Norma was 1st female, I was added to group prior to Alfa but was not replaced. Norma left prior to our second album C'est Chic to pursue a solo album,replaced by Alfa Anderson who joined me as the other lead vocalist until we disbanded in 1983. This information can be verified by every album cover done by chic, as well as vocal credits on sleeve and photos. Please correct the information. you may also visit Nile Rodgers web page, the founder of the group for further verification.

Thank you, Luci Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.183.4 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Adonis Hoffman

Adonis Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newly created article, very much the standard press release/bio, with many unhelpful inline links and promotional tone. Creator doesn't like maintenance templates, and would rather remove them than engage in discussion or improve the article. Help appreciated. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Airlie

Hi,

I am Andrew Airlie. Recently, someone brought to my attention that your page regarding me has been changed and now includes false and mischevious information. I am referring to the line... "in real life he is best known for his role as father to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation online star nerd Jonathan Ore.[2]"

I would appreciate this being removed as soon as possible.

Regards, Andrew Airlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.68.67 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

The original authorHell in a Bucket consulted me about this on my talk p. discussion here My immediate reaction was to delete the entire article as an attack page and BLP violation, because the actual conviction was over a minor crime only, and brigadier generals are not usually otherwise notable. Moving a little too fast perhaps, I did that. But it is perhaps not that clear that his original version should necessarily be deleted, so I restored it and am bringing it here. There are two questions: 1/should the entire article be deleted, either speedy or at AfD, and second, whether the intermediate versions by LovinTheSunshine be revision deleted. I'm going to let other discuss it & decide. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me start by saying the additions were well sourced and well written. I had a mix of concerns with the username and the nature of the subject and then the great graphic detail. Wikipedia isn't censored but neither do we need to graphically report on an alleged rape. It was a undue amount of attention to this part of his career. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Sinclair passes notability for being a flag officer. He has served as the Army operations officer and chief of the Plans and Training Division in the Joint Special Operations Command, therefore meaning he had a significant command within the army. Definitely should have some sort of article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My sense is that WP:BLP1E applies here. What sources exist on Sinclair prior to the scandal? Only if there was sufficient sources for that, should the article exist. In the current article, there are only two putatively not-scandal sources. One of them is a bio at awordpress site used by Time - but the only place that bio is linked-to, within Time, is an article about the scandal (see this search - the bio is linked from the "Military Misbehavin" article). The other one is a currently dead link on another Wordpress blog. here - the mainpage of that blog is here. Its a blog so fails RS/SPS in any case. In my view, this article would not survive an AFD Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Military guidelines are met by him being a flag officer and in charge of a division. You are mistaken about the source too I clicked it and it works see [[7]]. Did it come up for you that time? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for the trouble that my edits have caused, as that was not my intention. My intention was not to smear either party and I attempted to do this by posting articles that spanned the entire length of the trial. I was concerned that if I omitted certain portions of the time line, it could be perceived as being biased towards one party or the other. As a member of the military community, I can say with confidence that this was, and will remain, a very notable case, with the initial charges being significant. For almost two years, Sinclair was facing jail time amongst other things. Please feel free to do as you see fit with my edits, but I ask that original article remain. Thank you again for your help and patience as I learn the Wiki ropes.Transplated User:LovinTheSunshine comments by Hell in a Bucket (talk)

in charge of a division - where is that mentioned in the article? Hamish59 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea that brigadier generals aren't notable. They are general officers and have thus have always been considered to meet WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

the bio from time works; the bio from biographysx.com does not work. Nothing you have written addresses what I actually wrote. I see the article has been put up for AFD - i will go support deletion there. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've revision-deleted LovinTheSunshine's edits to this article as BLP violations. The material was almost all inappropriate. Some of it was sourced and some not; of the sourced parts, it wasn't clear whether the sources were RS and how closely the edits reflected them. Sarah ^(talk) 20:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Troy High School (California)

Troy High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I abhor these controversy sections--this one is sourced, but details incidents of passing note, complete with names of non-notables involved. Is there a need to retain these, per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS? There have been discussions about these on the article's talk page going back years. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dave Kurlan

Dave Kurlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have removed some primary sources, obvious press releases, Amazon sales page links and other inadmissibel sources. I am left wondering if this guy passes notability criteria. The article bears all the appearances of being written by a close associate or even the subject himself. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Just took a look at this and I think he fails notability. I was looking for better sources to add to the stub, but all I could find was self-promotion and very local mentions in non-reliable sources. Minor4th 22:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I went back and looked at a previous version, and it looks like there are a couple of reliable sources available, including INC magazine, Huffpost Blog and Sellingpower. I might try to write a sentence or two in a less promotional way and add back in those sources. Minor4th 23:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

I suggest that the title of the bio be changed form Rick Ross (consultant) to Rick Alan Ross (consultant) to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross. Also there is no need to mention fees of $5,000, let alone twice repeatedly, under the section titled "Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer" in the second paragraph. Moreover the number of about 350 interventions in the bio is out of date and more than a decade old. A more recent article published puts the actual number of interventions at about 500. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 These issues are being ignored at the Talk page. Please make these edits.96.235.133.43 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Moved the page Rick Alan Ross (consultant) and tried to address the issues. now at Rick Alan Ross Govindaharihari (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Rodolfo irias navas

The biography of this person was edited by someone who clearly dislikes him to make him apear as a dubious individual without any evidence to back it up. Nicknames, false accusations and insults where added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.181.227.104 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza

The biographical article Dinesh D'Souza identifies him in the opening sentence as "political commentator, convicted felon, and author". There is an inquiry about including "convicted felon" in the sentence on the article's talk page here. Editors familiar with BLPs are invited to comment. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maulana Karenga

Maulana Karenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s lede begins, "Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga (born Ronald McKinley Everett;[2][3][4] July 14, 1941) is an African-American professor of Africana Studies, activist and author, and convicted felon" and yet does not even say in the article what his crime was. Ogress _smash! 17:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

According to biography.com he was "arrested and convicted of assaulting a female US member and was sent to prison" in the early 1970's. [8] ('US' refers here to the US Organization - a 1970s Black Power group). Whether this merits inclusion in his biography is open to question - but if it does, it needs to be properly sourced, and I can't see any reason to include it in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the biography further, the conviction is sourced - though I'm not altogether sure that the sources all meet RS. There has been considerable discussion of the issue on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am just raising the issue that Dinesh D'Souza's article above also has: the lede just says "convicted felon". At least D'Souza's article says what he did. Ogress _smash! 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Georgie Aldous

Added needed/additional Citations, page should be Verifiable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page about a Fox News anchor, which has been protected from Aug. 11-18 because of inappropriate, politicized edits, has a discussion going on in the talk page regarding the inclusion of what may or may not be a WP:SYNTH vio. I'd like to ask members of WikiProject Biography to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan aldridge

Jonathan aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Promotional article, tended by COI accounts. Has already been deleted several times in the last few months, once after an AFD discussion. Now re-created, with speedy and other templates repeatedly removed. Could probably use some more eyes here--if it's worth rescuing, great. Otherwise it may be time to delete and salt. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, one account blocked for spamming and the one other account advised as to how to move forward. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Having glanced at the several newspaper and magazine articles written about him, there may be enough in the way of WP:RELIABLE to justify a neutral article. But this was a textbook case for driving it into the ground. WP:TNT is apt. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of salting the page as well - it was recreated under this title because the proper name already was salted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jazz Jennings

Should the "real"/legal surname of Jazz Jennings be included in her article? It appears that Jennings is a pseudonym and a few sources have mentioned her legal surname. It should be noted that Jazz is (1) a minor and (2) a trans girl. I, personally, am against its inclusion due to privacy concerns. This information is not widely reported and it seems the family has made an effort to keep it hidden. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is widely available on the internet, providing one knows where to look. Plus, I know of at least one other Minor celebrity, whose full legal name is used on their Wikipedia article. May I propose a compromise?: My proposal is this...... Return the legal surname of Jazz Jennings to the article, as it is true, verifiable, and, arguably relevant, as it is a fact concerning the subject of the article; but continue to omit the family's location from all subsequent edits of the article?JessicaFaith84 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What we need to remember here is (IMO at least) the subject appears to fall under our definition as a "little known person", so if they choose to go under a pseudonym, then we should respect that wish, especially if they have tried to keep it out of the public domain. I mean, this is a practice which I'm aware is used fairly regularly on other articles (eg. adult film stars), so why should we not use it here? While it may be true, I'm not particularly convinced by the source, nor the encyclopaedic relevance of this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I see little encyclopaedic value in including Jennings' legal surname. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 11:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, Zumoarirodoka. It has inherent encyclopaedic value because it is a fact concerning the subject of the article.JessicaFaith84 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@JessicaFaith84: Going with that statement, if let's say Jimbo Wales liked sprouts age 3, that should be included in his article - that's a fact concerning the subject of the article, so must be inherently encyclopaedic. Mdann52 (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: That's convoluted logic. Not revealing in one's article that they liked sprouts when they were 3, is not hiding anything from anyone. Neglecting to mention that someone's real last name is (Redacted), on the other hand, is hiding an awful lot about that person and their true character. JessicaFaith84 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@JessicaFaith84: While I agree with your vote on this matter, I find this argument extremely unconvincing, for three reasons.

A person's last name does not reveal anything about their "true character".
Whether or not a person chooses to hide some fact about themselves says absolutely nothing about the notability of that fact.
Jazz is obviously not attempting to hide her identity. She's attempting to be a spokesperson for trans people, putting herself in a public light in order to do so.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A person's surname is not a stand-in, or even really a guide to, their character or personality. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to vote no. The idea of spreading personally identifiable information of a trans person in today's climate strikes me as wrong and potentially harmful, in addition to making me feel all-around uncomfortable with it. That being said, I can't think of a policy or good-practices reason why not to. It wouldn't be 'outing' her, as her real name is available elsewhere. It absolutely has encyclopedic value because it is personally identifiable information. It's the sort of thing that would be expected to appear in a student's research assignment, or which would be of interest to a reporter looking to do a story on her. I vote we keep it in, but I remain extremely wary of the practice and I believe it represents a standard that bears great scrutiny. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It's not widely avalible - when someone wants to keep their true identity hidden if possible, and it is not widely reported (as in this case), I can see no reason why we should include it. Our latest policy is to not include identifiable information where the subject wants it out (for example, in my OTRS role, I regually remove full dates of birth if they are not widely reported, truncating to just the year. Additionally, what additional value does leaving one name out really lose out on? Mdann52 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The real name of a person who's publicly known by something different than the name they were born with is a situation where we have to evaluate each case on its own merits — it's neither a situation where we always include the birth name nor one where we never do, but one where we have to treat different cases differently based on their own unique circumstances. It's a key principle of Wikipedia that our articles about living people, who can be actively harmed by what's present in the article if we're not careful to assess what's important information and what isn't, have to be written conservatively and with an eye to respecting the subject's privacy rights.

Not every person in the world uses a stage name or pseudonym for the same reasons, so we can't evaluate this just by comparing her to some child star whose reasons for using a different surname in her public career than she does in her personal life are completely different from Jazz Jennings' reasons. If in Jennings' case the family was trying to actively defend and protect their privacy rights by not making it easy for crazies to track them down and harass them, then Wikipedia policy requires us to take that into account — it's not at all the same thing as an actor who has made no effort to hide their real surname, but uses a stage name solely because their real surname is kind of awkward and unmarketable, or because another actor is already using it.

And the mere fact that a source can be found which revealed their real surname does not, in and of itself, mean that we should repeat it here — "has been published in one source" is not the same thing as "has been widely published in a lot of sources". I get that it's information people might want to know about her, but it's not information that people need to know about her. So at least to me, there's no compelling reason why the information needs to be in the article, and a very compelling reason why it shouldn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52:Our latest policy is to not include identifiable information where the subject wants it out (for example, in my OTRS role, I regually remove full dates of birth if they are not widely reported, truncating to just the year. Has she indicated a protectiveness of her real name anywhere? I'm only passingly familiar with her, mostly because we live in the same region (same county, AFAIK) and I have a passing interest in LGBTQ issues.

Additionally, what additional value does leaving one name out really lose out on?being able to do further research on a person, using public records or publicly available private records under their name. Before you respond, understand that I freely admit this can be used for nefarious purposes, hence my professed discomfort with voting to include the information. However, it can also be used for very legitimate purposes. Investigative reporters, background checkers and law enforcement all have good reasons to want to be able to look up her real name, and I know for a fact that all three of those groups use WP when they can (mostly for the citations, but still).

@Bearcat:It's a key principle of Wikipedia that our articles about living people, who can be actively harmed by what's present in the article if we're not careful, have to be written conservatively and with an eye to respecting the subject's privacy rights. Okay, I hadn't been that familiar with the policies you linked to. Consider my mind changed as of this point. If indeed it is WP policy (as is explicitly stated on that policy page) that care for the safety and privacy of the individual needs to be factored in, then I'm of the opinion that the potential costs of including her real name outweigh the benefits. I've left the previous parts of my response to Mdann52 intact here, but as of right now I vote not to include the information. Honestly, I was hoping someone could provide a link like that. My earlier vote was made dispassionately, but it made me more than a little uncomfortable to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: 1) I'm presuming this is the case, by the fact she deliberately goes by a pseudonym and has not revealed her real name. While not stated outright, I get the feeling this is the intention. 2) Trust me, law enforcement have their own means of finding out RL identities (especially with the ability of people to insert false information, I doubt this is really going to be used)... The private reasearch point is an interesting one, but if the information has not been released here, it's unlikely to be much use elsewhere for legitimate uses if you like. Mdann52 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52:Trust me, law enforcement have their own means of finding out RL identities (especially with the ability of people to insert false information, I doubt this is really going to be used)... I think you might be surprised by how mundane a lot of investigative data is gathered (I once played a drinking game where you took a shot every time google appeared on a computer monitor during a marathon of The First 48, and we all got pretty hammered, for instance), but that's beside the point. If there aren't any situations in which she gave interviews or made media appearances under her real name, then I agree that it's a safe bet she's trying to maintain some anonymity. Even if there are a few, if they all happened early in her time in the public light, then she's clearly trying to maintain the pseudonym. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Koch (disambiguation required)

There is another person by the same name (Chris Koch) who may be worthy of being included in Wikipedia. (My first inclination after I viewed the short video below was to check Wikipedia for an article with more information about Chris.)

The information I have is as follows: CHRIS KOCH IS FROM NANTON, ALBERTA. HE SPENDS SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL WORKING ON A FARM NEAR TORQUAY, SASKATCHEWAN.

The YouTube video below is an interview with Chris and others produced by John Chester and presented on 'OWN' (the Oprah Winfrey Network).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/H9S3n_tILKo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.93.222 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We will need more than that to justify an article about the other Chris Koch.--ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Erdal Can Alkoçlar

On August 8 I placed a blp-prod template on this new article, due to the absence of any reputable published sources. The template was removed today by Ad Orientem (talk · contribs), with edit summary stating, "Removing improperly applied BLP PROD. This only applies if there are no sources and there were. At least two were from a government website and likely pass WP:RS". The sources in question appear to be patent applications, and to my understanding these do not meet WP:RS. I rarely work on BLP articles and don't know the rules well enough to know what the next step is, so I am bringing the issue here. Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Looie496 and thanks for the ping. This is the operative quote from WP:BLPROD under which I removed the tag...

A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the seven-day period.

As there were sources, the PROD should not have been attached. The issue of RS is one that I concede could be debatable, your points above being fair. But ultimately the presence of ANY source that references the subject precludes BLPPROD. All of which said, my removal of the PROD is in no way an endorsement of the article which I tagged for a variety of issues. If you want to send it to AfD, in its present form I think there is a good chance it would get the axe. If it were a little older I would probably send it there myself, but I prefer where possible to give the authors of brand new articles a little time to fix problems before going there. As is usually the case when I put notability tags on an article I have added it to my watch list and if no improvements are made in a reasonable period of time, presuming you don't do so first, I will likely send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have already wasted enough time on this; somebody else can take it from here. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Plante

While reading the article, it took me little time to realize the tone was off. The statement made by the author are extremely partisan and make multiple statement that are still up for debate in quebec. Most of the content regarding his life story are accurate, but the way they are narrated have no place in a wikipedia article.

Thanks a lot for reading, hopefully, this will be reviewed.(unsigned)

Poor excuse for a BLP - citing opinion pieces as fact, and including a "guilt by association" bit to boot. Collect (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve Altes

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

This appears to have begun as an autobiography nine years ago, and has taken on an admirably promotional and puffy format in the time since. The intro alone is a thing to behold. I don't know where to start--any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see Geeks & Greeks, a forthcoming book by Altes that has a full article with some pretty suspect sources. I think there's some COI issues here as well. If the main editor, John turner 1962 (talk · contribs) isn't Altes, they are editing for them. Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the book for notability and reliable sources. Update: I've cut a lot from the spamicle on the book, and think it wouldn't pass an AfD process. Mr. Altes' bio will need similar attention, though I think it passes the notability test. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see Andy Fish, which has received a similar makeover, especially with respect to his involvement with Geeks & Greeks. Perhaps this needs to go to the admins' noticeboard.... 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Josh Pais

Wiki lists date of birth for actor Josh Pais (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Pais) as June 21, 1958. His IMDB page (to which there is a link on the Wiki page) lists it as June 21, 1964. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656929/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.232.161 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. The New York Times in an article from January 2003 describes him as "a 38-year-old actor" and says that ""When Mr. Pais and his mother moved to Seventh Street in 1967, Josh was 3..." [9] By my reckoning that makes his date of birth 1964. On the other hand, our article cites filmreference.com, which gives a DoB of June 21, 1958. I'd definitely rate the NYT a better source than filmreference.com (in fact we recommend not citing the latter at all, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources - we don't normally cite IMDB either), so we should probably go with that. Of course it is always possible that Pais has been a little economical with his birthdays - a fairly common habit in the acting profession - but we have to work with what we've got. I'll update the article, and add a note on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I can't cite the NYT for June 21, 1964 - it doesn't give the exact date. I think that I'd better just leave a note on the article talk page, and look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The WSJ [[10]] has Josh at age 55 on August 2013, suggesting that he was born in '57 or '58. So another vote for the June 21, 1958 date. I'm also having a date problem on the Dan Price article. Can't find any birth day and month, but People dated May 11 2015 says he was 30, and truthdig dated April 25, 2015 says he was 29, suggesting he was born in that April-May window in 1985.TechnoTalk (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

John Sarbanes

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

I noticed a couple out of date pieces on US Rep. John Sarbanes' page including committee assignments, caucus memberships etc.:

Headshot is out of date and can be updated to the most current headshot: https://sarbanes.house.gov/sites/sarbanes.house.gov/files/images/2013-high-res.jpg. Here's a link to verify that is the most current headshot: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001168

Committee assignments need to be updated: https://sarbanes.house.gov/about/committee-assignments. No longer a member of the National Resources Committee and is on the Energy and Power Subcommittee. Link to Energy & Commerce Committee site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/membership. Link to Subcommittee on Energy & Power site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/energy-and-power. Link to Subcommittee on Health site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/health

Caucus membership needs to be updated. No longer the co-chair of the Public Service Caucus (https://sarbanes.house.gov/issues/good-government) and he is a member of the Congressional Hellenic Israel Alliance (http://www.greeknewsonline.com/congressional-hellenic-and-israeli-alliance-marks-second-anniversary/)

The congressman’s signature piece of legislation (the Government by the People Act) is currently not mentioned. Could devote a new section to the bill which is co-sponsored by 150 members of Congress and over 40 organizations. More info: http://ofby.us/about-the-bill/ and https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople

Lastly, The “Campaign Finance” section needs updates with recent information. I would acknowledging that the congressman no longer takes PAC money. Also, since the Congressman’s signature piece of legislation is aimed at reforming the way campaigns are funded, the title “campaign finance” might lead some readers into thinking it is a section about his work on campaign finance issues. I recommend calling it “Political Fundraising”. LauraFriedy (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you unable to be bold and make the changes yourself because of a conflict of interest?--ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jho Low

Cleanup needed on aisle 9! Unless you think that wealthy Asians should be trashed on Wikipedia. This just came to my attention, but I must go to sleep now. Maybe an excellent editor or two can evaluate and trim this hit job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like common or garden vandalism that has now been reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtney Stadd

I just did a very quick cleanup of this article, but it needs more work on eyes on it. Helped run NASA for a couple of years and was convicted of abusing that job in a couple of ways. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's waaaay too much editorializing in that article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned up the page a bit but it still needs a lot of work. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Marathon course-cutting

This is a bit of a spilloff of an article that came up for AfD. Basically there are people trying to add someone to the list. However my argument is that the guy wasn't notable enough for an article and as such, shouldn't be added there. There's also the issue that people seem to be arguing for his inclusion in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This made me look at some of the names at Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Many of them do not have articles and that makes me wonder: should they really be on the list at all? I'd much rather that we only include people who are notable enough for their own articles or at the very least, have been proven to have cheated (or admitted cheating). This would likely leave only Rosie Ruiz, Roberto Madrazo, and perhaps the Xiamen International Marathon (since that was a widespread thing and is enough to mention in the race's article), but I have to say... I don't think that this is a bad thing. There's a really, really bad habit of adding people/events because they're recent, without really thinking if there would be any long term notability. And not to mention, the idea of posting about something that allegedly happened (in the cases where someone was accused but it was never proven or pursued) is sort of a BLP nightmare since it's alleged but not proven. For the people who were proven or admitted it, that sort of brings up an issue: is it really a good thing to list them if this is a minor crime/event? I think that we need to think about it in these terms: would these warrant a mention in the article's page? If not, then why should they be listed here?

Here's a rundown of the names in the list currently:

Jean's Marines: This happened in 2006. There really isn't much coverage that didn't happen around that time and by large this coverage is insanely light. There was a mention in Running Times and this Washington Post article from 2010, but I don't see where they've been covered in books or anything else to warrant inclusion.
Kip Litton: The New Yorker did a piece on him in 2012, but a search brings up fairly little as a whole. There's a mention in this Random House book, but my argument is that basically he's received very little notice. He's been disqualified for a number of races, but that's about it. Considering that the New Yorker published their piece during a point in time when the Internet was in full swing, there's really no reason for there not to be a ton of coverage- which kind of hammers home that he's not really all that notable.
Rob Sloan: He admitted to the cheating, so there's that - however the coverage for him was pretty light. It looks like it was pretty much all confined to 2011 and didn't really get covered outside of the UK. The BBC covered him, but other than this Summersdale book mention there isn't really much. It also looks like it was taken pretty liberally from the Wikipedia article since the author lists other people/events mentioned in the article, so I'm not really inclined to see the Summersdale book as a sign of notability.
Kevin Goodman: He's received some local coverage because of his claims, but by large this event seems to have been ignored by everyone else.
Jason Scotland-Williams: This is another person who only received a limited amount of coverage. Most of it seems to have been located within the UK, but this didn't really gain any coverage outside of that area. I also need to note that Scotland-Williams has claimed innocence.
Tabatha Hamilton: Another issue where the coverage is predominantly local and relatively light. I also need to note that the marathon itself doesn't seem to have a page, so there's the whole consideration of whether or not the marathon is really all that notable. She claims innocence but the marathon disqualified her, so there's a bit of a toss up with all of that.
Kendall Schler: This one is relatively recent, but the coverage is still insanely light. Other than this article from Runner's World, there really isn't much that isn't local.

Basically what I think is happening on the page is that whenever a new scandal or accusation comes about, people are adding to the page. Very few of these cases have ever really made any lasting impression to where I honestly think that they warrant inclusion. Like I said above, this runs the risk of being a potential BLP issue since some of these people are claiming that they didn't cheat, yet they're listed at this page. There is a mention of accusations, but this still brings up concerns that people are listing them here because of recentism and in an attempt to get a personal opinion across (ie, right great wrongs by highlighting the cheaters). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to tag NeilN in this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this so it doesn't get dropped off. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist)

I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING -Reagle (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your argument against its inclusion is... The claim is already sourced to multiple reliable sources. How many more secondary sources were you looking for? Meatsgains (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Katie Walder

Someone please have a look at this one. There's all kinds of unexplained and unverified changes going on, it's hard to see at first glance what's vandalism and what's not (though I'm reverting one clear-cut case of not any good), and the article could do with major improvement on many fronts. This one's for the fans. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Duggar

Gawker is not an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.25.64 (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The material which had been re-inserted (with other celebrity gossip sourcing) is pure sensational non-encyclopedic material of the first water. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, an IP has made a formal accusation at Arbitration Enforcement that I violated my "US politics" topic ban by daring to remove rumours and allegations - see WP:HARASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Huguette Caland

Huguette Caland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've reverted a badly sourced puffy essay with a long resume listing, to the last decent version. In anticipation that an interested party may return this to an unacceptable version, I'm requesting more eyes and watchlisting here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Imran Uddin (Blogger) - possibly defamatory revision

An IP user made an unreferenced change to Imran Uddin (Blogger) which I think could possibly be defaming and require revision deletion. Please check this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Uddin_(Blogger)&oldid=677019341. Thanks GoddersUK (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh... not quite REVDEL worthy imho... but that article fails GNG so I'm nominating it for deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, EvergreenFir. Thanks for your time! GoddersUK (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They've gotten worse... going to ask an admin for revdel. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There's some sockpuppetry and/or paid editing SEO problem here. An older account of the creator of this article was blocked for spamming. I've left a note asking for some clarification, failing which this one is going to be blocked for spamming and block evasion. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki threats regarding Chris Janson

Tonight, I received off-wiki threats of legal action on Facebook from a user claiming to represent Chris Janson, probably the same user who has been blanking content from their article. (see Thesongfan (talk · contribs)). The user threatened legal action and demanded that any edits be made through the Bobby Roberts agency, but backed down on the threat after I linked them to WP:OWN. The main concerns were that the article had the (backed by a secondary source) names of Chris's children, and mentioned two duets that he did early in his career (also verified by a reliable source). I explained that I could remove the names until I find a compromise, as I don't know the specifics on revealing the names of a famous person's underaged child, but when I asked why the duet information was controversial, they dodged the question and recommended that I talk to their agency or label. Per their request I have also shot an e-mail to the Bobby Roberts agency asking why the Holly Williams information has been deemed controversial. I would appreciate any further help in this matter. Thank you. I will include screen caps of the facebook conversation and e-mail if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I've dealt with a lot of this sort of thing on OTRS, so if you want to cc me in to the emails, I'm fine with that, just drop me an email (I'd like to see the relevant content behind this in any case). As for the other points, I'll have to look into this - with the children, it depends how widely they have been mentioned, so I'll look into this. As for the duets, I'm completely baffled about that.... Mdann52 (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Though this fellow is moderately successful and certainly notable, he is not the type of "superstar" who has to suffer widespread media coverage of the birth of their children. The cited source seems to be a country music gossip site. Though I am sure that its regular readers love it, I very much doubt that it is a reliable source sufficient enough for us to violate the privacy of minor children. With a better source, perhaps the article could mention that he and his wife have two children, with no more details. As for the step children, leave them alone and out of this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now what about the information regarding Holly Williams? I contacted Bobby Robertsv Agency and they have no knowledge of this situation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Leave it in if its reliably sourced. For something to be controversial there actually has to be a reason for it. 'Its controversial' is not enough. I suggest that if you are in a dialogue with them explain why that has not been removed and probably wont be unless there is a reason for it, adding you contacted his agency and they dont have any idea. Although its more likely that if there *is* a controversy around it, its probably more likely to go into the article if the controversy ends up reliably sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick google suggest they had a more personal relationship than musical collaborators. So there might be some personal beef going on. I wont link here, but go a few pages into a google search and the usual gossip starts to appear. The reliable sources all show they co-wrote those songs however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Demetrios Spandidos

Demetrios Spandidos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was nominated for deletion earlier this year, and kept because its subject is clearly notable. At the AFD some concerns regarding BLP issues were raised, and so I am bringing this article to the watchers of this noticeboard to determine if they think this article is BLP compliant, particularly the "career" section. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

deleted external links

why could external links of an article I just moved be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigits (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 August 2015‎ (UTC)

@Erigits: Is it the Eric Kinoti page you're talking about? Looks like Nthep removed them while working on the article (probably due to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.) I don't think this board is needed for that, just discuss it on the article talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See Jason Scott case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.

I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:

Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.

"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to Kendrick Moxon

I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:

Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See Kendrick Moxon#cite note-scientologysponsored-23

As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[6] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]

Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries.96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Jenny Beck

The article for Jenny Beck may be conflating two different actresses, Jenny Beck and Jennifer Rae Beck. It is listing the movie credits for Jenny Beck, but is using Jennifer Rae Beck as the name. Per IMDB Jenny Beck has a rather lengthy career with three movies and lots of TV appearances, but Jennifer Rae Beck has only three TV credits, and from other sources seems to be known for her theater appearances.

Jennifer Rae Beck is recently deceased, Stage and TV Actress Jennifer Rae Beck Dead at 44, so someone might want to sort this out if in fact the article is mixing up two different Jenny Becks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.166.58 (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please help me out with this one? It seems there are 2 actresses named Jenny imdb or Jennifer (Rae) imdb Beck. The article has recently been updated with the DoD for Jennifer Rae, but the original DoB in the article was 1974 not 1971 when J Rae was born. The article also includes references to Jenny Beck's career rather than J. Rae Beck's. I amended the cat for DoB and changed the IMDb link, but I would like someone to take a second look before I go deleting large parts of the article which includes the wrong career details. Thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Update" Looking at the article history it seems the original intention was to create an article for Jenny Beck not Jennifer Rae as it is named Jenny Beck with no mention of the alternative and has her DoB and career details. Somewhere along the way it has been edited to refer to Jennifer Rae, but leaving the career details untouched. Eagleash (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Update" (again) offending edit is here. Eagleash (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible and plausible that these two actresses, born with a handful of years within each and have similar names, are different people. Rae Beck, the stage actress, most likely used her middle name for distinction. However. she also looks eerily similar to the other in the medias reporting her death but the child TV work. I changed the pages linking to Jenny Beck but it is possible they are different. — Wylie pedia 04:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm reasonably certain that there are 2 different ladies involved here (but not 100% sure). IMO the article should be taken back to prior to the edit in June 2015 (noted above) where the "Rae" and some bio details were inserted into the page. Up to that point the page was correct for Jenny (rather than Jennifer Rae) Beck with, as far as I can tell, correct career details, DoB etc. However, I will wait a few days so any other interested parties can have their say or edit, and also try to find more info. on both names. Eagleash (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted until further notice of confirmation. Best to err on side of BLP correctness. — Wylie pedia 05:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks. Eagleash (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Request

There's a bit of a situation about what the WP:COMMONNAME (and hence the correct article title) should be for an American political strategist, which I wanted to ask for some assistance in resolving. I've also posted the same request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, but I don't know how widely read that page is, as not a single thread posted to that page since 2013 has ever garnered a single response from anyone at all — so I thought I should also post it here since the situation has a WP:BLP angle to it.

The situation is that the article was created at Mari Maseng in 2010, following which just two months later a request was posted somewhere (I can't remember where, it might even have been right here) for the article to be moved to Mari Maseng Will on the grounds that she was known by her married name. Acting as an administrator I complied with the request in good faith, but then one year after that an anonymous IP posted an angry rant to my talk page demanding that the article be moved back to "Maseng" on the grounds that she wasn't known by her married name — I did a quick Google search, and indeed was unable to find any significant sources at that time in which she was known or referred to by "Will", so I complied with the request despite their impolite tone. The article then remained stable for almost four years, until a few weeks ago another editor moved it back to "Will" again on the grounds that she is known by her married name. (And even then, they didn't actually revise the entire article accordingly; the title, the top of the infobox and the first bolded mention of her name in the introduction had the "Will" added, but her WP:LASTNAME was left as Maseng everywhere else in the body text.)

So obviously there's a dispute, and a slow-motion edit war, here. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody who has access to a broader range of US news sources than I do — I can only Google, while other people might have access to a much more comprehensive news database, or a range of political science journals, or some other specialized sourcing which might help — could assist in figuring out which title we should preference. I'm a Canadian citizen, so I have no knowledge of her whatsoever apart from having gotten dragged into this naming dispute — I didn't even know that she existed until seeing the original 2010 move request. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Hello? Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, @Bearcat: I have good newspaper database access so I did some searches for you. In Proquest's newspaper database, "Mari Maseng Will" returned 9 results, all since 1995. "Mari Maseng" returned 67 results, but all of the results were prior to 1995 - any results after that date use the "Will."

In Lexis Nexis' database, "Mari Maseng" returns 103 results, while "Mari Maseng Will" returns 32 results, all after 1993. But the 103 results for "Mari Maseng" include the more recent uses of "Will;" there are nine results since 1993 which use "Mari Maseng" but omit the "Will," compared to 32 results that include the "Will."

What this seems to suggest to me is that "Mari Maseng Will" has become the most common means of referring to this person since the mid-90s. The only thing that gives me pause here is that a recent gift from the two of them to the Univ. of S. Carolina was made in the name of "Mari Maseng and George F. Will," and funded the "Mari Maseng and George F. Will classroom." So it's possible that she may now prefer "Mari Maseng" over "Mari Maseng Will." RS seem to use the "Will," though. I hope this helps. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lynn Walsh

I am writing to you about this page: Lynn Walsh

The article is not about me, Lynn Walsh, an Investigative Journalist (www.twitter.com/lwalsh) yet, when you Google "Lynn Walsh" the wikipedia entry above (about a leader in the socialist party), shows up with my image (the journalist) attached to it. (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Lynn+Walsh)

Is there any way this photo can be removed since it is associating a photo of the wrong person with the wikipedia entry?

Thank you and feel free to contact me:

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.109.82 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The error appears to be on Google's side. There is a "feedback" link next to the search result that you use to let Google know about the error. I'm not sure why Google connected the image with the Wikipedia article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Chances are they didn't - from experience, most people see the "from Wikipedia" link below the text, and assume it is all from us. Mdann52 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Sorry, I meant why Google put them together on their page. In my experience when something like this happens it's because of something in wikidata, or Google's cache of the article, but in this case it looks like Google's algorithms decided that the article was about the person in the image, or at least the placement of the image suggests that. I've left feedback with Google, but I have no idea how they process such reports.— Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: ah, I see. And to answer the second question - they don't (in the main....) Mdann52 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP may find this useful (warning: some technical knowledge may be needed...) Mdann52 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this person really wikipedia notable? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that the original issue seems to have been resolved. The image is no longer showing up next to the Wikipedia article blurb on the search results. — Strongjam (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff again

Reduced the "overkill" of criticism, including one claim which was intrinsically BLP-violative. Collect (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Here I am being told that referring to Camille Paglia as a "feminist" is a WP:BLP violation. She refers to herself countless times as a feminist and sources refer to her countless times as a feminist. The article in which the disputed wording is occurring is not about Paglia. For the purposes of this article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), it is sufficient to identify Paglia as a feminist. In truth, even that could be omitted. The reader need not even know that she is a feminist. It would be sufficient to refer to her as an author and a professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia). Her critique of the work of art is negative. But we don't have to characterize her as a "dissident" feminist even if there is ample support in sources for that. Even the Camille Paglia article fails to use that terminology. She has clashed with mainstream feminists on occasion over specific points. No source supports as "dissident" her position on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Therefore I find the characterization particularly gratuitous. In my opinion the insistence on calling her a "dissident feminist", even claiming a WP:BLP violation if we do not characterize her that way, merely blunts the criticism that this commentator has about the work of art. Ample praise of the work of art is included in the article but of course it comes in for criticism too from some prominent commentators. Is there agreement here that there cannot possibly be any shade of WP:BLP violation in just referring to Paglia as a "feminist"? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is or was a BLP violation to call her a feminist. Just inaccurate without qualification given how sources refer to her as anti-feminist as well. Personally I think it would be best to remove all descriptors related to feminism when referring to her on the article. Just "critic" or "social critic" would suffice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This WSJ article describes her as "a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy." In this opinion piece, she rejects the idea that gender is performative, and says that men are naturally better suited to manly work like construction and are the "author" of the modern economy. I don't think it would be accurate to describe her as a feminist without qualification, just as I don't think it would be accurate to call the KKK "not racist" just because the imperial wizard said so. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

She is a feminist. Her commentary addresses the historical condition of women. It advocates for the removal of the oppression of women by a male-favoring society as concerns certain privileges, such as in the workplace. The only disagreement between Paglia and some of her feminist opponents are of relatively minor points. As an editorial compromise we can leave out both the terms "feminist" and "dissident feminist". You cannot call her an "anti-feminist" except figuratively or as hyperbole because nowhere does she advocate for instance for a status of women as inferior to men. Does she argue that women should be disadvantaged in relation to men? Of course not. So, what does she say? "I remain an equal opportunity feminist. That is, I call for the removal of all barriers to women’s advance in the professional and political realms. However, I oppose special protections for women (such as differential treatment of the names of accuser and accused in rape cases), and I condemn speech codes of any kind, above all on university campuses. Furthermore, as a libertarian, I maintain that our private sexual and emotional worlds are too mercurial and ambiguous to obey the codes that properly govern the workplace. As I recently told the Village Voice, I maintain that everyone has a bisexual potential and that no one is born gay. We need a more flexible psychology, as well as an end to the bitter feminist war on men. My feminist doctrine is completely on the record in four of my six books."[11] Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. ... In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. ... The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

I think this is the opposite of what a feminist is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base article content on the personal opinions of contributors concerning who is or isn't a feminist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying that someone who describes herself as a "dissident feminist" does not self-identify as a feminist is the kind of silliness that makes one yearn for straightforward sophistry. It takes no more than moments to find reliable sources like these [12][13] which not only characterize her as a feminist but also quote her self-descriptions as an "Amazon feminist" and an "ardent feminist". This kind of characterization isn't really different than insisting that, say, John McCain be described as a RINO rather than a Republican because he departs from ultraconservative orthodoxy. It's much more of a BLP violation to deny a subject's self-identification, supported by reliable sources, because it doesn't comport with editors' more confining definitions. That said, unless other figures quoted in the article are characterized in terms of ideology, there's no reason to include either option; but the "dissident" language appears wholly inappropriate here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Self-identified perhaps, but RS don't treat her as one. Just glance over Camille_Paglia#Feminism. We have a conflict between what secondary sources call an individual and what the individual calls themselves. Mind you, this is a political and epistemological label and not part of WP:IDENTITY. In such a case, I'd say omit the label entirely. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Context of dispute: full context can be found on talk page, but to summarize, strong criticism of Mattress Performance from Camile Paglia was added to the article, but then reverted on the grounds that Paglia is known to be biased. Hoping to preserve commentary from Paglia, I added in-text attribution that Paglia is a "self-described dissident feminist" per WP:BIASED. "Self-described dissident feminist" is supported by source cited in the article and the first line of Paglia's BLP. This seemed to resolve the dispute for awhile, but later this was objected to on the grounds that "self-described" could be interpreted as calling in to question Paglia's validity as a "dissident feminist", saying this would be the connotation if we wrote "self-described professor". I've tweaked it to: "social critic Camille Paglia, who refers to herself as a "dissident feminist" ". Another suggestion on talk page is "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism", which seems reasonable to me. There have been attempts to describe Paglia as simply a feminist and social critic, but this seems problematic, one because Paglia clearly does not identify as a mainstream feminist and has voiced strong distaste for the modern feminist movement, and two, because the quotes added from Paglia seem extreme enough to warrant in-text attribution per WP:BIASED. For context the quotes currently in article are "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," "lugging around your bad memories" and "feminism should empower women, not cripple them." It would seem a violation of wp:biased to present these quotes as the opinions of a neutral third party observer, but they seem like interesting commentary, so seems appropriate if attributed to a source opposed to modern feminist movement --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—why don't we have characterizations of other commentators on the work of art? We read in the article that "Artnet cited it as "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year". Why doesn't artnet need to be characterized in some way? We read in the article that "Performance artist Marina Abramović praised it." We are not given much additional information about Marina Abramović aside from the fact that she is a performance artist. We read in the article that "New York Times art critic Roberta Smith described it as 'strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical' and that "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter were apparent." There is no background information on Roberta Smith aside from the fact that she is an art critic. We read in the article that "Jerry Saltz, art critic for New York magazine, included it in his list of the best 19 art shows of 2014, calling 'clear, to the point, insistent, adamant ... pure radical vulnerability.'" Are we told anything additional about Jerry Saltz? The same should apply to Camille Paglia. We can say "author and professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia)" as introductory verbiage. The reader is not incapable of clicking on a link to our article on Camille Paglia or Googling the name Camille Paglia. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm not aware of other commentators quoted in the article who warrant in-text attribution per WP:BIASED which states: Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "Author and professor" does not address the bias. Wording that expresses Paglia is a notable critic of mainstream feminism addresses the bias. If there are other commentators quoted in the article, who reliable sources describe as biased, who you believe warrant in text-attribution per wp:biased, please add such attribution to the article, or open talk page discussion regarding attribution.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—at WP:BIAS I find: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." This is none of them. Judging by the title of the article, this is an article on an artwork. The context here is the critical reception of a work of art. You are contriving to find language that explains away the negative opinion expressed by a notable figure of a work of art. WP:BIAS is inapplicable here because this is an artwork. The article is not about something "political, financial, religious, philosophical or belief-oriented". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Paglia quote was reverted by a single editor (who also complained that men!!!! were daring to edit the article), and then after it was restored another editor (you know who) trimmed it down so it didn't convey anything close to what it meant and started adding "dissident feminist", a qualifier that few sources use use. My take is it's designed to present her as somehow on the outside of the mainstream. And yet other positive reviewers receive no similar qualifiers.Mattnad (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The user in question gave a rationale for her deletion, and it wasn’t that the editors were male, it was Paglia’s reputation for bias. RS describe Paglia as outside the mainstream. The editor also opened a discussion on talk page [14] The above seems to be an out of context link from a user talk page referring to past exchange on SlimVirgin's talk page which included: “the talk-page atmosphere, which has included a comment about a woman leading someone on, and asking that it be unprotected so that anon IPs can comment on a video of a rape reenactment, after a beer. (One woman referred to this exchange as a mini Elks Club gathering.)“ [15],[16]

Mattnad, we can discuss this further on your talk page.

Additionally, a source cited in the article prefaced Paglia's comments with "self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia lambasted Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz’s mattress performance" [17]. Also, edit history shows that for the past 4 years, Camile Paglia's BLP has opened with a self-described dissident feminist,[1] [18], but since the dispute began, it has been deleted. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

While the article on Camille Paglia could use improvements (too many statements with no indication of their context), I can see why the term feminist could be controversial in her case. Summarizing some red flags: She has called feminist criticism a repressive Stalinist style, and feminists have in turn called her a crackpot extremist, an apologist of post-Cold War fascism, and a pro-patriarchy ideologue. Gloria Steinem is quoted as saying "Her calling herself a feminist is sort of like a Nazi saying they're not anti-Semitic", in what seems to be a case of Godwin's law outside the Internet. Based on another source, Steinem compared Paglia to Hitler and Paglia countered by comparing Steinem to Stalin. Katha Pollitt (who I am not familiar with) has claimed that Paglia's anti-feminist views "might make even Rush Limbaugh blanch". I don't think the problem is that her views are outside the mainstream, but rather than she is more noted for her arguments with feminism than any support for its positions. If you have to use a term to introduce in the article about the Mattress Performance, I'd suggest using only "cultural critic". Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about feminism. It is not even about rape. It is about a work of art, called a performance piece. It is the standard operating procedure for people in the world to have opinions on works of art, and it is not unheard of for those opinions to run the gamut of types. This whole discussion is besides the point. The point only concerns how we introduce Paglia to this article. All these terms are applicable: professor at the University of the Arts (Philadelphia), author, feminist social critic, cultural critic, American academic and social critic, an educator (The New York Times has described her as "first and foremost an educator"). How do sources describe her? We should not be picking and choosing descriptive terms based on how we want the reader to perceive her negative response to the work of art. The problem here is the contrivance of the insertion of the term "dissident feminist" into the introduction of Paglia to this article (Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)). That is the only real bias under discussion. Wikipedia is broken up into different articles. One of those articles (not the one under discussion) is called Camille Paglia. And there are many other sources of information besides Wikipedia. The opinion of Paglia should be introduced unadorned by any special spin. Hers is merely an opinion, a reaction to a work of art. As a separate aim, we should introduce her to the article with the most standard terms applied to her: author, educator, etc. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Camille Paglia is sufficiently well known that no description is necessary. In this case, “feminist” is probably not as useful a classifier as “Professor”, “Author”, or “Critic”. However, the contention that describing Paglia as a feminist is a BLP violation is extremely pointy -- indefensible, really -- and should not be countenanced. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't label her, except perhaps as "professor at the University of the Arts." We don't say "according to feminist Hillary Clinton." Sarah ^(talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence should read: Professor at the University of the Arts (Philadelphia), Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to copy-paste her business card. Just "professor" would be fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmn, it seems Hillary Clinton, along with her philosophical and political biases are well known, so they seem less in need of in-text attribution per WP:BIASED. This doesn't seem to be the case with Camile Paglia. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT attribution just means "according to X." Bias should be attributed, but we don't have to label the person we name. In some contexts, doing so can be too "othering," as though WP very firmly wants to distance itself from the view. Sarah ^(talk) 22:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for link to WP:INTEXT. I might have misstated above. I was referring to this passage from WP:BIASED: Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". I'm honestly not terribly familiar with Paglia, but judging from the source cited in article, comments on talk page, and her BLP, it seems Paglia may warrant this sort of qualifier discussed in wp:biased. I think User:Nblund articulated the argument on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) page more eloquently than I have been able to: [19]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—you and some other editors such as User:Nblund are discussing Paglia. But you are not discussing the subject of our article, which happens to be a work of art. Nor are your examples given, from the world of art. You are speaking about "Feminist Betty Friedan" and "Marxist economist Harry Magdoff" and "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater". User:Nblund is discussing Karl Rove and James Carville. Are these artists? Do they somehow derive from the world of art? Can you give any examples from the world of art? Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop Camille Paglia is the example from the art world. The others are similarly biased people from more familiar fields. Nblund (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is an article about an individual work of art. Paglia expresses an opinion about the work of art. It is your argument that contextualization is called for concerning Paglia's expressed opinion concerning that work of art. I think such contextualization is out of place. Do you know of another example of an article about an individual work of art in which contextualization is called for when someone's opinion on the work of art is included in the article? My contention is that we just identify the speaker, and leave it at that. She is a professor at a university. That is pretty much all that needs to be said. She has an article, so we provide an internal link to her Wikipedia article. Several of you seem to feel very strongly that what you are referring to as "contextualization" is called for. Do you find other articles about works of art at which you feel that contextualization is strongly called for when opinions are voiced about the artwork that is the subject of the article? Bus stop (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking me to re-make my point without using any analogies. That seems arbitrary. I gave an example of a bona-fide expert in a field whose views are usually contextualized by referencing his political affiliations. BoboMewCat gave examples from WP:BIASED of other instances where the ideological views of a speaker are mentioned in the in-text citation. I don't really see the point of tracking down an additional instance of this specifically for an entry discussing artwork.

As an aside, I think this probably isn't a BLP discussion at this point, and I would be in favor of either moving it the the NPOV noticeboard or creating an RfC on the article page. Nblund (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no point in describing Paglia as either a feminist or dissident feminist in that article. I agree with SlimVirgin's comment above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a degree of consensus is emerging for the disputed sentence: "Professor Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." Bus stop (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. This discussion has not been taken to the appropriate venue (its clearly not a BLP issue, its an NPOV dispute) and The arguments that have been made by multiple editors have ever been directly addressed. BoboMeowCat has produced a fairly straightforward example of precisely this kind of attribution in WP:BIASED. Why is this case an exception to the rules cited by that editor? Nblund (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That or no descriptor (honestly the latter seems more popular, but doubt many would care about " professor "). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond any rule violations, calling her a professor, or not introducing her at all is just poor writing. Quotes need to be contextualized, readers ought to understand why a particular voice is worthy of quoting, and ought to be able to assign weight to that viewpoint in accord with its prominence and authority in the field. Identifying Paglia as a "cultural critic" or a "professor" is not an accurate depiction of her public persona.

Paglia is best known as a controversial intellectual who writes about pop culture and who engages in acrimonious debates with other feminists. Her criticism has been called "crackpot extremism", "a scorched-earth attack on the underlying philosophical assumptions of liberalism and feminism", and "so agenda-driven and so riddled with polemical asides that its potential to persuade is forever being compromised". Because of this contrarianism, virtually no reliable source introduces her by solely introducing her as an innocuous "cultural critic". Instead they describe her as "a provocateur", a "notorious Amazon feminist", and "the Donald Trump of feminism."

She's indisputably a person with a controversial perspective whose views are outside the mainstream. The quote we're including touches on those extreme views fairly explicitly. Hers is the only explicitly feminist voice currently quoted in the entire article. At a bare minimum, need to be honest and accurate about who she is and what she does. Calling her a "dissident feminist" is a sensible way of doing this: Paglia herself uses the term "dissident feminist" repeatedly to describe her own views (Examples: 1, 2, 3). And the term is frequently used by other sources as well (ex: 1, 2, 3)2 3 Nblund (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—you say "Why is this case an exception to the rules cited by that editor?" The problem is that you are obsessed with your interpretation of a work of art. Art is open to multiple interpretations. Sulkowicz did not expound a political platform from September 2014 to May 2015. She executed a work of art. There is a difference. Paglia's reaction to the work of art is antagonistic to your interpretation of it. So you are trying to undermine Paglia's reaction. Paglia said that Mattress Performance is a "parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism". You wish to issue a disclaimer. You want the reader to bear in mind that Paglia is a "dissident feminist". But this doesn't warrant inclusion. Paglia is entitled to her reaction. There is no right or wrong reaction to a work of art. If Paglia's words pique the reader's interest they can simply click on the internal link to Paglia's article. You have declined to provide examples of articles on other works of art in which it was necessary to provide "contextualization" for an expressed opinion. The "contextualization" you are arguing for in this case is merely in defense of your own dearly held view of the meaning of the work of art. Notable individuals get to express opinions of works of art in articles on those works of art. Is it so surprising that a notable individual thinks poorly of this performance piece? I like the idea of the reader being exposed to radically different reactions to it. You seem to want to lessen the impact on the reader by explaining ahead of time that Paglia might not represent the most popularly expounded tenets of feminism. This is an article on a work of art and a myriad of types of reactions to it are possible. The reader can simply research Paglia if they want to know more about her. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Literature, politics, history, and any number of other things are open to interpretation. The examples given in WP:BIASED are about biases in subjective views. Are you suggesting there is some special policy that applies to an entry on art that wouldn't apply to an entry on politics? What, specifically, would that policy be?

This has nothing to do with my personal view of the art of of Paglia or her right to an opinion. I pointed out that her views are widely seen as extreme and controversial, and it doesn't sound like you're denying that her views are "radically different". As I understand you, you just think we should refrain from giving any indication of this in the article out of a concern that it might "lessen the impact" of her statements. This is flatly wrong: when citing subjective judgement, we are supposed to give readers sufficient information to determine the relative importance of the voices in the dispute. We are not obliged to afford totally "equal validity" to all views. Presenting a hotly contested minority view as though it is uncontroversial is a fairly straightforward violation of due weight.

Whether or not affording due weight "lessens the impact" of her statements really depends on the reader. A controversial viewpoint isn't always wrong, and lots of people like Paglia because she's controversial. Regardless, I don't think there's any policy that supports pretending a viewpoint is mainstream when it clearly isn't. Nblund (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You say "Literature, politics, history, and any number of other things are open to interpretation." You have only spoken about politics. You say "The examples given in WP:BIASED are about biases in subjective views. Are you suggesting there is some special policy that applies to an entry on art that wouldn't apply to an entry on politics?" No, I am not saying anything of the sort. WP:BIASED is not applicable to the question we are addressing. You wish to insert unwarranted material. You are grasping at straws to find justification in policy for presenting the reader with a disclaimer pertaining to Paglia. You say "This has nothing to do with my personal view of the art of of Paglia or her right to an opinion." Is that a typo or do you mean to refer to "the art of of Paglia"? You say "I pointed out that her views are widely seen as extreme and controversial, and it doesn't sound like you're denying that her views are 'radically different'." I am as unconcerned with Paglia as I am with Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith. We write the article about Mattress Performance and we write the articles about Camille Paglia, Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith. I'm really not concerned that Paglia's understanding of feminism might not mesh with that of other feminists. You say "As I understand you, you just think we should refrain from giving any indication of this in the article out of a concern that it might 'lessen the impact' of her statements. This is flatly wrong: when citing subjective judgement, we are supposed to give readers sufficient information to determine the relative importance of the voices in the dispute." Yes, we are "supposed to give readers sufficient information". This is done in a separate article (the Camille Paglia article). You say "We are not obliged to afford totally 'equal validity' to all views. Presenting a hotly contested minority view as though it is uncontroversial is a fairly straightforward violation of due weight." You are once again forgetting that this is a work of art. These are more properly thought of as "opinions" than "views". In fact, these are not even "opinions". They are "reactions". They are "responses". The verbalization of a Paglia or a Saltz or a Smith are not as rational as an articulated stance taken on a political question. From where in God's heaven does Roberta Smith get the image of "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter"? Nobody is questioning that. These responses to the work of art by notable individuals is almost free associational. All of your rational argumentation amounts to the equivalent of nailing Jell-O to a wall. Yes, we are interested in what notable individuals have to say. But no, we are not obligated to include editorial favorites from notable individual's backgrounds. Nobody is saying that Roberta Smith bears a well-known relation to "Stations of the Cross" or "Hester Prynne's scarlet letter" and that the reader needs to be apprised of this. (I am obviously making this up. My ignorance is probably showing.) Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, Paglia's views are extreme to some and not to others. Clearly they are extreme to you. Just because some feminists have latched onto the performance art does piece not mean that an opinion that diverges from what those feminists think requires Wikipedia to call that out. For instance, Paglia felt Clinton should have resigned, and A21Sauce (an editor who also has reservations about Paglia) felt she was "nuts" for voicing that opinion. Whereas there were many people who agreed with Paglia. Feminism is not homogeneous in its views, and opinions on art should not be viewed through your edict of what a feminist should, or should not think.Mattnad (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I am getting really sick of your mischaracterizing my views. Anyone who clicks on your link to what I said sees that I said "She blames the government being sideswiped by 9/11 on Bill Clinton not resigning after the Lewinsky scandal" when I called Paglia out. Does anyone but yourself take you seriously here?--A21sauce (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Full quote of your pithy reasoning (which you failed to include): "Deleted Paglia's reaction. She's kind of nuts (She blames the government being sideswiped by 9/11 on Bill Clinton not resigning after the Lewinsky scandal". How did I misrepresent what you wrote? To me, you interjected your own opinion on Paglia as grounds for censoring her views.Mattnad (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop WP:NPOV applies to all articles, including articles that deal with art, and including articles where some relevant information is detailed elsewhere. You say it "doesn't apply", but you don't really explain why.Lots of articles deal with subjective judgments and issues around which there is no clear consensus. Regardless of the nature of the page, we always "assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." When there is no clear consensus, we "describe he opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." WP:BALANCE Why don't those rules apply here?

Mattnad:None of this comes down to "my edict", it comes down to the way she is described in other reliable sources. Paglia's view, by all accounts including her own, is outside the feminist mainstream. I've provided multiple reliable sources that attest to this fact. No one appears to be bothering to contest this. If you have contrary information, please share. Regardless: the argument that we don't have to "call out" a minority view patently incorrect (see WP:BALANCE. This is a fundamental part of neutrality. Presenting minority viewpoints as though they are equally prominent is bias. Nblund (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nblund—all of you who are arguing for the inclusion of the term "dissident feminist" in description of Paglia are failing or refusing to recognize the means of communication undertaken by Sulkowicz from September 2014 to May of 2015. Sulkowicz carried a mattress. That is nonverbal. Sulkowicz was not running for office on a political plank from September 2014 to May of 2015. She was an artist carrying out a performance piece. Those who are arguing for the inclusion for Paglia of the wording "dissident feminist" are failing to note the distinction. Sulkowicz largely communicated nonverbally in her performance piece. The carrying of a mattress across a campus daily for months is mere demonstration. It is not articulation in the form that can be laid out in bullet points. Those arguing for the inclusion for Paglia that she is a "dissident feminist" start off with the premise that they understand the "message" being conveyed by Sulkowicz. They are failing to recognize the means of communication chosen by Sulkowicz. You argue for "balance". And you argue for "contextualization". But what was Sulkowicz saying? You don't know. And yet you want to provide something that provides "balance". You cannot provide "balance" or "contextualization" for an unknown value. You should not be permitted to insert your interpretation of the artwork into this article, which you are doing indirectly when you argue for that particular characterization of Paglia. Sulkowicz did not stand on a soapbox and give a speech. Verbalizations are different from demonstrations. This encyclopedia, aside from images, consists of verbalizations. Sulkowicz did not engage in verbalizing. In this sense she is solidly in the camp of visual artists. But your assumption is that you precisely understand what she was saying. Paglia can make that assumption. That is because Paglia is a notable person. But you don't get to make that assumption. Your reasoning for wanting to insert "dissident feminist" into the article in conjunction with Paglia is that you think you know what Mattress Performance is about and you think it is an excellent exemplar of the best of feminism. And you are probably appalled that Paglia would attack Mattress Piece as the worst of feminism. But in fact you don't get to offer an opinion at all. None of us get to offer an opinion. I don't get to offer an opinion and BoboMeowCat doesn't get to offer an opinion and A21sauce doesn't get to offer an opinion. We provide for responses only from notable people. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop It again sounds like you're saying that Wikipedia entries about visual arts are exempt from certain Wikipedia policies. Can you provide a link to any support for that argument? I'm not aware of a special dispensation for the visual arts, and lots of articles are discuss issues for which there is no objectively "correct" perspective. The solution is fairly straightforward: we represent views in accord with their prominence, and, when no clear consensus exists, we "describe the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." The rest of this wall of text seems incredibly off topic and unduly personal. Nblund (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—many things fall under the umbrella term "feminism". Paglia is entitled to take exception to anything she disagrees with. Paglia is entitled to be combative with her fellow feminists over relatively minor points. Paglia does not endorse rape. Paglia articulates that victimhood and male demonization are problematic in her view. Paglia expresses that she sees in Sulkowicz' performance piece the worst aspects of contemporary feminism. This does not make Paglia an "anti-feminist". You and others are not calling her an anti-feminist. But instead you and others have seized upon the term "dissident feminist" to serve as a suitable stand-in for a term such a "anti-feminist". This is to defuse the views expressed by Paglia. This is to set Paglia up for failure in the eyes of the reader. This is a disclaimer. This is to inform the reader before reading her comments that her views are somewhat "non-feminist" in character. This is not an article on a political tract. You and others are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of this article. There was debate in months gone by as to what title this article should have and whether or not it should be split into two articles. It was decided after much argumentation that this article was to be primarily about the artwork, hence the title. Now you (and others) are essentially arguing that we should treat Sulkowicz' artwork as if it were the clear articulation of a political opinion. It is not. The insertion of "dissident feminist" would not constitute "contextualization". Its insertion would be a non sequitur. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that almost no one gets to offer an opinion, I think this discussion should be closed. Since Bus stop didn't prohibit me from offering one, I think that Sulkowicz's actions plainly constituted a feminist protest, and that Paglia's reputation as a person consistently critical of mainstream feminist thought is relevant. Now please, let's stop this. There are other minute details of this article that need to be endlessly fought over. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—I didn't mean to say that no one should express themselves on this or any other Talk page. Paglia gets to offer a response to the artwork in the Mattress Performance article. Mere editors do not, or should not, get to respond to that artwork in that article. Perhaps I was not clear about what I was saying. You say "I think that Sulkowicz's actions plainly constituted a feminist protest, and that Paglia's reputation as a person consistently critical of mainstream feminist thought is relevant." Feminism is broadly defined. It means many things. Paglia can be a "feminist" and still disagree with the months-long carrying of a mattress around a college campus as a response to an alleged rape. We do not have to poison the waters by first telling the reader that she is a "dissident feminist" because this is almost tantamount to "anti-feminist". We should be taking a hands-off approach to introducing notable commentators on the art. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Nblund, since you brought reliable sources....the source article for the relevant quotes was Salon, and here's how they introduced her, "Camille Paglia, the political and cultural critic...". While she may be know for other things, in the context of this particular question, the core reliable source presents her more neutrally. On the same coverage, the Washington Examiner describers her as "a cultural critic". The Daily Mail makes no qualifier at all, Reason makes no mention of her feminist credentials, a negative opinion piece in the Pacific Standard calls her the "Donald Trump of feminism", Artnet, in a critical commentary on Paglia describers her as a "controversial feminist and social critic".

None of these contemporaneous sources relating to her comments on Sulkowicz's artwork refer to her as a "dissident feminist" including those critical of her. Most provide more neutral descriptors or none. Whatever sources you have for the "dissident feminist" terminology, they are probably not current or in reference to the quotes in question. So we have two issues then: a) the terms you are promoting are non-neutral, and b) they are not connected to the Paglia quote of today by most reliable sources (if any) and are therefore WP:Syn.Mattnad (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Daily Mail Article you cited does call her a dissident feminist: "[the interview] is the first in a series where the self-proclaimed 'dissident feminist' will weigh in on everything from the Clinton and Cosby scandals to the men running for president." The Salon article you're citing calls her "a provocateur", which is a synonym for "dissident". The Reason article also introduces her as "the always provocative Camille Paglia".

I previously provided three separate sources where Paglia describes herself as a dissident feministThe most recent is from 2014 The Observer described her as a "dissident feminist" on the 30th of last month. If your issue is with the terminology, I proposed an alternate phrasing on the article talk page, but the notion that this description is "non-neutral" strikes me as a little odd given that she applies it to herself. Nblund (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—why would we issue a disclaimer before allowing Paglia to express herself on the artwork that is the subject of the article? Does feminism have any shades of meaning? Paglia does not endorse rape, does she? She makes herself clear. She opposes victimhood on the part of women. And she opposes the demonization of men by women. She also doesn't like the artwork. She says she would give it a "D" (if she were grading it as a schoolteacher). We allow commentators to express their reactions to this work of art. These are of course notable people. Only their notability has to be established, not their more nuanced leanings. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that full consensus will not be reached here. Recommend an RfC be started on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) regarding descriptors for Camille Paglia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would second that. Nblund (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Move to close. This thread has gone long enough. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. Alot of repetition and nattering on.--A21sauce (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The simple bottom line is that criticism involves both the positive and the negative. It is not unusual to have mixed feelings about an artwork or to have a complicated response to an artwork. I think the reader understandably would be interested in a full range of responses from people they may have familiarity with or about whom they can do further research. This is not a simple matter and the reader does not have to be spoon-fed. Paglia can be a feminist and still take exception to certain aspects of an artwork that in many ways is exemplary of feminist art. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RfC at Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)#RfC:_How_should_Camille_Paglia_be_described_in_the_article.3F. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My User page (RoverTheBendInSussex)

My User-page/biography has been subject to harassment and vandalism via Twitter by a Far-Left individual (SLATUKIP) who opposes the political party I am a member of. Would the admin on Twitter be able to protect my page so only myself or site admin have the capability to alter it. It can be viewed on my User page via the end of this message. I have undone the vandalism concerned. But this individual has already been warned with banning on another website (Facebook) for photoshopping my user picture onto a racist comment and it would appear he is going to continue the same form of treatment on here and elsewhere.RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (GMT)

I find myself in sympathy with this users plight, but not his politics. I will remove the current vandalism. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SLATUKIP should be indef blocked under WP:NOTHERE, and I would suggest a semi-protection on RoverTheBendInSussex. I am copying this section to WP:ANI#Attack only account from WP:BLP/Noticeboard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

e/c My suggestion trumped by Rich Farmborough. thx. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My politics is not in question here. Granted I don't see your point regardless. This indiviual (SLATUKIP) will continue vandalising my page until he is banned. RoverTheBendInSussex (RoverTheBendInSussex) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (GMT)

@RoverTheBendInSussex: Having looked at @SLATUKIP on Twitter, I see no evidence that they are the same person as the editor here; nor that the editor here is the same person as the one you allege to have been warned about Facebook. Nor did I find any evidence that that Twitter account or any other has encouraged vandalism of your user page here. WP:BLP cuts both ways, and you should not make such accusations - including allegations of what would amount to a criminal offence - without evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: With all due respect. You quite obviously haven't looked closely enough. The Twitter user @LiberalIsland sent @SLATUKIP the web address link to my Wikipedia biography as shown here: [20]. I have been under attack by these 2 accounts for well over a year now. I have also been subjected to disability discrimination and their are multiple tweets in which 'SLATUKIP' in particular has signaled his intention to seek out my photography. Would appreciate it if in the future you didn't imply I had committed a criminal act falsely. Thomas Evans RoverTheBendInSussex; 16:46, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Yes, I looked hard enough. I saw those links (and the tweet in your picture), which do not amount to evidence in support of your claim that "My User-page/biography has been subject to harassment and vandalism via Twitter". Furthermore, I did not imply that you had committed a criminal act; I pointed out that you should not imply that others have done so. You are now making further allegations of impropriety, again with no evidence. Desist, or it may be you who is blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist) part 2

More experienced eyes would be appreciated on this page; it was a classic WP:COATRACK created as the result of 12 hours of news-cycle stories based on inflammatory claims by a partisan writer, which have now been directly and publicly refuted by the article subject. We should try to avoid sensationalism, avoid writing "biographies" based on 12 hours' worth of news stories, and avoid leaping to conclusions. I think we can do better by our readers and our article subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It would also be great if experienced editors could weigh in on whether the "see also" section on Rachel Dolezal should include a link to King's article. Everymorning (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice this section, and started another discussion below regarding comparison to Dolezal, I'd move up here, but it's already been commented on. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shaun_King_.28activist.29_and_Rachel_Dolezal --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File deletion: Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg

After a related policy discussion on republication of photos originally published without copyright, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122#Republication of photos I have been directed to post the privacy aspect of the issue here.

Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Richard Ben Cramer wrote “It was Donna's camera, and Donna's picture-never intended for public...well public anything! She never did let the negative out of her possession. It was always her picture, her property-which is partly what would gall her so when it made its very public debut on the front page of the National Enquirer. (The Enquirer had the nerve to claim copyright on the photo.)” (“What It Takes” (1992), pg. 437) The photo was published in 1987 by the Enquirer along with the story that Hart had asked Rice to marry him. The photo was published in support of that story as a kind of innuendo by photo that some hanky-panky had occurred between the two that both have always denied, i.e., that Hart was a womanizer, and Rice a bimbo/homewrecker. Because of that photo how many people now know that Rice first met Hart at rocker Don Henley's house with his wife present (“What It Takes”, pg. 439)? How many people know that Rice was talking to Hart about fundraising, (Alan Richman, Donna Rice: 'The Woman in Question, People Magazine (Vol. 27, No. 20, May 18, 1987), “What It Takes”, pg. 460) and that "Rock musicians represent a rich vein of financial support since, under the law, they could perform at benefit concerts for the candidates, and each ticket was treated as an individual contribution. Thus the candidate could report 20,000 contributions of $10 apiece rather than an illegal one of $200,000. And each ticket could qualify for Federal matching funds." http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/us/courting-danger-the-fall-of-gary-hart.html?pagewanted=all That photo created a very different public image of their official relationship. It was never intended for publication. Therefore BLP presumption of privacy should apply to deleting the photo as well as the policy to avoid prolonging the victimization. Its publication created victims. Its continued republication therefore must be presumed to continue victimization. Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion#File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Miami Herald [21] - it is an AP file photo - and copyright belongs with the photographer, not the person being photographed. Collect (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the Miami Herald, the photo was not taken by an AP photographer, but someone was trying to sell the photo: http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html The photographer doesn't always own the copyright, not when someone else bought the camera, film, and paid for the processing. The fact that Rice has the negatives, proves she has the copyright. See related discussion on the policy page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the Washington Post, copyright was claimed by the National Enquirer/Getty Images:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/22/how-gary-harts-downfall-didnt-really-change-american-politics-all-that-much/ The Miami Herald has a long history of contested reporting regarding stories about Gary Hart.

(answered on the deletion discussion page - suffice it to say the claims above are not supported by reliable sources (the Cramer book basically says Rice says she "lent" the photos to a friend) and the idea of Getty Images, which acts as a holding company and agent for copyright images, as well as being a stock photo house, colluding with anyone is unsupported by reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Response on the image deletion discussion page. The issue of privacy and BLP is separate from copyright infringement. However, it was predictable that someone who dislikes Hart's politics (or perhaps Rice's work against internet pornography) would want to believe that embarrassing private photos should be published regardless of copyright or BLP, or the clear language of a RS like Cramer. Therefore, the matter was first addressed on the policy board in hopes that a clearer policy on the matter would be written. Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that I have zero motives with regard to Rice or Hart or Armandt - and found the only issue was that of copyright ownership - and the assertion that Rice has been proven to hold copyright was a bit of an exaggeration. Collect (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, we are on notice of competing claims to the copyright. Rice holding the negatives is her proof to the copyright, but there are also issues of privacy here. Further response is on the image deletion discussion page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist) and Rachel Dolezal

Is it a BLP violation to mention in the Shaun King (activist) BLP that a comparison has been drawn between King and Rachel Dolezal, or alternately to include Rachel Dolezal as a "See also" link? Sources provided on talk page for comparison to Dolezal are as follows: [22], [23],[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29],[30], [31],[32], [33],[34]. Additional arguments and commentary can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaun_King_%28activist%29#Rachel_Dolezal --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a well sourced comparison and frames the issues for many of the reliable sources opining on the issue, so I'd say it's fine, as long as it doesn't outgrow its importance to the sources citing it. It's with no small amount of interest that I note much of the objection on the article talk page I see is framed around their ideological displeasure with the context of the incident, with frequent sneers at "right-wingers" and "doxing" along with pejorative and dubious usage of "bloggers". Much of this is coming from the usual cast of editors who seem to run toward these sorts of politically charged media frenzies. GraniteSand (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Spot on, and thanks for giving a sensible opinion. I was starting to question myself in light of such strong and adamant objection in conjunction with the labels of "White Supremacists" and "racists" being thrown around. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The talk page was becoming so heated, it was getting hard to follow the arguments, and to really understand the objections. For example, are Jet magazine [35] and Black Entertainment Television (BET) [36] being argued to be "racist", "White Supremacists", or "right-winger" sources? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yea, because if I post a link to a Black magazine, that means the accusations aren't racist and the person who doxxed him isn't racist. Right. BTW, have you met my Black friends? Un-fucking-believable. Let's just cut to the chase. The accusations were made by a group of stalking racists, and it was picked up by Brietbart. The accusations were false, and King has explained. Yet he is still bombarded by right-wing accusations. There has been ZERO unbiased reliable sources that have stated that King is White and has lied about who he is. Just because some have reported on the accusations, doesn't make those accusations true. The police officer who marked "White" on the police report stated:

...he’s biracial...I marked him white because he’s very light complected. He was there with his white mother. My crime report there’s only two things you can check: black or white. It doesn’t say biracial…anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed

- So a conspiracy theory from a racist was plotted, Brietbart picked it up. Wikipedia should NOT be used to further a racist plot against a living person. Add that to FRINGE, Undue Weight and NPOV, and Wikipedia editors should hold back and see what unbiased reliable sources say, if anything, in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial, cursing at those who disagree with you regarding the reliable source coverage of the comparison and suggesting they're racists is not cool. No one is saying the allegations are true. The article currently reports that Brietbart published his birth certificate, which lists white parents, and that King has said the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father. It appears undeniable that multiple reliable sources (and specifically numerous non-biased reliable sources) have compared this to Rachel Dolezal (please note that comparing the two cases is not saying the two cases are identical). It seems, if we were to follow WP:DUE, the comparison would be briefly and neutrally mentioned in the article with text addressing that there's disagreement with the comparison. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP his "ethnicity" is something which is basically one where "self-identification" properly applies for Wikipedia to make any assertions of it as fact. The issue is not one of "actual ethnicity" then, but one of opinions from reliable sources hopefully based on fact - i.e. documents in this case. Thus opinions properly sources and ascribed as such may be used provided that they make no allegations or implications of crime. I would note that DNA seems to indicate a very large proportion of people are even of "mixed species" (as Neanderthal and at least five other direct ancestors of many people were once so described), so absolutely are of "mixed race." I seriously doubt this rises to any level of "racist plot" unless one asserts that people relying on public documents can somehow use them as part of a cabal. So - we can not ascribe "white" as his ethnicity or race, as the person self-describes as "mixed ethnicity." The assertion that his birth certificate states both parents as "white" is fact, reliably sourced, though that does not deny that one or both might actually have "mixed ethnicity" in fact. It is, moreover, opinion that he misstates his ethnicity, and such opinion must be cited and ascribed as such. I think this covers the matter sufficiently. Collect (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source for issues relating to living people, as per longstanding consensus here and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I have thus removed the link. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, your revert of the "see also" link for Rachel Dolezal, which was recently added by Callinus, [37] was not referenced by Breitbart. It was referenced by The Australian. Additionally, the 13 sources for this comparison listed above do not include Brietbart. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If such a link belongs anywhere, it certainly doesn't belong in a context-free "See also" section. Whether it belongs anywhere in the article is properly a subject for editorial consensus on the article talk page, and I sure as hell don't see any consensus for its inclusion there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice you have objected to it as undue weight, which does not seem supported by the sources provided, and BLP concerns have been raised, hence this discussion. Honestly, the battleground style of comments here and on talk:Shaun King (activist), along with aggressive editing, seem like the sort of thing that will only make tensions on article worse. Also, I think it would help if rationale and objections were presented accurately and neutrally.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't care either way. If people don't want the wikilink it can be left off the page. -- Callinus (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming the "Breitbart" comment was referencing this edit I made, which I foolishly thought would be non-controversial. For what it's worth, in this context, the ref is fine as the WP:SELFPUB primary source it was but I'm not going to war over it. NBSB's subsequent edits make the direction this article is going clear and I no longer have the patience these days for the sort of feigned impartially, propagandizing, and manufactured outrage which saturates these sorts of things. There doesn't seem to be any outside objection on the BLPN board to the Dolezal contextualization as a BLP issue and the remaining issues are either NPOV or general content disputes. The present issues have far surpassed the simple Dolezal BLP contention so I'd recommend a general reassessment of the entire section by an outside party. GraniteSand (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kellie Maloney

There is a content dispute at Kellie Maloney. Please discuss at Talk:Kellie Maloney#Do we refer to a trans woman by her male birth name in Wikipedia?? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cristiane Justino

I don't think she's dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8E2:5B00:80A2:70AE:3830:911E (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

All taken care of. Mike V • Talk 23:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

John Paulson

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

Appears to be the subject of edit warring over accusations that may or may not violate WP:BLP. More eyes would be helpful. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Penelope Probert Boorman

Can someone else take a look at this obscure article, Penelope Probert Boorman? I found it by accident while I was sorting through Category:American swimmers. The article posits that the subject won three medals at the "1959 Pan American Games in Chicago." I thought that odd; I frequently work with U.S. Olympic swimmer bios, and the name (Penelope Probert, Penny Probert, Penelope Boorman, Penny Boorman, etc.) was completely unknown to me. So I checked the Swimming at the 1959 Pan American Games and Swimming at the Pan American Games articles, and there is no one of any similar name listed as a medalist. I also checked the International Swimming Hall of Fame's international medalist list, and several other Pan Am Games-related websites and books, and no luck there, either. I can find sources that substantiate that a woman of this name served on several boards of trustees, etc., but nothing about Pan Am Games medals -- which is the basis of the subject's primary claim to notability. At a minimum, it seems to be an inflated CV, at worst a case of outright fraud. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And adding to the "mystery," almost all of the linked footnotes are dead in this article that was only created a year and a half ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Pan-Am games claims appear to fail verification - I've looked everywhere that I can find and the sources suggest that people with totally different names won those medals. In the article, those claims are cited to this newsletter of the morristown-beard school, which is clearly not a RS (the article is based on an interview with her anyway). She has placed in the top ten at some national-level masters swim competitions, but I don't think that makes her notable (does it?). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I AFD'd it, feel free to weigh in here. The only thing in the article that would give her notability (Pan Am medals) is demonstrably false, I looked up news coverage from 1959 which clearly list other people's names for all of the medals that this article claims she won. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyddlestix. Your due diligence on this confirms my reaction. There is no specific notability guideline for swimmers, but several pre-1990 Pan Am Games medals is usually a pretty strong sign they would probably survive a critical GNG analysis (more recently, the Pan Am Games have been largely eclipsed by the now-annual FINA world championships -- alternating short and long course -- and Pan Am swimmers get less ink in the U.S. than they once did). Without any significant coverage of the purported Pan Am medals, there does not appear to much in the way of any significant coverage in independent sources. USMS age-group swimmers, even record-holders, get very little mainstream coverage. I will, of course, be !voting to delete in the AfD you nominated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the other articles created by this user probably deserve some scrutiny, too. I've already reviewed a couple others, and they seem to be long on hard-copy references and non-working online sources, with some other suspect honors and awards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, 266 articles created. Looks like they have an interest in the Morristown-Beard School. At first glance, I hold out hope that the false info stems from the article subject making false claims about themselves in a school newsletter - but even then, we have a problem if someone's taking a source like that at face value and creating articles for all the marginally-notable alumni of a specific school. This definitely needs looking into. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it's a problem. See Ingersoll Arnold and Nancy Tasman Brower, for example. It's a good bet a lot of the people this person has created articles on aren't notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Omar Abdel-Rahman

Information on the US part of the life of Omar Abdel-Rahman is misleading and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.129.235 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Grant Shapps and "Alleged pyramid scheme"

[38] contains a strong implication that a living person operated a "pyramid scheme" using [39] as the source for stating in Wikipedia's voice: "Alleged pyramid scheme". The reference given from The Independent, alas, does not remotely support use of that phrase which has quite specific connotations of fraud and illegality. It speaks of a "get rich quick scheme" but to use the specific legal term "pyramid scheme" without strong sourcing is, IMO, contrary to WP:BLPCRIME. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Although that source does not reflect well on Shapps' business career before entering politics, the source does not use the phrase "pyramid scheme" and calling it that based only on this source is original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone had deleted the actual Guardian source. I've restored it. There was a clue: the text said "Guardian", but the reference was the Independent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Independent also ran a story using the phrase "pyramid scheme": [40]. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The person who made the edit is clear - so he can not blame others. But The Guardian carefully states "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme" as they know allegations of criminal activity are problematic - so they specifically do not make any allegation of a criminal act. UK newspapers are careful in making such claims - and Wikipedia ought to follow that example. Neither source makes an "allegation" and we can not state that an allegation was made. Per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This player has not been sold to Liverpool FC

Bernard_(footballer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.130.112 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the content since it was unsourced and I can't find anything to back this up either. He's obviously a well known footballer, so there'd be something out there if this had happened yesterday. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Braun Stowman

Someone really messed this Braun Stowman guys page up, and put a terrible joke in it about a former professional wrestler who died... The whole page is jacked up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.129.116 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) \

@216.148.129.116: I think you might need to clarify what the issue with the page is - I can't see anything wrong with it right now, though I'm no wrestling expert. Can you expand/clarify? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Madison data breach

People at Ashley Madison data breach, are constantly readding someone to the list of people revealed in the leak. Their only source is Breitbart which is clearly inappropriate. Could use some more eyes and perhaps semi-protection.Brustopher (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Watched. I've also requested semi-protection. - Mr X 01:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hunter Biden

We could use some help at Hunter Biden for the same reason. - Mr X 15:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page to avoid WP:BLP violations. WJBscribe (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you WJBscribe. - Mr X 15:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook

Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture links presented on the talk page, to the article page?

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to get in touch with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yak Bondy

I am the subject of above Wikipedia entry.

I recently employed a professional editor via PeoplePerHour to update this stub entry with more current information, providing him with a multitude of references and links, which he used to write a new article from scratch. Even though he provided me with a copy for factual checks (which I approved) he then disappeared, leaving me in limbo. After numerous weeks of silence I then (foolishly?) decided to take matters into my hands and upload the new version myself.

This article has now been flagged as COI, which I understand. I never considered myself an editor and indeed this upload is my first and only contribution. I have no intention of using the amazing Wikipedia (to which I have donated numerous times) as a platform for self hype. I would however like some advice as to how a very dated entry can be updated without breaking any rules. I also don't know how the warning flags (incl. a supposed lack of citations) can be taken off.

Please help

Ydnob (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike most questions at this noticeboard, this one is straightforward. Provide correct information, with reliable sources, on the article talk page, Talk: Yak Bondy, and ask that it be updated. The article talk page currently contains nothing but templates. Provide up-to-date information with reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Organizations question

Do small organizations fall under BLP rules? I am thinking of a non-profit, a small think tank, that has perhaps 7-10 employees, maybee less. An opinion piece an a magazine describes them leaders in "disinformation". No other RS refs (opinions or reporting) so describes them as such although they are criticised for other things. That sparked my question, but I guess I'd like some insight. Clearly if one or two people are mentioned in an article BLP applies. If it is three, yes probably. If they then become an organization do they lose BLP protection? If this has already been addressed please point me at the old discussion. Thanks Capitalismojo (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to say something definitive about a hypothetical, Capitalismojo, so I encourage you to mention a specific article. Based on my past experience with small groups like this, a group with ten or less employees is usually (but not always) dominated by one or two individuals who set policy and express it to the public. Any claim in Wikipedia's voice that the group engages in "disinformation" would need much better sourcing than a single magazine opinion piece. Of course, if the author of that opinion piece is an expert in the field, then perhaps it may be appropriate to include that opinion, cited as an opinion of that person, as opposed to a fact stated in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, I have to agree with Cullen. If only one source is claiming this then I'd remove it and make a note on the talk page. By the by, which page are you referring to? I figure that we can also take a look at the article and see what's going on and if needs be, back you up on the content removal if warranted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It relates to Christopher Monckton, who is as far as I am aware the only person in history who has ever had to be told by the House of Lords not to misrepresent himself as a member. He is without question a promulgator of disinformation. I doubt he is a leading promulgator any more, most people these days just ignore him. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

First this question is not about your Monckton as he is not a group. The question is about whether organizations are covered under BLP policy and to what extent? Are tiny groups covered, are large, are none? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Second, I note that BLP policy applies in talk pages and your description is a classic violation of BLP policy. I suggest a removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your initial question is: it depends. Like others, I'd like to know a little more about the specific page/source in question in order to have an informed view on how BLP applies. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this is about multiple organizations. Namely, the ones named in this article. There's been ongoing conflict and edit warring over whether that article can or should be included in those articles. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Still, it would be helpful to have more context to answer Capitalismojo's question. Looking at that list, BLP clearly applies to, say, Monckton, but clearly doesn't apply to ExxonMobil. I'm assuming the case he has in mind is somewhere in between. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute looks to be where the party's at on this one, but I agree, Capitalism should just out with it and say what org they're thinking of. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, as a general rule posters here don't do themselves any favors by being cagey about the circumstance that they're referring to. It tends to set people's BS detectors twitching. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the only part of Guy's statement that could not be *quickly* sourced would be 'swivel-eyed loon'. The rest is documented. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Josh Duggar

Resolved - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor is claiming a BLP violation for including the widely reported fact that Duggar checked himself into rehab, with edit summaries such as Do not reinsert a tabloid story into this BLP, Do not inject tabloidish sources into a BLP, and Adding a tabloidish story to support your position on using the word "rehab" is disruptive. Although we know it's rehab, the family did NOT say that on the basis that the Duggar family did not use the word "rehab", using instead "long-term treatment center".

Here are some sources, most of which use "rehab" to describe it: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ "Josh Duggar enters rehab, family says". CNN. Retrieved 27 August 2015. Josh Duggar, the eldest of the Duggar children, is going into rehab, the family said in a statement Wednesday. "Yesterday Josh checked himself into a long-term treatment center," the family said in a posting on duggarfamily.com. "For him it will be a long journey toward wholeness and recovery. We pray that in this he comes to complete repentance and sincere change.
^ Maria Puente (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar checks into rehab, family says". USA today. Retrieved August 26, 2015.
^ "JOSH DUGGAR ENTERS REHAB — UPDATED". InTouch Weekly. August 26, 2015. Retrieved August 26, 2015.
^ Maria Puente, USA TODAY (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar checks into rehab, family says". USA TODAY.
^ Sarah Larimer (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar enters 'long-term treatment center' following 'wrong choices'". Washington Post.
^ Todd Leopold, CNN (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar enters rehab, family says". CNN. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
^ "Josh Duggar in rehab after admitting to pornography habit". The Denver Post. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
^ Chasmar, Jessica. "Josh Duggar enters 'long-term treatment center,' family says". Washington Times. Josh Duggar has checked into rehab, just days after he publicly confessed to cheating on his wife Anna and having an addiction to pornography.

Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post is hardly a tabloid, this seems to have pretty broad coverage. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The content and sourcing looks OK to me, too. It could be that the unmentioned editor is referring to Tabloid journalism rather than Tabloid (newspaper format), but I don't think either is applicable for almost all of those sources. I think the WP:OVERCITEing makes the statement appear more questionable, so I suggest using only the WoPo cite or one other at the most. - Location (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that over citing is not needed. The list above was placed to show the wide coverage of the subject as "rehab". - Cwobeel (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel and especially Winkelvi know perfectly well that there is one tabloidish source being referred to: this one. That's why it was removed immediately after Winkelvi added it, yet he inexplicably reinserted it. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In Touch is exactly why I said "almost". WoPo refers to it as a tabloid report.[41]

This is the edit where Winkelvi inserted the tabloidish story by In Touch Weekly into the BLP. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there something that source says that the others don't? Just scratch the source that's been challenged and leave the rest, it doesn't change the actual content of the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'm OK with citing In Touch, if needed, for their initial report that has been cited by others, but its best to avoid it. - Location (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added the word "rehab" since the previous existing sources are using the word, but any tabloidish stories like the In Touch one should not be used. High quality sources only for BLPs, when they are available. The three current sources are solid (The Washington Post, CNN, and USA Today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lootbrewed (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Involved, but commenting anyway As Fyddlestix noted, broad coverage. Numerous reliable sources have said Duggar is in rehab while noting (as the article does) the family is referring to it as a "treatment center". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tony Leachon

Tony Leachon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent attempts by multiple IPs to turn this into a puff resume, with at least some copyright violations. I've requested a block of the most recent IP, and page protection. Pending assistance from those noticeboards, it seems like a good idea to request more eyes here, as well. I don't wish to keep playing whack-a-mole, and the latest version is a return to the copyvio/pressrelease status. 2601:188:0:ABE6:91EC:4CDC:7CD6:827C (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement.

I suggest that this highly relevant fact also be included in my bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case within the lead as follows:

Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.

"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon

I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:

Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon#cite_note-scientologysponsored-23

Excluding the historical Scientology connection in the Jason Scott litigation leaves out a very important historical fact and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page. This noticeboard is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Please see the notice in the blue box at the top of the page. - Mr X 12:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

IP account 96.235.133.43, who is undoubtedly the living subject of the biography attempting to improve/correct their page here posted this to the chat page of his article ten days ago, there has been no responses to his content question there and so this place is the next location to raise his request. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any policy objections to this edit request? Govindaharihari (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied to the request at the article talk page [42]. Additional comments there welcome. Jbh ^Talk 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[1] "Josh Duggar enters rehab, family says". CNN. Retrieved 27 August 2015. Josh Duggar, the eldest of the Duggar children, is going into rehab, the family said in a statement Wednesday. "Yesterday Josh checked himself into a long-term treatment center," the family said in a posting on duggarfamily.com. "For him it will be a long journey toward wholeness and recovery. We pray that in this he comes to complete repentance and sincere change.

[2] Maria Puente (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar checks into rehab, family says". USA today. Retrieved August 26, 2015.

[3] "JOSH DUGGAR ENTERS REHAB — UPDATED". InTouch Weekly. August 26, 2015. Retrieved August 26, 2015.

[4] Maria Puente, USA TODAY (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar checks into rehab, family says". USA TODAY.

[5] Sarah Larimer (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar enters 'long-term treatment center' following 'wrong choices'". Washington Post.

[6] Todd Leopold, CNN (August 26, 2015). "Josh Duggar enters rehab, family says". CNN. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[7] "Josh Duggar in rehab after admitting to pornography habit". The Denver Post. Retrieved 27 August 2015.

[8] Chasmar, Jessica. "Josh Duggar enters 'long-term treatment center,' family says". Washington Times. Josh Duggar has checked into rehab, just days after he publicly confessed to cheating on his wife Anna and having an addiction to pornography.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]