Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive229

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

Gillian Anderson

Gillian Anderson stated in a recent interview that she was open to being in a(nother) same-sex relationship and that "To me a relationship is about loving another human being; their gender is irrelevant." On this basis, it seems fair to apply LGBT categories; per EGRS, a BLP subject's own statement on the matter of their sexuality is the grounds for categorizing them in such a way. TonyIsTheWoman (talk · contribs) opposes because Anderson identified as heterosexual in the past.

It's clear that EGRS isn't about forcing BLP subjects to identify with a specific sexuality term. The idea is to prevent categorizing anyone based on tabloid speculation about whom they've been seen with, not to prevent categorizing people like Anderson, Maria Bello, Jodie Foster, or Raven-Symoné as LGBT when they've clearly and publicly stated that they're open to and/or currently in same-sex relationships, simply because they opted not to use the word "gay" or "bisexual."

I do not believe that TonyIsTheWoman's insistence that Anderson's older statement about her orientation trumps her more recent one (because she used a term for the older one and a description of her preferences for the more recent one? because once you say you're straight you can never take it back?) is consistent with policy. What do other people think?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, While my inclination is that the statement that the subject is "open to being in a same-sex relationship" is not sufficient for the categorisation, it would be best to review the exact statement & sourcing. Do you have a link to the interview? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Here. 'Would she ever consider another same-sex relationship? "I wouldn’t discount it," she says. "I did it before and I'm not closed to that idea. To me a relationship is about loving another human being; their gender is irrevelant."' –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: you wanted to know the quote? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If Anderson had said that she was only "open to a same-sex relationship" I'd agree that the LGBT categories would probably not be appropriate, but here she says "I did it before..." (far more information about that relationship here), in which case the categories are correct. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, actually; one can be hetero-, bi-, or homosexual without ever being in a relationship at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, I did; and having reviewed both the sources, the case is stronger than it initially seemed. I am still not sure, however, that there is sufficient support there - per the responses below by Guy categories are for defining characteristics ... & Aquillion once someone has definitively said ..., I'm not sure that we have enough to make the categorisation here. I am also seeing similarities with this archived section; and, while I do not believe that we should be tied to "precedent", many of the comments of editors there seem apropos. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories are for defining characteristics. This is not a defining characteristic. It does not belong. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've missed the boat on that one. Things like country of descent, city of origin, and political affiliation or activism, as well as sexual orientation, are frequently irrelevant to the subject's notability, but they're an accepted part of the categorization schema despite being non-defining. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We take special care for certain things, including religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and criminal history. In those cases we look for defining characteristics. We do this because there are people who are prejudiced against gays, Jews, ex-cons, etc. and getting it wrong could cause harm to the individual in a way that getting the birthplace or eye color wrong would not. In my opinion, you need more than this to categorize Anderson as LGBT. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, do you seriously believe that is the reason that we're careful with this categorization? Because someone might attack Anderson if they found her categorized as LGBT on Wikipedia, in a way that they wouldn't if they just knew about her past relationships with women, her feminist views, etc.? Is this actually what you're saying here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it simply means that Wikipedia needs to take special care with applying controversy-provoking categories to people. Best to leave them out if the issue is at all ambiguous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the case here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There actually are people who say that they have sex with members of their own sex, yet define themselves as straight. Obviously that sort of situation is complicated, but the problem is that we can't go into the complexity of it in a category; based on that, and based on the fact that she previously said she was straight, I'd wait until an unambiguous declaration rather than just using one line from an interview. (I'm also recalling that in the past, when things like this came up here, the interview's subject often said soon afterwards that they were misquoted, speaking in response to a hypothetical, and so on.) In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see a clarification from her in the future, so there probably isn't much harm in waiting for that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, do you have a suggested time-frame for that? ie. for the length of time after which we take the subject's most recent statement about her own sexual orientation as usable? Again, I don't find anything particularly unambiguous about "yup, I'd date women, gender isn't an important consideration for me," but if your concern is time, can you offer a suggestion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel timeframe matters at all. Once someone has definitively said that they are straight, the only thing that could ever make it acceptable to categorize them as gay is an explicit statement of such. Sexuality is complicated, and some people define themselves as straight even when most observers obviously wouldn't. There are absolutely no circumstances under which I would find an interview question where someone talked about having same-sex relationships to be sufficient to overcome a previous unambiguous statement that they are straight, regardless of the timeframes involved. It's just too complicated and heavy an issue today to do it any other way. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding her first comment, that she is open to same-sex relationships, this may not be enough to include LGBT categories. However, regarding her comment that "I did it before and I'm not closed to that idea. To me a relationship is about loving another human being; their gender is irrevelant", I think this means the LGBT categories are perfectly appropriate. Having a same-sex relationship and being heterosexual is simply not possible. Someone who has both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships is not heterosexual, as someone who is heterosexual is exclusively attracted to those of an opposite sex. Instead, such a person could be bisexual or pansexual. I don't agree that LGBT categories should be "controversy-provoking" and I am horrified by the remarks from User:Guy Macon, who has suggested that we should not apply LGBT categories in some cases in case we outrage bigots. What, in case bigots unfriend the subject on Facebook? It is also completely wrong to say these categories are only applied in "defining" cases. Sexuality does not "define" anyone. How many of those categorised as LGBT on Wikipedia are "defined" by their sexuality? Is Tom Daley "defined" by his relationships with both males and females rather than his diving talent? Is Cat Smith defined by her bisexuality rather than her status as MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood? Is Seb Dance define by his sexuality rather than his status as Member of the European Parliament for London? In that case, if sexuality "defines" people, why don't all LGBT+ people have their own Wikipedia pages? AusLondonder (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, there are people who have same-sex relationships, yet still consider themselves straight. See here, too. It is in fact increasingly common for women who identify as straight to say that they've had gay relationships before and to say that they don't find such relationships unthinkable in the future. As the last link says, many women who identify as straight even report having fantasies of lesbian relationships! That is a complicated and sensitive topic, but "they're just deluding themselves, they're definitely bisexual" doesn't strike me as a helpful answer, and it's definitely not one supported by our policy -- our policy is to always respect self-identification even under those circumstances. If we had absolutely no reason to think they identified as straight, I could perhaps see using a statement like this to fill in the blank; but in the face of a previous explicit statement that they're straight, the only thing that can support adding the category is an explicit statement that they are bisexual (or gay, or not straight, or whatever). --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless the subject of a BLP explicitly states it, we dont usually label them LGBT (or any other contentious label) We certainly dont do it based on a bendy interpretation of a single interview answer. Like the Jew-tagging, this is just another example of editors trying to push a personal agenda. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a single interview answer, though (I'd agree with you if it was); there are entire articles in reliable sources devoted to Anderson's previous relationships (example). The question I'd ask is "would Anderson herself object to the category"? I'd almost certainly suggest, given the multiple interviews she's done in various places, that she wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That isnt the standard that is applied on-wiki though (I am not saying it is not the sensible approach). Unfortunately due to previous endless arguments (see the archives) the consensus has always ended up 'Have they self-identified?' which is ultimately a yes or no. If there is ambiguity due to the potential for harm/upset, the erring is on the side of caution. 'Would X object?' is inherantly unsafe as it relies on your judgement as to what someone else may think - thats too many variables for error to be a safe place to start for a contentious label. See previous discussions RE Jodie Foster for the silliness taken to its logical conclusion however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the Jodie Foster one. The only tricky bit here regarding self-identification is the timeline. Anderson has had LGBT relationships in the past (and is happy to talk about them). She mentions in the most recent interview that she wouldn't rule out further such relationships in the future. So I've no doubt that someone will come up with "but how does she self-identify now? I would say that the evidence - mostly provided by Anderson - does not preclude the categories being used on this BLP. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but I dont think your reasoning is faulty. I would however point out that Aquillion above has addressed that in his objection - some people state they are straight and engage in (historically and currently) same-sex relationships. Interestingly I took a look at the Raven-symone BLP and the sources on her sexuality state explicitly she rejects labels and doesnt want to be catagorised. And yet we still label her LGBT against her wishes. Much like other racial/ethnicity tagging, I have generally come to feel that the sexuality area is much the same - editors who want a BLP subject tagged with their label of choice will end up finding a way to justify it regardless of the encyclopedic value. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We also categorize Raven-Symoné as African-American, another label she rejects, because Wikipedia categories and personal identity labels have different functions. Pace Black Kite, I don't think having had same-sex relationships in the past, however open about them she is, would alone justify the use of the categories - she might well say "yup, tried it, it's not for me." (Certainly the reverse happens!) But she's stated clearly and publicly that she would be open to having more such relationships and does not consider gender a factor in deciding whom to enter a relationship with. I can't see how you can spin that as "straight, but has lesbian fantasies". Again, the point of the self-ID requirement isn't to make subjects use specific language, it's to prevent third-party speculation (the difference is "Raven-Symoné spotted on weekend getaway with gal pal - or are they more???" vs. "Hi there! I, Raven-Symoné, am really happy about the SCOTUS ruling because it means I and my female partner can get married"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We categorize her as 'African-American' because wikipedia is obsessed with labelling everyone (including race/ethnicity) and people dont want to say 'Black', so we end up with a category that is factually unsourced as to her family history ("My family has been here for almost 400 years. We’re American." - as an aside, if that makes her African American, I am Polish-Irish-Norwegian-British. Any attempt to describe me as that however would be met with the ridicule it deserves). You might think this is acceptable however I think it shows a lack of consideration, moral and ethical respect for others. If you want to label someone a black lesbian why not shove it in the lead sentence like you clearly want to. Otherwise this stealth labelling by category is just another way of pointing out how someone is 'different'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories are for navigation. Apart from that: is "difference" a problem in your view? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Only in death, that's uncivil, and, as I've already pointed out, we do categorize people (including white people) by their country of descent upon, frankly, a much slimmer basis than we have here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Alas - we have a non-negotiable rule that "self-identification" is a requirement for certain categories about living persons - and like all good Wikipedians we well ought to obey that stricture. We obsessively label far too many people for abysmal reasoning, and we should clamp down on it rather than mealy-mouth "it is only done for purposes of navigation and not in any way to 'label' anyone" or the like. Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum

In the article, Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum is said to have died of a heart attack today (Sep 19, 2015). This is a huge mistake as it is his brother, His Highness Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, who passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.140.12 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been corrected in the meantime. Thank you for pointing out this problem. GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

David Howard (photographer artist)

David Howard (photographer artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be a vanity biography by the person it describes. Most, if not all, of the working Sources are from this person's own self-promoting website. The other sources have blind links. Who wrote this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.246.87 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a vanity biography by the person it describes. Most, if not all, of the working Sources are from this person's own self-promoting website. The other sources have blind links. Who wrote this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.246.87 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Kaldari and List of Wikipedia controversies

List of Wikipedia controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have removed the bullet point about Kaldari from the above article, because he is a non notable living person and there's only one source covering the issue.[1] Before that I removed the term "harass" from the bullet point because harassment is a form of criminal activity.[2] Are these correct interperations of BLP policy? Brustopher (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a single Daily Dot article makes for a notable Wikipedia controversy. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. A single report does not a controversy make (unless it were the New York Times, say, in which case however it would almost certainly be picked up elsewhere). Andreas JN 466 17:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Brustopher's removal is based on a false premise: There isn't only one source covering the issue as he says, there's two sources:

Wikipedia staffer at center of latest sockpuppet scandal - from The Daily Dot
"Foundation employee caught sockpuppeting and loses admin rights" - from examiner dot com (note that I tried to link it to the website on the article, but it's on Wikipedia's "blacklist" for some reason).

These links show that more than one source has covered the issue, so I'd say the controversy is notable. Note that the Daily Dot source uses the word "harass", but Brustopher kept changing it to "attack", because you say it's a form of criminal activity. The context it was used in clearly does not allege any criminal activity on Kaldari's part, so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. Now, the bullet point definitely should not be removed in its entirety, as this event was covered by more than one source. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid an Examiner.com blog by Gregory Kohs does not meet RS criteria, especially when involving a living person. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to say that anything that could even remotely pose a BLP issue should be sourced by more than 2 sources - if anything, I'd say that there should be at least 5-10 in-depth, strong reliable sources covering the event. A look on the Internet doesn't really bring up much, to be honest. The reason for this is that sadly, there are a lot of controversies surrounding Wikipedia. I'd say that for every one that made it on the list, there are about 5-10 that flew pretty solidly under the radar and received little to no reporting. Just like with any other similar type of page on here, we should only include the ones that are heavily covered in the media. If you can find this coverage then it can be added, but until then it needs to remain off the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

Hello, there is a low-level edit war taking place for a "moderately successful" local politician, Jack Evans . One editor Bangabandhu has repeatedly reverted contentious information over the consensus of multiple other editors. Myself and another editor agree that the insertion of salary information (while available in several sources, though of various reliability and with conflicting amounts) is an attempt at critical innuendo or snark, rather than relevant to the encyclopedic information on a living person. There is extensive conversation of the talk page (talk) under the Salary and NPOV headers. I am asking for an administrator or new administrator to review.Anonymouse202 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jack Evans has been accused of editing Wikipedia himself and there have been some media accounts about this. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Evans's article was turned into a hatchet job before the last election. He didn't notice it until after, and made some very angry edits. He's been fucked over by Wikipedia so I'd appreciate it if non-partisan editors could get involved there and extend him a reasonable amount of patience and understanding if he's back. Handled poorly, this has the potential to blow back on Wikipedia quite seriously. NPOV and DUE people. 03:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Scanning the article and talk page histories I see no evidence of Evans editing recently (he has an account), just some long-term editors and a long-term single-purpose anti-Evans warrior. But new, impartial eyes with a good grounding in WP:BLP would be helpful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarity - there are some edits around Sept. 6 that appear to be Evans (he often forgets to log in, or maybe forgets his password, I dunno), but those don't relate to the salary issue, which discussion was (in this go round) sparked by an IP comment on the Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

question about my edit

I am wondering whether the edit I just made is good call. I'd like to hear the perspective of more experienced editors. I removed a sourced statement about an accusation against the article subject. It just did not seem to belong, and it seems to victimize the subject in some ways. The source is bad but the claim is somewhat borne out by sources like this one. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well... I can see removing the bits about the allegations if they didn't go to court and there wasn't much sourcing, but your new edit was fairly promotional in tone. "His etchings capture and reflect the natural beauty of his Northern Ontario home." is pretty unambiguously promotional and will need to be re-written. It kind of reads like it was taken directly from a press release. I also somewhat have to question his notability given the small amount of sourcing I'm finding for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like you didn't write that bit. It's still fairly promotional, though. I'm not finding anything, so I'm going to just take it to AfD. I can't see any coverage of any of his art showings, despite claims in the article that he did this. The links at the bottom are all dead and the one site that has a member lookup doesn't have him listed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 in art

It seems the person accused of raping Emma Sulkowicz is named in the article 2015 in art. Given that the consensus appears to be not to name him in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), I suspect that his name should be removed from that page too, but I want to know what others think. Everymorning (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the name. It is relevant to Sulkowicz's article but It doesn't seem at all relevant to a timeline article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but according to this RfC there is consensus for inclusion of his name in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) provided that his full defence is also discussed. Was there another RfC that I don't know about? (By the way, I'm not advocating including his name in 2015 in art). - Mr X 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No rationale given for naming the person in the "Year" overview article exists. Collect (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the accused is not named in the Mattress Performance article, and besides that, Sammy1339 said on the article's talk page last month that "One of the few things there is general agreement on is the exclusion of the accused's name." [3] Everymorning (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hiroyuki Nishimura

Ex: "<redacted>.[4]

<redacted>."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.219.215 (talk)

Page is now protected, trolls blocked, and bad edits removed from the history. I've also redacted the attacks you quoted. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Simon Danczuk

[4] reverts my removal of

In March 2015 he publically admitted that he watches hardcore pornography. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11502944/I-watch-porn-says-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk.html

The issue is clearly one of undue weight for a trivial comment, at best, IMHO.

The other revert made by the same editor (who seems to not be as new as his account?) is [5] which re-adds:

despite the incident leading to Prime Minister Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" remark having occurred in Rochdale.

Which appears to use Wikipedia's voice for a claim sourced to http://www.research-live.com/news/government/former-researchers-zahawi-and-danczuk-win-seats-in-uk-parliament/4002638.article . At best the opinion that "many thought his campaign would have been irreparably damaged after Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on a visit to Rochdale, was overheard describing a voter as a “bigoted woman”." should be attributed to the site making that claim, and not be made in Wikipedia's voice at all. Again, IMHO. Collect (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the porn watching. As it's undue, and just a bit of trivial gossip, even if true. — Strongjam (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may not be very encyclopedic, and it may be WP:UNDUE, but it's not a BLP violation. The subject has openly admitted that he watches porn and it's been covered in other sources [6][7][8]. There's nothing shameful about watching porn anyway.- Mr X 15:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your The Guardian source states explicitly "as have virtually all men" which if we accept it as "fact" means we could add that statement as well. Thanks for making that request. I suppose we could also add "He also pees standing up usually" per such sources. The question is, however, is the claim of any encyclopedic value in a biography of a living person? Collect (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's really not worth listing in the article at this point in time. If it ends up that it ruins his career or it makes some stupendous impact on his life then we can list it, but otherwise what's the point? Most people have watched and enjoyed some form of pornography at least once in their life, so that's really not an overly surprising revelation about someone who appears to be a healthy human being. MrX is right in that if taken at face value this isn't a BLP violation per se, but we do have to look at the editor's reasons for adding this. If they're adding it because they're hoping it'd embarrass or otherwise harm Brown, then this could turn into something bigger. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No sooner is that issue done than we have Simon Danczuk facing a determined SPA - seeking to add (first case)[9] an absolute copyvio from a newspaper (exact and complete wording - not even a close call) and multiple efforts to add the material all in a single day without any discussion. I am forbidden t edit there now, so ask that others examine this "interesting" sequence of edits. Collect (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted (Think Strongjam is monitoring it too, he has left a warning at the editors TP). Suspect the editor will end up with a 3rr block at some point soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm at 3rr in the space of 30 mins. Determined little SPA... Reported at 3r. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I do have it watch-listed.. I'm added another diff to the 3RN report as well. At least they've removed all the commentary about the numbers, although I still see no value in the content. — Strongjam (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Bonz Malone

I am Bonz Malone and I have had an outdated Wiki page written about me for years. Today, Sept. 19, 2015, I attempted to register and edit my own biography, which I did not ask for, nor ever before posted myself and it was reverted by Swister Twister. I suppose my edit is under review or something like that. I am highly offended and since these biographies are on living people, I find it even more insulting that I am having any problem adding truth to my own story. If my edit cannot or will not be used on Wikipedia, then I want the current one that exists to be removed immediately.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.146.54 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits to Bönz Malone made today by Bonz Malone (talk · contribs) were reverted because they were not backed up by a reliable source. Within the context of this noticeboard, that's the correct action that should have been taken.

The editor who reverted said edits then nominated the article for deletion; AfD discussion has just started and will run about a week. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

To the person who says he is Bonz Malone: make an entry on the talk page for the article, with the items you think are wrong. If you can come up with published sources that is preferable. Editors will eventually look at your request, and if it's matched by published sources, they will likely edit the article for you. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Craig Hill (rugby union)

Dear sir / madam,

I am requesting that a Wikipedia page concerning myself is removed. Craig Hill (rugby union).

Whilst I am happy with my achievements I do not play rugby anymore and would like to lead a private life. Therefore I would like the article to be removed.

On a professional level and another reason I would like the deletion is the fact that I am now have a different career and there have been instances of undesirable editing added to the page.

I have added a delete tag to the page but the page keeps getting restored.

Personal information that has nothing to do with the rugby has also been posted and this is where I draw the line.

I hope you can also be of help in this matter and look forward to your reply.

Kind regards, Craig Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicleaner77 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There were some BLP concerns on the page with respect to family members and current status. That material has been removed.

It is reasonable to expect a level of privacy with respect to after-rugby activities. However, if Hill is notable as an international rugby player, then we should have an article on him—notability does not expire. The notability is an if right now, depending on whether he's been written about in reliable secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick search turns up some media coverage and his old Newport RFC profile page, so there are some sources out there on him. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

I am doing my best to comply and post within guidelines of Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross At this point I remain blocked. I have emailed the appropriate people/committee within Wikipedia, but have received no response. I would like to post at the Talk page of my bio.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This has to go through ArbCom. That said, it is slightly surprising on how long it's taking, but you have a good crew helping you out with things right now on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My account and identity has been verified and I am unblocked at the Talk page.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Justine Skye

This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.89.66.147 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been tagged. Apparent copyvio too. JohnInDC (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Added references. Still poorly written, but clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen

Is having the following content in the lede of this article appropriate?[10]

In 2015 he received media attention when the central argument of his 2002 article "No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization", in which he had claimed that there was no systematic discrimination against Irish people on the US labor market in the 19th century, was contradicted by evidence found by a high school student.

Brustopher (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me weigh in re: "he had claimed that there was no systematic discrimination against Irish people on the US labor market in the 19th century, was contradicted by evidence found by a high school student." I did NOT make any such claim about discrimination. I focused on what I called a myth that there were "omnipresent" NINA window signs. I said there were very few or zero NINA window signs--the signs in store windows, factories, shops were a myth. She claims she found some signs and at HNN I tried to show that each of her sign-cases was mistaken. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from a cursory reading of the excerpt I agree. And yes, being in the lead is a bit much. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It is essential to have in the lead, as it is about the only aspect of his career for which Jensen has received abundant media attention. The lead must summarize the body and a significant part of the body should be about the NINA controversy because that is what most of the literature about Jensen is about. Also other historians have definitely read Jensen's claim as a general claim that there was no significant discrimination of Irish people on the US Labor market - not solely as a question of how many signs there were. Also the actual news coverage would easily support the claim that his research was disproven by the high school student, merely saying that her study contradicted Jensen's argument is in fact generous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jensen has received quite a bit of academic attention including a prize from the American Historical Association. Why should we judge what goes into the lede by media attention? Also keep in mind this is a BLP.Brustopher (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What goes into the lead is determined by what goes into the body of the article and it should have the same degree of weight in the lead as in the body.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The body never says his argument was contradicted by evidence found by a student. Brustopher (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I received national media attention regarding my Wikipedia article in 2012--that seems more relevant to this article. The NINA article has often been cited by dozens of scholars in print but in the current version all that is left out and instead we get non-RS cites to 2015 blogs. I wrote: "Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by." and then summarized OTHER historians who found little evidence. Fried did NOT try to gauge overall job discrimination against the Irish--she had about 70 newspaper items in 22 cities in 100 years--fewer than one case per year. I said that was rare, she said no. By the way: she was NOT a high school student. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. That sentence does not belong in the lede, especially in the rather demeaning way it is written. It is at most an interesting tidbit in the overall biography but it is not central to Mr. Jensen's noteworthiness. This just looks like someone is trying to denigrate a living person. The information is appropriate where it resides in the article and in its neutral expression, but this sentence should certainly not be in the lede. Minor4th 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No - It's a relatively small event compared to the overall accomplishments of the subject. It certainly doesn't rise the level of significance to justify nearly half of the lead.- Mr X 03:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No. A clear case of UNDUE and recentism. He's had a long career, can we actually support the statement that it is "the only aspect of his career for which Jensen has received abundant media attention"? His academic career goes back to the 1960s and much media coverage from previous decades has not made it to digital form yet. Have you searched newspaper indexes and other print sources to find how much media coverage he has received during that time? Gamaliel (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani

Some rogue editors are persistently attempting to inject false information that violates WP:BLP policies into the lede paragraph of this article. The BLP violation is that these additions are libelous in nature as they attempt to infer and ascribe guilt to a living person (Shrien Dewani) who has been legally exonerated of any involvement in the crime.

To provide some context for those unfamiliar with the case; the murder of Anni Dewani occurred in November 2010 during a robbery/car hijacking whilst she was on honeymoon with her husband Shrien Dewani in Cape Town, South Africa. The perpetrators of the crime implicated her husband, claiming that he had ordered her murder. Two of the criminals (Tongo and Qwabe) pled guilty on the basis of this "murder for hire" story and are serving reduced prison sentences in exchange for their testimony. One of the criminals (Mbolombo) was granted full immunity from prosecution contingent on his giving truthful evidence against Mr Dewani. Between the years of 2010 right through to the end of 2014, the crime was reported by reputable media outlets to be a "murder for hire" and this reporting was supported by the fact that the South African courts had accepted the "murder for hire" story when sentencing the three criminals, although the truthfulness of the story had never been tested. In the late 2014 trial of Shrien Dewani, the evidence was finally tested and proved unequivocally that the "murder for hire" story had been fabricated to incriminate the accused and all three key witnesses were found to have perjured themselves repeatedly. The trial was halted without Mr Dewani even being required to mount a defence, the court deciding that there was no credible evidence linking him to the crime. All charges were dismissed and he was exonerated of all involvement. This is all spelled out clearly in simple plain English in the judgement for that trial. ^[1]

The key takeaway is this; information (the "murder for hire" story) that was at one time assumed to be factual has been disproven by new evidence and court findings which means that the earlier information ceases to be regarded as fact. Consequently it should not be reported or implied to be fact in the Wikipedia article.

The problem that we have is that some editors (namely Lane99) are of the opinion that Shrien Dewani "got away with murder" and despite his legal exoneration, are attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool to plant libelous misinformation. Specifically, Lane99 has made 7 attempts in the last month to re-add false misleading wording to the lede, stating as fact that Anni was the victim of a "murder-for-hire operation staged to appear as a random carjacking". Lane99 continues to justify this behaviour by claiming to be adding "neutral reliably sourced fact" whilst failing to acknowledge that the information can no longer be regarded as factual.

This flagrant violation of WP:BLP has been pointed out to Lane99 on numerous occasions on the Article's Talk page and on Lane99's own Talk page. This has been to little effect and Lane99 continues to re-add the false information despite repeated requests not to do so unless and until it is agreed on the Talk page. This tendentious behaviour is provoking other editors and is clearly disruptive.

Given the circumstances I would ask that we have some type of mediation and/or arbitration to once and for all make it clear that it is not ok to use Wikipedia to infer/ascribe guilt to a person who has been legally exonerated and more specifically that the "murder for hire" story not be stated as fact in the lede paragraph.

The "murder for hire" story was indeed a significant part of this case and does warrant mention in the lede, however that mention needs to be qualified by explaining that it was discredited, and should resemble something like the text below (which is how it currently reads):

Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who, while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town, after the taxi in which she was travelling was carjacked. South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that she had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. That theory was later discredited when Dewani was exonerated, the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations. ^[2]

Dewanifacts (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts might not the most neutral/uninvolved voice on the subject of Shrien Dewani. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 10:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Scourge, that is a fair observation on your part. My name may imply that I am close to the matter being discussed but that is not the case. I am entirely independent, I have no links to anyone involved in the case and do not know anyone who has any link to the case. My interest is solely as an observer who took a keen interest in the case and created a blog^[3] with a couple of other similarly minded observers. My input here on Wikipedia does not push any POV. I stick solely to the facts established in courts of law, and the fair representation of those facts. As I have pointed out in other similar discussions regarding my objectivity, even if I were a Dewani family member or someone close to the case I would have every right to have a voice on here and to argue for the fair and accurate representation of the facts pertaining to the case. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dewanifacts on the fact that he/she is more towards the objective side of editing the article. The murder for hire was simply a theory and of course it should be included in the article. But in user Lane99s edits it comes across as Shrien Dewani was per fact the perp and was freed by the court wrongly etc. I am the one who has followed this dispute the most and that is my take on the situation. In my opinion both Dewanifacts and Lane99 needs to take a wikibreak or start to co-operate. To have two users with so different opinions and both being strong headed will only lead to more blocks and protection of the article in question. I hope the result of this discussion will be that Lane99 learns to co-operate with Dewanifacts and actually want to get a resolution. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would re-write the lede along the lines of: "...while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town. Prosecutors pursued several theories of the crime. One theory held that the taxi in which she was travelling was randomly carjacked, while another held that the carjacking was staged as part of murder-for-hire. Two men have been convicted of the murder, and as part of a plea bargain, a third, the taxi's driver, plead guilty to several crimes and implicated Dewani's husband whom South African authorities later sought to extradite.KevinCuddeback (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The grossly excessive amount of material about the husband has to be reduced considering he was not found guilty at all. In addition, the amount of material framed in a non-neutral manner about this living person has to be excised. Also I did remove some "words to avoid" and material not clearly directly relevant to the stated ambit of the article - WP:BLP has not yet been repealed. Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And your edits have been unceremoniously reverted by User:Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors.--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect User:Ukexpat - Unceremoniously? Maybe... I do not advocate for keeping this information in, in fact I think that WP:BLP should probably preclude this information (and I would certainly vote than way, given an RfC). But I know there is certainly not consensus here for this removal and I'd prefer us to gain that consensus first. We're not in a hurry, let's remove this material, but lets do it in the right way... Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a murder. Extensive coverage of an innocent person in such an article is improper alas. And as such, I ask you to self-revert and recognize that it requires an affirmative consensus for such material about a living person to be re-inserted. Collect (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect - actions to remove violations of BLP do not need consensus, consensus is required to include such material.--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Ahahah, thanks guys! I'm relatively inexperienced and upon rereading the relevant sections of WP:BLP, I completely agree! Also, for some reason I thought that this was on the Talk page of the article not this noticeboard, guess I still have a LOT to learn! Thanks for your patience with my inexperience and your non-confrontational and calm demeanor throughout! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo all. A couple of comments. Firstly might I suggest that someone move the last few edits (including this one) to the Talk page where they were intended to be placed? I'm loathe to do it in case it gets me into trouble again! Secondly, I largely concur with the views expressed above; there is a very non neutral vibe to much of what is written in the Article, leaning toward painting Shrien Dewani as a villain who was lucky to be acquitted. I do however balance that by acknowledging that were it not for the fabricated and discredited "murder for hire" allegations leveled at Dewani, this Wikipedia article would most likely not exist and none of us would ever have heard of the Dewanis so I do believe that some mention needs to be made and I also believe that the story is only half told if mentions of Dewani's trial and the revelations within are excised. Collect made a number of quite intelligent and well meaning edits to the Article's wording but also deleted vast swathes of highly relevant information (the trial of Shrien Dewani being one such section) that are part and parcel of the discussion of this crime. I rather unceremoniously reverted them as they were all one single edit. May I encourage Collect to please propose the edits on the Talk page - section by section ideally - so they can be discussed and enacted if there's no opposition or consensus reached. I tend to agree that whilst the Article should mention the scurrilous allegations made against Dewani, it need not focus on him as he was ultimately a victim of the crime and also of a baseless prosecution that cost him four years of his own life. I would also like to note that I concur wholeheartedly with User:Ukexpat when he/she says that consensus should not be required to remove WP:BLP violations; only to include potentially contentious material in the first place Dewanifacts (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Where a person has been cleared of an accusation, here is really little need for extensive coverage of that person in regard to a murder - the idea is that the ones actually convicted are the ones about whom the article really revolves. In the case at hand, far more than half the article was focused on the one person who should be least covered in detail. Collect (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

All other things being equal I would agree with you but in the case of the Dewani murder I cannot agree. As I mentioned earlier, ommitting details of Shrien Dewani's trial would result in half the story being untold and an untruthful picture of events being left with readers. This is mainly due the extraordinarily backward and incompetent manner in which this case was handled by South African authorities. The "murder for hire" story was accepted as being truthful by the authorities without it being tested for veracity and was used as the basis for 3 plea deals (Tongo, Qwabe, Mbolombo) and one conviction (Mngeni). By doing that, the authorities lent unwarranted credence to a highly improbable version of events that turned out to have no basis at all in fact. A balanced and neutral Article needs to reflect the thorough discrediting of the allegations against Mr Dewani. To be frank, Collect, most of your edits were spot on, with the notable exception of your removal of the sections on Dewani's trial, Mbolombo's non prosecution, judicial complaints and inquest murmurings. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Unsuccessful Mediator

Here are my comments on this article and the controversy about it and the case. My involvement was that it was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard for moderated discussion, and I attempted to mediate the discussion. The article was page-protected for the first time on 15 August 2015. Two of the parties were User:Dewanifacts and User:Lane99. On the one hand, User:Dewanifacts is a single-purpose account. On the other hand, Dewanifacts is an SPA who is trying to comply with the key Wikipedia policies, which are neutral point of view and the policy on biographies of living persons. The undisputed facts in the case are that Anni Dewani was murdered in 2010 on her honeymoon in South Africa with Shrien Dewani, that certain South Africans are serving time for her murder, and that Shrien Dewani was tried and acquitted of arranging her murder. A previous court judgment, in sentencing one of the murderers, found, based on his confession, that the murder was a murder-for-hire designed to look like a random carjacking. The statements by the murderers fell apart in the trial of Mr. Dewani, so that the other possibility is that this was a botched carjacking with false confessions to make it look like a murder-for-hire. Lane99 argues that the finding of murder-for-hire was never set aside and so is still a fact. If it was a murder-for-hire, then there is a mystery murderer out there, because the one person who was accused of arranging the murder has been tried and formally acquitted.

When the article came off page protection after a week, the editors began editing the article again, and I failed the dispute resolution, because the edits were not being discussed. The article has now been page-protected for another month. I am not optimistic that long-term page protection is likely to result in improvement of the article. There did not appear to be, and still does not appear to be, any willingness to work out consensus by discussion while the article is locked. The page-protecting administrator, User:Callanec, has suggested using BLP discretionary sanctions to impose sanctions on any editor making substantive changes to the article without prior discussion and consensus, and I agree that Callanec’s remedy is a reasonable approach.

The real question that I see is how much content needs to be devoted to the allegations against and trial of Mr. Dewani. Since there has been considerable coverage of the trial, it needs to be covered, with particular focus on the fact that Mr. Dewani was acquitted. (There do appear to have been miscarriages of justice in the investigation of the crime. The trial of Mr. Dewani was not a miscarriage of justice, but may have been an ending to a miscarriage of justice, the attempted railroading of Mr. Dewani.)

So the real question is how much coverage should be given to the failed prosecution of Mr. Dewani. It should be enough to explain that Mr. Dewani was tried and acquitted and is innocent. That appears to be the disagreement between User:Dewanifacts and User:Collect, as to how much weight to give, not to the fact that Mr. Dewani was tried and is innocent. That is my opinion.

Since collaborative discussion has failed and continues to fail, and since BLPs are subject to discretionary sanctions, some use of discretionary sanctions is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My sole attempt on the article was, indeed, to remove the excessive material which was quite apparently not specifically pertinent to the title and ambit of the article. hat is - we can state he was accused, and exonerated - but the minutiae of the extradition, his health, etc. do not meet the requirement of being specifically and substantially related to the encyclopedia article at hand. Collect (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There is actually very little disagreement between myself and Collect. I concur with most of what he/she has said. There are some suggested article amendments on the Talk page Robert McClenon. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that Anni Hindocha's murder has been found by multiple courts to have been a murder for hire. Those rulings have never been overturned, or contradicted, by any other court ruling.

It is also a fact that Shrien Dewani was acquitted of involvement in the criminal conspiracy that resulted in Hindocha's murder. Note that is the *only* question the Dewani judgement ruled upon. It did *not* rule Hindocha's murder was not a contract killing. In fact, the contrary is true. The Dewani judgment EXPRESSLY PRECLUDES itself from ruling on the question of whether Hindocha's death was or was not a murder for hire. Therefore any claim that the Dewani judgment overrules the multiple previous findings of fact that the murder was a contract killing is a false claim. Therefore the misleading opening paragraph of the article should be reverted to the neutral recitation of the salient facts (all supported by multiple reliable sources) of the article's topic ("The Murder of Anni Dewani") as per the edit I previously made.Lane99 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we have the main issue showing clearly. User Dewanifacts is willing to discuss the matter on a level of mutual understanding. User Lane99 claims to have all the answers and are unwilling to compromise at all. And that has been evident from the start. Just being honest from my observations of these two editors since the dispute between them started. If there are no willingness to compromise it will either end in the article being protected for a long time in a months time again, or one or both of these two editors will be blocked for a very long time. It is time for discussion, compromises and grown up behavior overall from both users. For your own sake. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

One more drastic and perhaps better solution would be to give both users sanctions/bans on editing the article in question during a period of time. To calm down the situation and give other users a chance to edit the article to a possibly more overall neutral version. Because as of now both users seems to be on complete opposite sides of the spectra in terms of the Shrien Dewani situation. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ There is absolutely no justification or need for me to be banned or sanctioned due to the actions of another editor. I have, in my first month as a Wikipedia editor, quickly become acquainted with Wikipedia policy. I respect and adhere to Wikipedia policy. I will not be contravening any Wiki policies, I will not be making any contentious edits and I most certainly will not become involved in any type of edit warring. The only edits I make will be those that have been discussed and upon which consensus has been reached. If another editor's Wikipedia behaviour shows a disdain for productive discussion and that editor's views are diametrically opposed to reality and to the prevailing consensus, then the issue lies with that editor, not with me. If another editor chooses to engage in behaviour that falls foul of guidelines or is contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, then please address the issue with that editor. Please do not drag me into it as though I am somehow responsible for another editor's actions. Please judge my actions on their own merits. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This may very well be true, but I would also encourage you to make meaningful contributions to other areas of Wikipedia. You have a great passion for this particular event and if that could be applied to other articles I'm sure a great many editors would appreciate it. AND it would go a long way towards removing a sense of bias that you have been accused of since you currently seem to be a single purpose account (which is usually frowned upon by other editors). Best of luck! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Lane99 is forum shopping. However, what exactly is he saying should be done about the "murder-for-hire" theory? Does he mean that he thinks that Shrien Dewani is still guilty of an offense for which he was formally acquitted, or does he think that there is a mystery arranger out there who needs to be brought to justice? If the second, is some reliable source available to report on that search? I suggest that User:Lane99 be topic-banned from this case, but that is my suggestion. Does he have a constructive idea for where to go now? (I don't think it was a murder for hire. I think that lying murderers said that it was a murder for hire, which leaves it as the testimony of lying murderers. However, if there is a constructive suggestion, we can improve the encyclopedia.) I would suggest that User:Lane99 either respond with how to improve the article with the search for the mystery arranger, or that User:Lane99 agree to a voluntary topic-ban, or that User:Lane99 be given an involuntary topic ban under BLP sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html
^ http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html
^ https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/

Emily Blunt

In a recent, informal The Hollywood Reporter video interview with several celebrities, at the 1:24 mark, Emily Blunt made an off-hand joke about becoming an American citizen on the day of the Republican debate, saying: "I became an American citizen recently, and that night, we watched the Republican debate and I thought, 'This was a terrible mistake. What have I done?". This off-hand joke (as well as another joke in a Jimmy Kimmel interview about the citizenship process and renouncing the queen) was predictably sensationalized in the media, and criticized by conservatives/Republicans: e.g, [11], [12], [13], [14].

Blunt apologized for making the tongue-in-cheek comment, saying "It was just an off-hand joke. I think I'll probably leave the political jokes to late-night or something ... taking the oath was "really meaningful." "My two favorite people in the world are American, my husband and my daughter," she said, referring to her and Krasinksi's 1-year-old daughter Hazel. "It was kind of a special day. Yeah, it was great.""

Fyunck(click), in apparently tendentious edits, added the comments to the BLP: [15], [16], [17], [18], also in this edit making a WP:POINTy declaration that removing the off-hand joke (deemed "bashing her citizenship") from the article warrants removing the encyclopedic, notable information on becoming a naturalized citizen.

The edits pertaining to the addition of the off-hand joke were reverted, on the basis of it not being encyclopedic, per WP:BLP (e.g.,"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid") Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, WP:RECENTISM, WP:ONUS, and WP:UNDUE. This has been under discussion on the BLP talk page. The comment was added again along with the apology, by another editor then unaware of the talk discussion. Lapadite (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You know... this isn't an "Ani" so please leave out the personal smear campaign @Lapadite77:. State your case on what you think about the additions made by multiple editors, they will say their own thing, and agreements will be reached. Is the info recent, sure. So is the addition of her citizenship recent so that's a ridiculous claim. I had suggested we remove both but that didn't sit well with you. You can't have it both ways with the recentism claim. It's being discussed at the talk page of Emily Blunt so now we have two places of talk. Whether it was a joke or not (and there's some debate about that) it's all over the place in sourcing. Newspapers in the US and abroad. Not tabloids. Goodness, it's even being reported that she has now apologized. She did not apologize about about renouncing the queen though. A simple statement about this issue side by side with the citizenship seems appropriate. Could it have been written better than I did, or other editors? Surely. Should it be removed over and over again, no. It's part of her citizenship legacy now. Mine was shorter than what was written by the last editor but both were well sourced. We could have added 20 more. It isn't a positive sentence in a BLP so I made sure there was proper foundation, but we can't just disregard items because the info isn't a glowing portrait. I'm not sure why this is an issue with all the sources, but here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, spare the projection. Again, two editors isn't multiple. You've already been told by more than one editor (e.g., [19]) that becoming a naturalized citizen is important, encyclopedic info. Equating a momentarily sensationalized joke with a significant and permanent event in the subject's life, such as change of nationality/citizenship, is "ridiculous". Whatever hyperbolic jokes Blunt made, inappropriate or not, about becoming an American citizen, they aren't encyclopedic. A public joke about an event that is itself encyclopedic doesn't make a joke about it encyclopedic, whether or not it annoys a group of people. Like I said on the talk page, "[Wikipedia isn't] a tabloid, or a news aggregator ... Celebrities say comments that are sensationalized by the media and/or criticized by a section of the population all the time. Everything said on social media is public record, that is not an argument. This has no encyclopedic significance." Online media reports anything and everything; we don't include something on a WP article because the media temporarily buzzed about it. Moreover, Blunt's clarification itself already made this utterly irrelevant. Lapadite (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this projection crap? This is a discussion right here right now. Why are you trying to make things personal by bringing other stuff here? Knock it off and try to make your case without constantly bringing everything I've written elsewhere over here. You know there were other editors that tweaked my additions without censoring it. They also must have agreed it belonged there. They didn't do a blanket removal as you did. So please keep to the topic at hand and leave the rants outside the door. This is a discussion page not a complaint page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This "debate" stinks of Wikipedia:Censorship. This woman made a very controversial statement in Toronto. And she didn't say it at a cocktail party or in an offhand manner. The statement Ms. Blunt mad was during which a number of actors and actresses sat down with The Hollywood Reporter at the Toronto International Film Festival to discuss the state of American politics. It was in this group, that all of those participating in, were making political statements. This was recorded on video, and it can be watched [here http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-president-matt-damon-822866]. Connor7617 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a naive woman. She was not speaking privately to another person; she was not "taken out of context", she has lived as a public figure for well over a decade and understands what a media interview is. This statement was made by her as part of the interview.Connor7617 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The resulting firestorm of controversy perhaps was not anticipated by Ms. Blunt, but it happened. Now it appears that Ms. Blunt was advised by her management team that her statement may affect the popularity of her new film, and during a promotional appearance on the major US television "Today Show", she tried to make light of it as "a joke". It does not appear to be that way when she made it. However she made the "apology". This is indeed a significant part of her career and should appear on the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is replete with these kind of controversies that are attributed to the individuals who made them, and this is not an exception. Connor7617 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BLP policy violation issue. On its own, the fact that she made an off-color joke is not noteworthy, but if a controversy erupts lasting for more than a few days, and appearing in numerous high quality sources, then consideration should be given to including it in her bio. WP:DUEWEIGHT is the governing policy, but one should ask themselves if this information will be considered encyclopedic in 10 years, or 100 years.- Mr X 12:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Firestorm of controversy"? Anna Kooiman gets indignant when Obama looks left before right when crossing the street. I'm not convinced that Blunt's gaffe is a significant part of her career, and I would be surprised if anyone is talking about this a week from now. Until this moves out of the celebrity gossip columns, we should really be focused on the fact that Blunt almost killed Tom Cruise. - Location (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that it was not this one occasion that Ms Blunt made other negative remarks about taking her oath of United States Citizenship. For example, on the Jimmy Kimmel Live show on September 9th, she said "... It's so strange and slightly disarming. I'm not sure I'm entirely thrilled about it," she said. "People ask me about the whole day. They were like, 'Oh, it must have been so emotional.' I was like, 'It wasn't! It was sad!' I like being British. It was the most bizarre day...." ^[1] Sorry, but it is not a joke, where is the humor in disrespecting one's country just after becoming a citizen? Her "apology is her realization that she just made herself unbearable to Americans and most likely also "un-bankable" to entertainment producers. This is quite suitable for her Wikipedia page under a subsection "United States Citizenship" which I had posted earlier and was taken down until this matter is resolved. She made these statements. They are part of the public record. They are well documented and referenced. If her acquiring American Citizenship is notable, then her subsequent statements about her citizenship are as well. Period, Full Stop. And what does Anna Kooiman have to do with any of this? Connor7617 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

References

^ [JKL http://www.eonline.com/news/693905/emily-blunt-is-officially-a-u-s-citizen-but-can-she-pass-jimmy-kimmel-s-citizenship-test-watch-and-find-out]

It's not germane to the argument, but you are confusing "disrespecting one's county" with "disrespecting the Republican party". Fox & Friends didn't like that Blunt criticized the GOP. Kooiman's remark asking why Blunt doesn't "leave Hollywood, California" was another version of the trite "love it or leave it" saying. Whatever. Kooiman et al. get paid to play to a certain audience and that is what they did. Wake me when this story gets Dixie Chicked, but right now there is nothing to indicate that this is anything more than tabloid journalism. - Location (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Ms Blunt made the comments about her United States Citizenship. They is a part of the public record. They 's just as notable as her acquiring her United States Citizenship. It's just that simple. Connor7617 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Exclude the comments per WP:NOTNEWS. She made a pretty obvious joke and some right wingers got bent out of shape over it. That's all that happened here. This event is not important enough to include in an encyclopedia. Go blog about it if you think it's important. Calidum 01:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Include The statements (note several) were a public comment by her on her United States Citizenship. If her acquiring American Citizenship is notable, then her subsequent statements about her citizenship are as well. Connor7617 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Such indignation here. We've already had plenty of boldface, so may I throw in Spanish punctuation? The woman made comments about her US citizenship, or maybe about the Republican "debate", or maybe about the juxtaposition of the two. Actors make comments on TV all the time -- given all the hours of airtime, the thousands of actors, and the TV obsession with celebs, it would be surprising if they didn't. Her comments don't seem to have libeled anyone, blasphemed [this is still a thing in some demographics], discriminated, proclaimed state secrets, divulged seditious intent, announced "fire" in a crowded theater, or similar. (Now for the Spanish punctuation.) And therefore, by encyclopedic standards: ¡No biggie! By contrast, people don't routinely add or subtract nationalities. ¡Change of nationality = biggie; different degree of notability! Full stop, period, punto, finis. OTOH if various talking heads make a frothy mix out of this extremely humdrum remark, then this might have a certain (Wikipedia-style) "notability"; but NB there are lots of talking heads, and they routinely turn humdrum non-events into frothy mixes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Exclude. Not news. It was a joke. It's time for us to stop getting so upset over nothing. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Exclude Just another gossip media tempest in a teapot, soon to be forgotten, and unworthy of inclusion in a biography in an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Exclude per my OP, Calidum, and Cullen. Lapadite (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika (singer)

Some experienced editors/admins really need to pay attention to the PR stunt that this article is. The talk page, the edit history, the article it's extremely concerning. I'm stunned it was kept after an AfD. I know this is not the best of sources but reading this really made me even more concerned hence why I am not discussing it on the article talk page but here instead. Cool Marc 22:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted talkpage, that was possibly deleted by accident in a recent IP edit. But really don't want to get involved in the article itself (already got enough messy articles on my watchlist without this one). The previous AfD discussion and deletion review should probably be linked from the talkpage as well, if anyone AfD-knowledgeable could fix that. GermanJoe (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Added AfD tag with notice about deletion review (hopefully that works). GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sienna

User:Mmmv11 recently created this dubious unreferenced article on a blp that was nominated for speedy deletion. He subsequently removed the tag without really addressing any of the concerns raised. I have very limited time right now to dedicate to wikipedia, otherwise I would bring this through the appropriate process of handling such situations (such as an AFD). Can someone help?4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I Sent it to AFD. Arguably a candidate for speedy but we'll see. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yoram Harth

Some eyes, please. Subject has a very active web presence and multiple business websites that a new SPA editor is using as if that were reliable sourcing. Copyvios have also been apparent. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

David Zancai

Noted street performer in Toronto with history of mental illness. According to various social media posts, last night he had an incident on public transit, and numerous people have been adding unsourced undue content to his entry today alleging harassment and/or assault. While I don't doubt such a thing may have occurred, more eyes needed on this article. Some of the edits coming from registered users, so a simple IP block won't cut it. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Still happening: [20] Echoedmyron (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

David Cornsilk

Some negative content was added here, partly cited to a newspaper report about a legal complaint filed with the Cherokee Nation, partly apparently unsourced. Some of this negative content was deleted yesterday, and then quickly restored. I'm not sure if the subject of this article is notable, but assuming that he is per the 2007 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cornsilk, I have doubts about whether this material is appropriate, and I might be inclined to go back to an earlier version. Scrutiny from additional editors would be helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nino Surguladze

This article needs eyes. Either the subject or someone close to her is editwarring the article under a variety of IPs. The addition of the Facebook page is permissible if that is her sole official web page. The removal of her year of birth is also acceptable but quite silly since her full date of birth is published by the BBC and elsewhere. What is not acceptable is adding sentences like this:

Foundation invited a lot of international stars to partisipate in the benefit Concerts and more than 15 children's health and precious lifes where saved.

Rather than removing it (as I and and another editor had previously done) I copyedited it for grammatical English minus the "precious" and fact tagged it. It was immediately reverted. The IPs are also pasting in lengthy, unformatted, and completely unreferenced laundry lists of all the people she has allegedly worked with. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

PS If this problem is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, let me know and I'll move it there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced connecting of Living Persons to Center for Security Policy

Zeke1999, a possible COI editor, has been repeatedly inserting information [21] claiming a large number of famous persons have accepted awards from the Center for Security Policy, an extremely controversial conspiracy theorist group, sourced only to the group's own website. This is part of a pattern of aggressive massaging he has done to this article. As connecting these living persons to a conspiracy theorist organization without RS confirmation is potentially defamatory, I have attempted to remove it, however the COI editor continues to revert. (Note, Zeke1999, as of yesterday, had made more than 80% of his 32 lifetime mainspace edits over 7 years on WP to the CSP article, or those of two bios of CSP staff members, [22] which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post [23], the majority of his edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits, [24] has repeatedly crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to te CSP website in violation of WP:EXT. [25].) There is currently a sockpuppet investigation of him active. LavaBaron (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a serious issue. Please see my TALK comments of Sept 27 on the Center for Security Policy page.

I understand biographies of living persons need to be written conservatively and with good sourcing. Here's the story on this piece.

Lavabaron made extensive changes to the Center for Security Policy page in July. Some were good edits that removed promotional material. Others made this item read like a hit piece. I edited this article this month to add balance and new sourced material. I also made a few corrections. I left Lavabaron's criticisms even though I disagreed with them.

Except for a few names I added to update the list of names, the list of individuals Lavabaron is complaining about here were kept in his or her July edits. When this editor finished his or her edits in July, he or she retained this list of individuals who received CSP awards. This person therefore is complaining about his or her own edits.

But let me put this dispute in perspective. Lavabaron apparently was on vacation until Sept 25. When he or she returned, the editor did mass reverts of the CSP and Frank Gaffney articles because he or she said there were too many changes to reverse individually. This mass revert removed edits by several editors, corrections and new material. Another editor and I reversed Lavabaron's mass edits.

Lavabaron criticized my edits as "sanitizing" and accused me of using an SPA account. He also lodged a sock puppet complaint (which was rejected) and complained about my edits on a Wikpedia fringe page. Next, he added a COI notation to the Gaffney and CSP pages. Now is lodging an unwarranted BLP complaint here. What will he or she do next?

I am inexperienced with editing Wikipedia. These attacks by Lavabaron have to stop.Zeke1999 (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay: the issue is you can't keep inserting a list of "award winners" without RS to back it up. It doesn't matter if it was there in the past or not; Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, not some mysterious force. Connecting living people to a group that has been denounced by dozens of media outlets, civil society groups, and universities as a hate group and conspiracy theorist is potentially highly defamatory. If you want to reinsert them that's fine, but you need a secondary RS for each name. We wouldn't let you insert into the Ku Klux Klan article that a famous star once won the Golden Klansman Trophy without a RS. Same thing here. LavaBaron (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: An IP editor did not make "substantially identical edits" - in fact, other than undoing an RBK (which I felt was unwarranted) by LavaBaron, I had made three minor edits to the article. The tool to detect user interaction can be useful, but does not show anything other than coincidence in this case. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have asked for a 3rd opinion.Zeke1999 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dwayne Tryumf

A WP:SPA, who has focused primarily on the subject, Dwayne Tryumf, has created a draft on the subject and has been removing sourced biographic content due to privacy concerns. Based on editor's edit comment on 2015-09-28 13:07 (UTC), links to the artist's personal information are currently in the process of being removed from their respective websites, the editor has a relationship with the subject and may be in WP:COI. However, it seems that subject wants birth information removed. Recognizing that information is cached now, should we be removing the information? Please ping me since I don't watch this page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dana Ewell

Strange one here, but could someone else take a look at Dana Ewell please? This was a bit of a BLP minefield, but I've hopefully sorted the worst of it. If anyone wants any more information, please email me about this. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy Liu

Please see Talk:Andy Liu for a discussion of whether a criminal arrest reported in major newspapers should be included in the article for Andy Liu, a mathematician whose article recently survived AfD based on claims of notability unrelated to the arrest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Weasel Zippers source and others, at page with controversial claims about 14-year-old-boy

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Weasel Zippers" is being used as a source to add WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about a 14-year-old boy.

Example of problematic editing: DIFF and DIFF.

Source that fails WP:RS = link.

Lots of other sources there at same page seem to fail WP:RS.

Could use extra eyes on the page and activity.

Page could stand to have extra scrutiny with all sources used being subject to removal if they fail WP:RS -- especially when making controversial claims.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see also, blatant BLP violation by Elduderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [26] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What blatant violation would that be? I changed the lead from a clearly biased tone designed to elicit sympathy to a neutral objective reporting of known facts. Mike (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What you did was remove the description of what happened and replaced it with one that didn't explain what happened. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It explained in a far clearer and more neutral tone what happened. The existing phrasing was biased and emotional.Mike (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Elduderino: You can't just keep reverting again and again to your preferred version. There is a talk page for that, and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE you need to gain consensus before re-adding the material. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Admins please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Elduderino_reported_by_User:Cirt_.28Result:_.29. — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Still have lots of outstanding issues with sources that fail WP:RS, as noted, above. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand how it is 'far clearer'? Saying he slowed down his car and then stopped, but the pedestrian still came under the tyre is not the same as he stopped and the pedestrian came under his tyre. It is simple distortion of fact. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Danladi Umar

I just need a "sanity check" to verify that the edits I did to remove a large amount of unsourced controversial content from the draft was correct in terms of the BLP rules. Did I remove too much, or not enough? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67), I have only briefly skimmed over the removals, but do not see any issue with the removals that you have made, and support them on BLP grounds. I do believe that there is material in the Allegations of Corruption section which should still be removed; this section appears to have COATRACK &/or UNDUE issues. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Boxingmojo at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

Boxingmojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I placed a warning at their talk page, but unfortunately, we have ongoing violations of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE:

DIFF
DIFF
DIFF
DIFF
DIFF
DIFF
DIFF

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

He reverted another time while you were posting that, here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, added to above. That one is definitely after the user talk page warning. — Cirt (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Specifically: violations of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Boxingmojo (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours. — Cirt (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP Violations - reports at Arbitration Enforcement

Please see two (2) reports related to WP:BLP Violations at Arbitration Enforcement:

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The insertion of information about the sister was phrased poorly - the usage of the term "bomb hoax" gives off the impression that it was something that she was complicit in, whereas the Daily Beast article suggests that she was singled out and bullied by another student. Unless this particular point received a lot of coverage I'd leave it out because the DB article is a "he said she said" type of deal. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul Mc Kevitt

Paul Mc Kevitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this at COIN. The whole article is a violation. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In what way? Its ridiculously puffy and uncited, but I cant see any obvious BLP violation. (Which is understandable if it was written by/someone close to the subject) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's my response to delete comments on AfD: (I'd welcome any advice on how to edit it --I'm brand new to Wikipedia)

Notable-academic: Secondary sources are included in the list of references such as the University homepage: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/staff/p.mckevitt.html http://academy.bcs.org/content/distinguished-dissertations-2013 (British Computer Society) (BCS) and recent newspaper article (Irish Times) http://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/blis-where-imagination-meets-engineering-1.2340485 and University Convocation Executive: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/secretary/secretariat/convocation/convocationmembers.html; more are included under "Interviews" More are being added --c.f. a simple Google search on "Paul Mc Kevitt"

Notable-academic: A reference link to Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U5bPoGgAAAAJ&hl=en (independent source by Google) has been added showing a list of ~200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books with associated citations: Google Scholar Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11

Notable-academic: More references are being added to ALL sections; the Research work of a Full Professor with his/her Ph.D. students is very relevant (NOT extraneous), particularly in the field of Computer Science; and if you care to look at/study other notable biographies (particularly in Computer Science) you will see that they ALL include research work with former Ph.D. students; the article clearly demonstrates wp:academics on a number of fronts; how could one possibly be Editor-in-Chief of a key academic journal in the field (Artificial Intelligence Review, Springer) for 12 years (1996-2008) and publish 7 peer-reviewed books with key academic publishers (John Benjamins; Springer) and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books and organise the key British (10th Anniversary AISB-1995) and Irish (AICS-97) conferences and 2 workshops at the main USA conference (AAAI-94) and the key international contest (23rd International Loebner Prize Contest, 2013) together with international invited keynote lectures in the field and international education & appointments (Ireland, USA, England, Denmark, France) otherwise ! ; link to LinkedIn page and social network pages are allowed if referring to the subject; --the creators have studied wp:rs and know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own academic peer-reviewed writings are RS when backed-up with many other RS citations, patents, newspaper articles, press releases; the vast majority of the 39 Reference citations given in the article conform to wp:rs; how does it read like a CV any more than others' biographies ? --over 200 peer-reviewed academic publications and 3 peer-reviewed patents with RS citations is clearly NOT marginal nor is Google scholar: Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11; now, let's make it more obvious: as for significant awards/illustrious positions you don't seem to have read/studied the page:

Whilst at University of Sheffield, Mc Kevitt was awarded one of two 5-year UK EPSRC Advanced Fellowships in Information Technology (1994), the other being awarded at University of Edinburgh, Scotland. The focus of the fellowship was research on integration of natural language, speech and vision processing.

--this is a significant award !

New Mexico Centennial Researcher Award (1988)

--this is also an award ! Also, this too:

He was awarded (with Dr. Abbas Cheddad, Dr. Kevin Curran & Dr. Joan Condell) the Northern Ireland Science Park (NISP) 25K Awards, Hi-Tech category award (2009) for Steganoflage (SDW digital watermarking), [24] a demo of which can be seen here: Steganoflage

Paulmckevitt (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron and Piggate

There is a full-blown Media circus underway in the United Kingdom about entirely unsubstantiated allegations that the current British prime minister participated in an unseemly university initiation ritual many years ago. Not a shred of actual evidence has been produced and the accuser remains anonymous. The charge is included in an as yet unpublished book written by a very rich guy with a grudge. We have a freestanding article about this unsubstantiated triviality called Piggate, which survived a recent AfD debate as "no consensus".

I am an American who supports the exact opposite of Cameron's political philosophy. But I consider this article highly problematic on BLP grounds. I favor merging the content into the article about the book, Call Me Dave. I admit I could be wrong but am concerned about the BLP issues. The full range of other opinions is welcomed., both here and at Talk:Piggate.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, media attention has completely died down in the last week. No doubt til the Daily Mail's next 'revelation' from the book. It merits a passing mention in the book or the David Cameron article. Another example of where Wikipedia's editors insist on documenting everything that happens in the news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what we do, though -- if we hadn't already done an AfD, I'd suggest "do an AfD". But it's apparent that there's no consensus to delete it (and a "keep" close would have been entirely reasonable), so it doesn't get deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the next step would be a discussion to merge on the piggate talk page with a notice placed at david cameron and call me dave.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I see there already is one. It might be better off having a discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The !votes at the AfD were loaded with scads of "new users" which, if removed from the count, show that a majority of established editors supported delete or merge - thus a "merge" would certainly be a rational outcome, although I still feel that allegations of a notable living person having carnal knowledge of a dead pig is, in fact, a contentious claim which ought not be covered in any real encyclopedia. I would have preferred a close noting the BLP strictures, and closing on the basis of policy. Collect (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen and I share 100% Collect's arguments, I would have also supported deletion based on our guidelines. I think the article does not enrich our encyclopedia and it seems clear that there may be political interests not aligned with our policies behind some of the "new users" that defended its inclusion. Since the deletion discussion is now closed the only option now seems to be the merge proposal for the article as suggested by Only in death.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. For all that most of the UK has spent the last week or so viewing all of politics against a background hum of "knob-in-a-pig, knob-in-a-pig", this really is close-of-silly season tabloid nonsense of no real significance. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Carmen Lopez Santana

Carmen Lopez Santana Biographies of living persons violation: The defamatory information provided in this article is based on partial and inaccurate data. The links provided users refer to newspaper articles full of lies and inaccurate data, against Which Currently Being legal actions are taken. The sentence "sent admonished pel seu partit [4] després of demanar - li a City Council of the localitat to pay li bitllets d'avió PERIODICS provided per port to the tavern seua terme com councilor. [3] "is inaccurate. . The person in question but did Comply with the legal requirements pertaining to the public office position and Demanded That the current law be applied Alternative Information With Other links: "Carmen Santana Lopez, thank you for your example," aromeo.net, September 19 2015: http://www.aromeo.net/2015/09/19/carmen - lopez - santana - thanks - for - your - example / "Councillor Carmen Lopez defends itself from accusations of being immoral, after moving to Chicago "Live it today, September 18, 2015: http://www.vivelohoy.com/?s=carmen+lopez+ciudadanos "Interview with Carmen Lopez," Is Radio, September 17, 2015: http: // esRadio .libertaddigital.com / fonoteca / 2015 - 09 - 17 / interview - to - carmen - lopez - 92104.html "Han tapped I'm in Chicago for generating this controversy about allegations that I do", Onda Cero, 17 September class = "autosigned"> - & nbsp; Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.92.200 ( talk ) 1:57 1 October 2015 (UTC) </ small> <- Template: Unsigned IP -> <- Autosigned by SineBot ->

@205.178.92.200:, English wikipedia does not have an article on this person, it looks like your problem is with an article on the catalan version of wikipedia, here. I'm not sure if Catalan wikipedia has a variant of this noticeboard - if you read Catalan, you can look - otherwise, if all else fails I suggest asking someone at what looks to be their version of the village pump, La Taverna. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanjeev Khanna

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report it, but Sanjeev Khanna appears to have been edited to be about another person and the links to the page and the linked Wikidata item no longer match the content of the page. The references also seem bad, they link to other Wikipedia pages, YouTube and some website homepages which don't support the things they're supposedly a reference for. I'm not sure if the changes should just be reverted or if the text should be turned into a new article. The picture was added to the article before those edits, but it was uploaded by "Sanjeevkentertainments" claiming "Own work", which does not sound like it would be a photo of the computer scientist. - Nikki (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anything negative in the article. It probably could be nominated for deletion based on notability.Skylark777 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the article to being about its original subject. The one about the Indian writer/director can be found here in its history, and can be used as the basis for a new article if one is really called for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That article could also be nominated for deletion, or else provided with secondary sources. But don't see any BLP issues.Skylark777 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, anything could be nominated for deletion, but at first glance the claims made appear to meet WP:NACADEMICS, and what little sourcing is there supports it, so it doesn't seem a prime candidate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Tribe

Laurence Tribe is a highly-respected constitutional lawyer and law professor. He is usually considered a liberal and civil liberties proponent, best known by the general public for his representation of Al Gore (v. GW Bush) in 2000. Someone or more than one person keeps adding OR material to try to show that he is somehow really a conservative. I really think he deserves a better article here. Skylark777 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, you could not be more wrong, I don't think and am not trying to show he is a conservative, at all. Just the opposite. I am trying to detail his ostensible underestimation (intentional or otherwise) of the magnitude of Windsor v United States and its consequent nation-wide developments, which Scalia accurately predicted, which Tribe, for lack of a better alternate verb, dismissed, using faux moderate arguments. For an eminent legal scholar, author, Ivy league educator and academician and onetime possible SCOTUS nominee candidate, this is worthy of note, particularly his attacks on Scalia. Otherwise "I really think he deserves a better article here" doesn't make much sense. He doesn't "deserve" anything that anyone else would on Wikipedia, but he happens to have a good article. It would appear you disagree with me on one aspect of how to update it, or I should say, not update it, as you deleted the text in question. I am not a brilliant legal scholar; obviously I will have to abide by whatever results from the talk page consensus. Quis separabit? 17:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, unless I missed something, there are no secondary sources provided which agree with your view on the importance of this one incident.Skylark777 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No? Well aside from the reflinks in the article in the pertinent section, there are these ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]) and a book by Windsor's counsel, Roberta Kaplan, Then Comes Marriage: United States V. Windsor and the Defeat of Doma (ISBN 9780393248678). Quis separabit? 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, by yout own words: "[Tribe] is a highly-respected constitutional lawyer and law professor. He is usually considered a liberal and civil liberties proponent, best known by the general public for his representation of Al Gore (v. GW Bush) in 2000." He is, by my words, he is "an eminent legal scholar, author, Ivy league educator and academician and onetime possible SCOTUS nominee candidate". In other words, his credentials entitle(d) him to make his comments re Windsor v United States and to assail Scalia's dissent (which happened as usual to be the most forceful on the Court). Should he not be responsible for his own words, advocacy and actions? We are not talking a run of the mill lawyer or some ambulance chaser, but with a man who is a pundit, a talking head, an Ivy League staple and one of President Obama's teachers at ~~Columbia, apparently.~~ Harvard Law. Quis separabit? 18:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here Quis separabit?. As I said on the article's talk page, the sources you just listed show that United States v. Windsor is an important and notable case. However they do not say anything about Mr. Tribe, or even mention him. It takes WP:Original research to say that his statement about it (and the material in the article about some other cases) is something that should be included in his article.Skylark777 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have posted my thoughts on the article's talk page thread, but will also add them here since I'm not sure where this discussion should be taking place. It certainly is a credible BLP issue. I find the content Rms added problematic with regard to WP:UNDUE, particularly by creating it's own subsection and including the extensive quote. If any of the content were to be included, it should simply be a summary sentence or two that is merged into the existing "political involvement" section, and the quote eliminated. Readers can look at the sourcing for the quote. I also see that Rms changed the word "citing" to "claiming" in the sentence, "He resigned eight months later, citing health reasons." An edit like that raises a red flag, but I see it was reverted. I have no personal views on Tribe one way or the other, but the inclusion of all of this content, the way it is being given such prominence, and the changing of the neutral "citing" to the non-neutral "claiming" - which implies that he may have lied - is troubling and could perhaps indicate to some readers that the editor has an agenda and is motivated by negative personal feelings about Tribe. Czoal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

This isn't quite in the remit of this noticeboard, but this seems as good a place as any to solicit opinions about BLP issues. I've just discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Popular pages, which includes quite a few people who are noted for something unrelated and just happen to have a criminal conviction in their past (Boy George, Justin Bieber, Naomi Campbell, Pete Doherty, Chuck Berry, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. etc). These are technically "criminal biographies", as they're biographies of people who have been convicted of crimes, but it seems to me to be giving fairly substantive undue weight to file these people alongside serial killers and mobsters. (The list also includes the biographies of a number of people who were the victims of crime.) Does anyone else think this is an issue, or am I over-reacting? Since I assume this list is auto-generated from WikiProject tags, and it's an article of Wiki-faith that nobody can prevent a project tagging articles, I'm not sure what can be done about it. ‑ iridescent 10:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well actually we can prevent tags/categories on BLP's if consensus is to do so, but its almost always either ambiguous/something contentious like sexuality etc. While criminality would fall into those areas, its often much better sourced. Ultimately someone convicted of a crime is a criminal, so its difficult to argue against. UNDUE would be the appropriate place, however then you are up against the 'categories are just for navigation!' crowd. Take Boy George, he has been tagged with 'British people convicted of drug offences', 'English people convicted of assault', and 'people banned from entering the united states'. Are these really necessary? Technically they may be accurate and reliably sourced, but are they undue? In Boy George's case given his issues over the years the argument would probably come down yes, but some of the others would not be so clear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

John Glen (politician)

I work for John Glen MP. I note that this article has been subject to numerous edits, to include a biased description of Mr Glen's beliefs, and disproportionate weight given to his position on the same-sex marriage bill. Obviously all of Mr Glen's voting positions are a matter of public record, but it is evident that this article is not attempting to be based on a NPOV. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, or edit warring, we don't wish to continuously delete or edit the article, and would be very grateful for any help in restoring it to be a factual rather than ideological biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMinster-2015 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@WMinster-2015: Best would be for you to suggest edits and improvements in the talk page, so that these suggestions can be evaluated and implemented. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Mushtaq Omar Uddin

The information displayed is a violation of privacy and defamatory. This page has not be authorised by Mushtaq Omar Uddin which would like to have this page remove as of immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Carrey

Jim Carrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(I posted this at the Help Desk three hours ago, but no one has replied. So I just found this noticeboard and figured this is a better place to ask anyway.) Should content about the death of an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, or even current girlfriend/boyfriend, be included in a celebrity's article? If so, how much? Content about the suicide of Jim Carrey's girlfriend was just added to his article, in the personal life section. This is the content as it appears right now; it starts with "On September 28, 2015". Numerous mainstream media such as NBC News and FOX News are reporting that she is an ex-girlfriend, not current.[33][34] Some others are claiming that they recently got back together or possibly got back together, including TMZ, where the story apparently originated. The only source currently included in the Carrey article is Gawker. So, putting aside the sources, should that content be in the article? I'm not sure if it matters, but they only dated in 2012 according to sources, and again this year if they actually started dating again. From reading many celebrity bios on here over the years, my understanding has been that only "significant" relationships - like marriages and long-term relationships - should be mentioned in an article, and that brief or on/off relationships should not. I have never edited the article and will not touch this content. I'll leave that to editors who are much more familiar with the rules of biographies. Czoal (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS spring fairly readily to mind. I would consider prudence might be best advised. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the content and make any appropriate edits so I can see how it should be handled? Czoal (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I used my best judgment and made the edit. Czoal (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

7 millions web mentions, it is important in his personal life, she mentioned him in her last note, I won't call it a suicide note at the moment and he has commented already, it is important, I took out gawker and added a less exciting verification. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, I see you reverted me and restored all of the content. I realize that there are many sources, but that's surely because she dated a very famous celebrity. But I don't understand why it qualifies to be in his encylopedia article when (a) she is not notable at all, and (b) they only dated for a short time and may not have even been dating at the time of her death. At the very least, quoting his entire tribute comment about her seems quite inappropriate. I thought Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be used for tributes like that. But I see that Ryk72 removed the tribute content. Nevertheless, I'm still concerned about her not being notable and them never being in a long-term relationship. Czoal (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I edited the content and improved the verifications. This issue seems quite important to him, so much as for him to post a lovely tribute to here, here is the content at issue. The quote from Carey about the death of his girlfriend has been removed by User:Ryk72 citing WP:UNDUE - here is the quote

Carrey's representatives released this statement:

I am shocked and deeply saddened by the passing of my sweet Cathriona. She was a truly kind and delicate Irish flower, too sensitive for this soil, to whom loving and being loved was all that sparkled. My heart goes out to her family and friends and to everyone who loved and cared about her. We have all been hit with a lightning bolt.

the online verification was from telegraph.co.uk-Jim-Carreys-girlfriend-Cathriona-White-dies-aged-30 I was asked to discuss it, so if Ryk could please explain and others could comment, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72 is absolutely correct with regard to WP:UNDUE. She is not notable, they were never in a long-term relationship, and there are many conflicting reports among media outlets about whether or not they were even dating at the time of her death. And, of course, the article is about Carrey, not her. Nevertheless, even the brief content that Ryk72 left in may still be more than should be included based on the status of their relationship and the circumstances of her death. With regard to the tribute quote, the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a very clear: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements". Czoal (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

also on a similar vein, Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.

All of this is about a separate article, she is not notable, he is and his comments about her death are. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We cannot have a two simultaneous conversations going on in different places about this issue. Now that there is a thread on the Carrey talk page, that is the place it should be discussed. But the policy on the tribute content is very clear, so there really is no issue any more. Czoal (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

lets continue the discussion here as the whole chat is here, I was unaware it was still under discussion here. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Czoal You post as a certain reason for the quote from Carey to be removed as, Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements - this is however false, the content and article is about Carey and his comments, not her Govindaharihari (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the policy. WP:MEMORIAL is Wikipedia's policy that precisely applies to tributes like the one you want included. Tributes to people who are not notable are not allowed. Period. She is not notable. Therefore, it's not alllowed. Carrey's notability is irrelvant; the sole issue is that person the tribute is about is not notable. Yes, the tribute is very nice and it is very important to Carrey, but the content does not qualify for inclusion in this encylopedia. Sorry. Do you understand now? Czoal (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Govindaharihari, Many thanks for your questions. I am happy to provide a certain amount of discussion of the reasoning for the removal; but, given the nature of the subject matter, I am disinclined to wax lyrical. The short answer is that, on balance, the level of detail included in this section was inappropriate for documenting the subject of that article. Per WP:BALASPS, Discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.; the inclusion of the quote was undue (cf. WP:RECENTISM). Given the comments of other editors above, I am open to the suggestion that this might be true of the entire section. Per WP:ONUS, Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.; and editors wishing to include additional information on this aspect will need to provide a compelling rationale. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72 Those were all very good points. I am still very concerned about even the brief content that remains about the woman ("On September 28, 2015, Carrey's on-off girlfriend, Cathriona White, was found dead from a possibly intentional prescription drug overdose. The couple first met in 2012."). I can't think of any good reason why this information about someone Carrey only briefly dated should be included in his article. It's undisputable that she is not notable and the cirumstances of her death are contentious and inconsistent among sources. Therefore, I believe all that content should be removed. Czoal (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Reports are that they have been back together since May. Carrey has now reportedly visited the house where she died and spent one and a half hours there with her sister and left with some cardboard boxes. Carrey and her split from him was mentioned in a letter beside her and her death occurred shortly after their split, to me he seems devastated as his statement portrays and it is an important personal grief in his life and being reported widely. I don't think we are doing readers or him a good service to remove it. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of that changes anything we have told you. His feelings about her, and most certainly your personal interpretation of those feelings ("to me he seems devastated"), have absolutely no relevance in terms of how we edit this encylopedia. For the record, Daily Mail is a tabloid and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source, particularly in a BLP article. And not that it matters, but for every source that says she was his current girlfriend, I can find a reliable source that says she was his ex-girlfriend. But, again, their relationship status doesn't matter because it's undisputed that she's not notable and they were never in a long-term relationship. And, more to the point, tribute quotes like that are a clear no-no. Czoal (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ex-girlfriend because they split up just before she was found dead with a bottle of pills and a note mentioning her split from Carrey beside her. I will happily disagree with your interpretation of Carrey's statement as being a violation of wp:memorial, so leave his statement out but any suggestion of removing any mention of his relationship with her is beyond the pale in my opinion. Yes, before you lecture me, my opinion is irrelevant.Govindaharihari (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not your opinion that is irrelevant. What is irrelevant are all your reasons for believing the quote belongs, when the guidelines clearly tell us that it doesn't. For the record, that is a very standard quote than just about anyone in the world would make when someone dies that we are/were close to. It was very nice, but it obviously doesn't belong in an encylopedia. As editors, we don't care how long he spent with the woman's sister, that he took boxes from the home, or that you personally believe he was "devastated", etc. This is an encylopedia, not a fan page or gossip forum. In terms of the remaining content, you are still missing the point with regard to her lack of notability and the insignificance of their relationship from an encylopedic perspective. Therefore, none of the content about her belongs in the article. Czoal (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree but don't object to removal of his statement but I do object to removal of all mention of the relationship Govindaharihari (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For now, I will not remove the remaining content. I'll give some time for others to comment. But from reading thousands of celebrity biographies over many years, I'm sure that content doesn't belong for the reasons I've stated. Czoal (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Massive amount of WP:BLPCAT / WP:EGRS violations

I'm hoping that some editors who are familiar with WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS can help me clean up the edits made by Alexander Iskandar (talk · contribs). They've added hundreds upon hundreds of ethnic, descent and religious categories to biography articles that are not supported by the policy or guidelines regarding such categories. I've rolled back the edits made today (numbering in the hundreds) and will comb through each of the articles to ensure that any unsupported religious categories are removed (and restore any that are BLPCAT compliant), but this will require clean-up on a very large scale. If anyone can pitch in to review edits made prior to today I would be extremely grateful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Iskandar has agreed to help review the edits and add sourcing here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Bricklin

Could someone with an auto industry background have a look at this article in light of this newspaper report [35]. (The web site name "Stuff" may not sound too serious, but it's the on-line presence of one of New Zealand's two main newspaper groups). Article appears to my inexpert eye to be a large pile of self-promotion sourced to such reliable sources as Tumblr. Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed some puffery and removed a bunch of non-rs. Still needs work. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, the overly detailed history of each single automobile type doesn't even belong in this biographical article. Of course, some development background and Bricklin's role in it needs to be covered, but the amount of product details is far over the top here. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Walsh (politician)

This article has recently been in the news because the article subject edited it, complaining it was a hatchet job (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/In_the_media). It needs more eyes. Also see talk page discussion. Andreas JN 466 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Patrick J. Kennedy

Should some of the content be removed from this article? I'm neutral on the matter. I went to the article because Kennedy was featured on 60 Minutes today, which I supsect will prompt a lot of people to read his Wikipedia article. I noticed the POV-check template at the top of the page. I wasn't familiar with it, so I read Template:POV-check and WP:NPOVD to learn how it's supposed to be used. A now-archived discussion titled "POV check tag" was started in April 2014 and went nowhere, with only two editors posting comments. When I arrived at the article a few minutes ago, this is how the political controversies section looked. I felt the subsections were over-the-top and violated WP:UNDUE, so I made this edit to remove them. But I did not remove any content. I'm concerned that some or perhaps most of the "controveries" content is not notable, but I don't want to make any edits to it without the input of others who are passionate about BLPs. So your thoughts, or anyone who feels bold and wants to make edits to the article, would be appreciated. Czoal (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

There is disagreement about a specific characterization of a politician in RT (TV network). For the disputed statement see this diff. The source is this Buzzfeed article. A second source was added later, this Guardian article.
The first source says basically the same as the disputed text, instead of "admirer of" it uses the words "confessed fan" (and those words hyperlink to the Guardian article). The Guardian article (which doesn't mention RT) gives a full quotation that includes the words "but not as a human being" and "Not that I approve of him politically".

The statement was first added months ago, has been removed and reverted six times since September 26. (not including last change and revert)
Diffs of the reverts, in most cases the previous edit was the removal: diff, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6. This version added context: diff7, was replaced by the last version: diff8. Here is a link to the history.

Discussion on talk page started after the 4th reversal. There is fundamental disagreement between editors on whether this is a BLP issue, some argue that calling him an admirer is misleading without the context, others argue that the sources justify it, or/and that it cannot be a BLP issue because it is well-sourced, and that adding context would be OR.
Outside help would be helpful to resolve this conflict, thank you. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RT (TV network) is not a person. Why this is a BLP problem? My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

From looking at the talkpage I believe its because Nigel Farage is being described as an admirer of Vladimir Putin on that article. BLP applies to all living people in any article (or talkspace etc) on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Took a look, its reliably sourced he is an admirer of putin (when asked 'Who do you admire most?' and you reply 'Putin', its hard to say that is not reliable) and it is actually relevant in context - RT TV is Russian-based, and it is included in a section on notable guests, Farage has been on 17 times - thats a large amount by any standard - and his admiration of Russia's current leader is certainly relevant to that. So not a BLP violation that I can seeOnly in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He replied "Putin, but not as a human being". Omitting that last part makes a significant difference in my opinion. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I admire Isaac Newton, but not as a human being, but as a genious. What's the problem? My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

off topic -- please discussion about the topic, not other editors NE Ent 19:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ssscienccce, I already pointed out that you would be falling afoul of WP:FORUMSHOPPING should you bring the issue to this noticeboard on the article's talk page. Enough. Farage's position is well referenced so please stop playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that the new FORUMSHOPPING definition, "you're not allowed to raise an issue on a single noticeboard when Mme Harpy forbids it"? Fine, seems that you are queen around here, judging by your last WP:ANI, so I will stay away from all articles in your kingdom, your Highness. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If the comment has been cherry picked out of context then without the full quote then it should be removed post haste, the additional comments "but not as a human being" and "Not that I approve of him politically" change the limited quote significantly. Mentioning of Farage like this in a fake quote is way excessive and I will remove it now. IMO anyone replacing the cherry picked portion of a quote should be removed from this article Govindaharihari (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

off topic NE Ent 19:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't bother, she gets away with anything, look for example at Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy, where Drmies admits he only tells her she was wrong because the ANI must appear fair and balanced ("Note that my comments were made also to ensure the viewer back home that we are fair and balanced here at ANI"). Ssscienccce (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are asked 'who you most admire in the world' and you answer 'X person, except for the bad things' that in no way negates that you *still* admire them more than anyone else in the world. Despite his human rights record, stances on homosexuality etc, Nigel Farage admires Putin more than any other person in the world. Including the Dalai Lama, Hitler, or Margaret Thatcher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Venus_Palermo

Venus_Palermo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I saw that the page Venus_Palermo is experiencing an extended amount of vandalism like changing the name of relatives or changing the name of the living person into name of genitals etc, and as well probably good faith edits. It is a concerning fact though, that these users also remove references, which messes up the site on reliability. I am therefor asking for page protection of the site, since even warned users repeatedly return to delete relevant information or mess up the page with random words within names or other highly possibly vandalistic acts (like putting visa instead of names and repeatedly deleting references), even creating bots for vandalistic acts and as well simply blanking the page. The amount of vandalism is increasing, so the protection of the page seems to be necessary. Thanks for your kind help. 146.185.31.215 (talk)

Um, wow. I removed some of the worst cruft just now, but this article is a mess. It's mostly sourced to this person's own youtube and social media accounts, and contains a lot of non-notable or un-encyclopedic info. Needs more work, but I'm out of time just now. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix Your answer to protecting the page was: deleting relevant information like modelling career, working as a judge and references to music videos. You didn't take a look into all the vandalism taking place on the page, but topped it in some ways. 146.185.31.215 (talk)

None of this is vandalism. The info has been (repeatedly) removed because it is not reliably sourced, and isn't appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:RS and WP:NOT - we cannot include long lists of this person's appearances and activities when the only source is their own you tube channel and social media accounts. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix true, but that is not the case. You delete reliable infos, with a lot of proof from various pages. If the person says on her own instagram, that she married, e.g., then we have to accept this announsement as reliable. If her youtube channel says, that the channel has 0ver 140,000,000 views, then it is a reliable info. And about other infos you delete: they are well sourced from external pages like movie trailer, modelling contest, and chart ranking etc. Please stop the disruptive editing and plain deletion of well sourced information. 146.185.31.215 (talk)

IP 146, You are being very disruptive and are edit-warring over content that clearly does not belong. Fyddlestix's removal of the content was perfectly appropriate. Content that is not notable and/or does not have reliable sources should never be added. Educate yourself on what vandalism is, and stop your baseless allegations of sockpuppetry and collusion among editors. There is no conspiracy against you. Czoal (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@146.185.31.215, are you Venus Palermo or do you have a personal connection to her? Czoal (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, my question has been answered. See this thread at AN about IP 146, where admin NeilH said that IP 146 is also Maggie.7537, whom he blocked. And Maggie.7537 said in this edit summary from August 2013 that she is Venus Palermo's mother. Czoal (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Priya Bhavani Shankar

This article content contains looks like an advertisement or promotional. Please remove it from the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahamed5zal (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Terren Peizer

The article on Terren Peizer popped up on my watchlist, it is absolutely horrible. It has survived AfD and the guy seems notable, but this article is ghastly, so Ihave moved it to Draft in the hope that someone here can clean it up to meet policy (e.g. by removing peacock terms). Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

There is a problem with the first sentence. I still do cult intervention work, so I am not "formerly a cult intervention specialist." The first sentence might be changed to read -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an author, consultant, expert witness, lecturer and cult intervention specialist, formerly known as a "cult deprogrammer." Also the lead itself might be made shorter by cutting everything after the first paragraph.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This is being discussed at Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Lead and that appears to be the best place to continue the discussion rather than splitting it to here. -- GB fan 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin's biography has, for several years, accurately described various highly-defamatory, scurrilous and widely-repudiated claims about her as being a "conspiracy theory," based on the widespread description of those claims as a conspiracy theory by a broad array of reliable sources, including major newspapers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers and the Anti-Defamation League, among others. This has been a longstanding consensus dating back to 2013. Recently, User:Nocturnalnow has taken to a slow-motion edit war to remove the well-supported description of the claims as a conspiracy theory. I would request additional eyes on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually was attracted to the heading "Conspiracy Theory Allegations" which seems like a self conflicting and unnecessarily judgmental phrase to me. I then noticed that the User above kept reverting the efforts of other editors to improve the heading which is why I got involved. I also endorse the suggestion that you keep an eye on this BLP as it seems full of sanitizing, whitewashing and misrepresentation to me. Especially so with the newer section on Abedin's RS reported involvement in the Clinton email issues. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to suggest something better which maintains the RS-backed mainstream description of the allegations as a conspiracy theory, please make that suggestion on the talk page. When discussing widely-discredited, scurrilous and negative allegations about a living person, we must depict those allegations as mainstream reliable sources do — as little more than a McCarthy-style conspiracy theory. That the above user has proffered writings from the noted right-wing conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney in defense of his arguments is merely further proof of how they are viewed by mainstream sources. Fringe theories must be depicted as what they are — fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your editing history shows a concerning pattern. Whether you're attracted to contentious BLPs or contention follows you, you might be better off avoiding them. 166.171.185.231 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Conveniently, your editing history has no pattern, because you're an anonymous IP troll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor's personal attack directly above is enlightening in itself. Everybody knows an anonymous editor is welcome on Wikipedia.Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Signa Vianen

Resolved

Article containing potentially inappropriate BLP content has been deleted. Remaining traces of existence of a former article on Wikipedia would need to be addressed through WP:OVERSIGHT, if it meets the criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I want the Signa Vianen page removed although I was not the one who published it. But I am that person in the article. What do I do to ensure it gets done. Do you need to see my passport. Article was recently altered by one individual intentionally aiming to defame subject plus a minor, her son. In order to prevent recurrence (which is bound to happen)do keep a close watch. Subjects are Dutch, not Surinamese.

Also, I would like to report the insultive manner in which editor TheRedPenOfDoom tried to justify edits he made, whilst deleting authentic sources. He literally used the words ´´crap´´. I am not the only one complaining about his manners. Eraser of Stalker Edits 23:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talk • contribs)

Looking of the history of the article, there's a lot of noise and not much signal. The BLP violations alone aren't grounds to delete the article, but I'm not convinced that the claim of significance was enough. So, I'm erring on the side of BLP-caution and deleting the article—at least as much because of TRPoD's tagging the article for speedy deletion as well as LondonTurk's request. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It was I, MRS VIANEN, who prompted that the page should be deleted. I insisted on that, as the page was about me and somebody published it years ago and I merely chuckled when I first came across it. The page was not deleted because that TheRedPenOfDoom wiki alias suggested it. I MYSELF asked for it. Also, you nor your colleagues would even be able to determine what is what, in terms of claims of significance, because I published my articles in another language, not in English. Any other authentic source than the ones already presented, would just be confusing to you and your kind. Eraser of Stalker Edits 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talk • contribs)

The article is gone but one can still see some weird reference being made, as if I lack importance or even significance, because a Wiki page did not utterly describe me. FYI I already proved myself years ago and like other journalists with a similar cultural background, it was mentioned. I happen to have a solid track record and folks know my endeavours and my successes. But I was never a journalist in your English speaking countries and I also wrote my articles in another language other than English. So you are in no position to decide upon whatever relevance I have, since you would not even be able to understand anything I was involved in. You better stick with the Biebers of the world, and I stick to my own significance. Eraser of Stalker Edits 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talk • contribs)

This C.Fred person @C.Fred: I saw his edit, the following line that is 00:17, 6 October 2015 C.Fred (talk | contribs) deleted page Signa Vianen (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I understand what the article is about but it does not apply to me as I proved myself years ago, in South America where I used to live. I therefore urge Wikipedia to delete the reference stating that ´´The Article was about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject etc.

Wiki editors who don´t even know my language, are covering up their editing mistakes and now implying that I lack importance or even significance, because a Wiki page did not utterly describe me. I did not publish the page about myself, and when I saw it years ago, I left it at that. I only checked if the facts were OK and over the years somebody sometimes helped me to make a few changes. But I never bothered about it so much as to expand it by adding all kinds of sources. no need.

My relevance is not to be measured by how many articles I published in your country, because I was never a journalist in your country. In fact, you wouldn´t even be able to understand anything I wrote because I am not even English speaking. You are clearly going by double standards here. When a Wiki editor uses words like crap whenever editing pages about living people, credible people with a solid track record, that in itself is UNACCEPTABLE. And I was not the only one complaining about ´´him´´.

Also, please be aware of the FACT that there are a number of pages, people with my similar background, cultural background that is, who have even less data. And there is nothing wrong with that, because among ourselves we know our importance. Nobody from out of nowhere will come in and refer to it as CRAP. I was attacked by a stalker yesterday and I called it to Wiki´s attention because it was one crazy addition to the page. The stalker even changed my nationality, changing me into a Caribbean national which I am most definitely not. I guess that kind of gibberish will prompt the creeps to come out and complete the feast. I have come to the conclusion btw that wiki editors are not necessarily the most credible folks, since they always hide themselves behind a fake ID. Eraser of Stalker Edits 01:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talk • contribs)

Well, the article about you is gone now, so you should be well now. Have a pleasant day. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is gone but one can still see some weird reference being made, as if I lack importance or even significance, because a Wiki page did not utterly describe me. FYI I already proved myself years ago and like other journalists with a similar cultural background, it was mentioned. I happen to have a solid track record and folks know my endeavours and my successes. But I was never a journalist in your English speaking countries and I also wrote my articles in another language other than English. So you are in no position to decide upon whatever relevance I have, since you would not even be able to understand anything I was involved in. You better stick with the Biebers of the world, and I stick to my own significance. Eraser of Stalker Edits 02:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC+9)

There is no way to delete a page without it leaving some sort of record. C.Fred chose to delete it as A7 and even if he restored and closed it as something different, the A7 would still show up in the page history. There's no removing that and there's not anything more that any of us can do for you. Rather than get upset about what shows up in the log history and continue to make some fairly mean spirited comments towards other people, just let it go. You asked for the page's deletion and it was deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Your behavior on your talk page is frankly unacceptable. I'm going to make this process easier for you and just give you a block for making ad hominem attacks against other editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Noam Federman

The article was recently expanded with a lot of negative material about the guy. No question he is a troublemaker but does the article in its current state violate BLP? Thanks, Settleman (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No -- it looks pretty good to me. Rather tame, even. Thankfully not as tame as "troublemaker". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think some of the individual statements are less than reliably sourced (ref 1 for example but I am not an expert in the I/P area), however their removal would neither affect the tone of the article or its description of the subject - given the large amount of other sources available which speak in equal or more negative terms of the subject. It could use a re-write in places, it does not read very well in some sections. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Schleicher bio

I would like to bring to your attention that the bio of Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, Orgnaisation for Cooperation and Development is very out of date. It would be great if this could be updated, you can find his online bio here: http://www.oecd.org/edu/andreas-schleicher.htm

I would also be happy to send you a longer more detailed bio.

Thank you for your help in advance, Cassandra Davis Communications Manager, Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.7 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For reference, Andreas Schleicher.

The most important information that we would be able to use would be third party sources that discuss Mr. Schleicher's life and work. News articles, that sort of thing. Acceptable sources can be found in our reliable sources policy. We generally avoid biographies provided by the subject or their organization, because they really and truly could print anything. It's better, we've found, to use independent sources. Since you are associated with the subject, you will want to provide your sources here or at the article's talk page. So let's start there, with independent sources, and see what we find. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelm Bubits

WP:BADAFD brought me to a redlinked AFD tag at this article, where new editor Flox83 stated that "After talking to Mr. Wilhelm Bubits, he wants to remove this site/entry". I had a look, and found that two of the references were bad links, and a third goes into great detail about a gun, and mentions Mr. Bubits, but does focus on him as such. Several similar articles, mentioning Mr. Bubits as a gunsmith and inventor but not discussing him directly, are also out there in the googles. If the subject is borderline on notably, and if they did indeed wish it to be deleted, I would have no particular objection to deletion - and almost completed the AFD anyway. But then I decided that I wanted to get some additional eyes on this one. A redirect to the company isn't a great option, since Mr. Bubits isn't mentioned in that article either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike Daisey

I seldom involve myself administeringly with serious BLP problems, but I've done so at Mike Daisey. An admin more experienced in this kind of thing than I am is most welcome to look at the article's history, the foot of its talk page, and my block. The simple reason why the block isn't longer is that I presume that the perp will soon find an alternative IP. I didn't try to make my revision deletions very fine-grain (and thus have deleted a number of innocuous edits), as doing so threatened to take more time for little or no obvious benefit, and I'm under (WP-unrelated) work pressure. If you, experienced admin, would like to make adjustments to what I did, please go ahead and make them. And whether or not you fully agree with what I did, I'd be grateful if you too would put the article on your watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Ray Norris

This page is horribly written. So many grammatical errors it's insulting to Mr. Norris and anyone with the slightest knowledge of the English language. It should be protected from whomever wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1GirlieGirl (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be talking about the article Chuck Norris. Please describe your specific concerns (providing examples) in Talk:Chuck Norris. (Meanwhile, despite my slight knowledge of the English language, I am not insulted.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources via OTRS for BLP articles

Hello, all. :) This is not about a specific BLP, but I think it is of potential interest here. There is a new RFC on whether OTRS should be permitted to receive primary sources for content changes to articles, such as using driver's licenses as sources for dates of birth. Please see WP:VPP#RfC - should we allow primary sources sent in to OTRS and participate there if you have input on this question. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari (Food Babe)

Seems like the discussion really has finished. I close this section. Thanks. More balance does appear to have been restored to the article. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 8 October 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.

I came across the article on Vani Hari and found it to be extremely slanted toward smearing her, in my assessment. I've been following the controversy about her, voices in favor and against her, and critiques of her work as well as people who praise her work. I made an effort to edit the page to change some of the most glaring bias, and was promptly reverted and shut down by a small group of people who in my reckoning have occupied the article in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics, which is not what Wikipedia should be. I would appreciate some attention by uninvolved people, and hearing your comments on this. You may notice the recent edit history contains several edits by myself, and reverts by other editors, and plenty of dialogue in the talk page. Thank you for any time and attention you bring to this. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who was brought to said page by an earlier RfC by SageRad, I would say I did not find the same bias that's being claimed. Further, I read through ensuing talk page discussions (since you posted the RfC) and disagree that you are being stopped by a small group of people "in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics." As I see it, I would say you are likely too invested in this article and keep trying to post unsourced claims against consensus. I might recommend you take a step back from this article and just be willing to let this one go dude... Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't have a dog in this fight and someone should give you a frank analysis of the situation. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted a sourced claim, and it was reverted. I'm not "invested" in the article, but rather i'm invested in Wikipedia having space for editors with differing perspectives. I don't have a window into other people's minds to know their motivations, but the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear to me. You don't know my motivation, either. Thank you for your opinion, but i'd still like to hear others and i maintain my position that the article is occupied by a group who have essentially locked it into a single direction. Thank you also for your input into the RfC. Wish there were more people who would follow the bot and offer their view. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In its previous state the article seemed a bit unbalanced in opposition of Hari, to the point where it made scientifically inaccurate claims that contradicted the sources to add to the ammo against her.[36] The article also distorted a source to claim that Hari thought baking soda was a dangerous chemical!!!!!!! (thereby portraying her as stark raving mad) when the source clearly said no such thing.[37] This article had some seriously skeezy BLP problems. I've made quite a few changes to the article but one, removing a laundry list of bullet pointed accusations against Hari based on a single source was reverted based on a "consensus" which seems incredibly dubious (both in terms of numbers supporting inclusion and the strength of their arguments).[38] What do the wise folk of BLPN, think of the validity of including such a laundry list? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have returned that bullet list to the article, in a different way, hopefully to satisfy your objection to the over use of one source. The illustrations of her strange approach to facts is a vital part of her BLP. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am thankful to Brustopher for the careful and thoughtful work. The article does indeed look much improved to me. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

... and yet no thanks to me for improving further? Why not? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit uses the word "sell" whereas the source uses the phrase "she recommends—and earns an Amazon.com affiliate commission from". Your claim in the article is that "Hari claims that aluminium in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Wikipedia article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. And the issue of weight. That's why i have some issues with your edits, Roxy. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That is certainly a mistake. But it seems that the use of this is mean spirited. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Along a similar note, i made this edit as it appears to be a claim on a secondary source level (review statement) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and this source is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i stated about Hari's clim regarding aluminum and disease, the source distorted that claim's magnitude as i have shown in the previous comment, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive, but Hari does not claim that. This is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the article "extremely slanted toward smearing her", however there may be too much detail and quote mining in the criticism section, and probably some WP:NPOV concerns. The sentence "d'Entremont received death threats for her criticism of Hari following her article." and the phrase "... and in a 2011 Twitter post stated that flu vaccines have been used as a "genocide tool" in the past" are poorly sourced and should be removed. [39] and [40] are primary sources. They should not be used for the contentious claim "The statement became widely controversial... with public organisations promoting science, such as McGill University's Office for Science & Society and the American Council on Science and Health.". The last paragraph in Marketing strategy depends on one source and seems WP:UNDUE. The source is also somewhat biased.- Mr X 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago, the article was substantially different. Much progress has been made at restoring some balance, thankfully. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of biased crap that this article has to put up with: SageRad hiding behind MEDRS to strip content they don't like. Our cliche "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" does not mean that we demand the "extraordinary" level sourcing to support basic claims of common sense, just because they are uncomplimentary to Hari. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean you have to "put up with" another editor who insists on good sourcing as per Wikipedia guidelines, and who also doesn't like to see Wikipedia used as a soapbox for people to slander their enemies in a BLP? I'm sorry for your troubles. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you are not "insisting on sourcing per WP guidelines" you are making highly POV and ridiculous edits, then hiding behind an irrelevant policy in a feeble attempt to justify this. Your edits overall speak for your huge bias in this article, and in your other edits.

Vani Hari operates by making stupid statements and untruths, hoping that her fans don't notice them (Aluminium in anti-perspirants is bad. My anti-perspirants contain alum. Alum is not aluminium.) Very simple sources suffice to support this debunking. Yet you are demanding sources to the same standard for simple statments like "Water is wet" as we would (reasonably) for the truly extraordinary claims like, "Nazi microwaves make water toxic." You leave Hari's outlandish claims unchallenged, but you strip the simple stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment above on this edit. The claim in the article was a biomedical claim that "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" which is a blanket statement that is not well-bounded, for one thing (which claims of Hari's), is based on a simple assertion in the source for the claim, and is definitely a biomedial claim about human health, which does require MEDRS. I'm not being technical or semantic here to push a point of view. I am removing POV pushing that was already present in the form of a bad claim, which essentially claimed that any link between aluminum and breast cancer or Alzheimer's is "strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" as well as any claims as to potential effects of potassium sorbate, and any other claims that Hari has made that might be mentioned in the source document. It's a false blanket statement being attributed strongly to "experts in science and medicine" and present in a Wikipedia article. That was not a good situation. Furthermore, i have shown in detail how the source distorted Hari's original claims, and how Roxy's edit had distorted the source's version. The devil's in the details. I am paying attention to details. SageRad (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There will never be a systematic review of Vani Hari's claims to satisfy MEDRS because no one will write it. Per WP:PARITY, we can use reliable but less-than-unassailable sources to counter fringe claims such as Hari's. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes her claims fringe? For example, her claim that science suggests that there is a link between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer's? What makes it fringe? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a link between aluminium and Alzheimer's, I read it years ago when it was first published in Nature. But, to this day we don't know if the increased concentration of aluminium is cause or effect of the disease. Perhaps you have heard the mantra "correlation does not prove causality". We only have correlation, we don't have causality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I knew nothing about Hari before seeing this thread. But yes, anyone who can write "water that was microwaved did not form beautiful crystals – but instead formed crystals similar to those formed when exposed to negative thoughts or beliefs" and not burst out laughing is fringe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Does Hari have a right to respond to accusations in her own article?

Quick summary:Hari said something about fish bladders which the press deemed as fear mongering. In a blog post Hari responds to these claims. I added her response to these accusations to the article, because it's her BLP and I believe she has a right to respond to serious accusations. User:JzG has removed her response claiming she is a serial liar who can't be trusted.[41][42] From BLP policy standpoint, who is in the right here? Brustopher (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We're here to create encyclopedic content first, and not to provide anyone with a soapbox. Hari's claims are deep into pseudoscience and fringe territory, so it's unlikely she'll ever accept encyclopedic content about her beliefs. Given we've reliable sources about her attempts at hiding her past claims, she probably shouldn't be seen as a reliable source about anything other than WP:BLPSELFPUB content that is not contentious an any way. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not asserting that what she is saying is true. The idea that Hari's article is a soapbox is laughable, as it accurately calls out all her pseudoscientific or exaggerated claims. We are not asserting her claim as fact, we're allowing her to provide her own opinion about what happened. If a BLP has published rebuttals of highly negative accusations against them (such as being an ignorant fearmonger), then we ought to use it. Otherwise we could be smearing a BLP. Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but adding her responses is indeed using the article as a soapbox, in addition to violating BLPSELFPUB, and NPOV for that matter when using such sources to "balance" those from independent, reliable ones. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that she has a long history of making clueless comments and then trying to undo the damage after the fact without actually admitting she was wrong. That means we should leave all analysis of her statements to third parties. This is not a newspaper, we don't have an even notional "right of reply", we report the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we don't then "balance" that with the subject's own special pleading. The solution to her problems is for her to take more care over accuracy and clarity. I know you want to be fair, but as my old schoolmaster said, "don't go expecting life to be fair, 'cos it ain't." There is very little recent commentary on Hari that paints her in a good light, and there is only one person to blame for this: Vani Hari. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We report the consensus of reliable independent sources, as determined by the consensus of the editors evaluating those sources, and in a case such as this, we seem to be split about including Hari's response to various allegations against her, such as her "any chemical, ever" comment. Her reply to that one was that it was taken out of context, and i tend to agree with that response. She's given to hyperbole but in the context that one made sense, and she explained why in her response. It was in a chapter about endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and therefore in the context of high potency modes of action, where indeed there is no safe level of any of the relevant chemicals.

There was some positive coverage of Hari, and i added it, and it was promptly reverted by other editors here. In that source, a U.S. Congressman praised Hari's efforts to bring some light to chemical additives in food, and whether or not they are all necessary. SageRad (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So it sounds some editors are ignoring BLPSELFPUB and specifically cherry-picking "positive" coverage to include? That would be a BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, you are so quick to jump to a snap judgment that favors one side of this conflict. The article was highly slanted toward denigrating Hari, and i engaged in discussion at the talk page, and it was suggested that if i knew of positive coverage, to include it, and i did so, and it was promptly reverted. What's your beef, Ronz? Balance in coverage is a good thing. There was coverage both positive and negative, and the article included almost solely the negative and spoke in Wikivoice the claims of those who hate her. That's a violation of BLP, a serious one. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

At best it merits a 'although Hari has responded/denied this' at the end of the section with a source to her response. Her actual response would not be covered in detail due to it being, well, rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That's quite judgmental, and your own judging of her words as "rubbish" shows your proclivity in regard to the article. This attitude of hatred for Hari among those who are editing the page is the source of the extreme bias that was there and still remains to a large degree, in this BLP. There is a contingent of editors who really seem to hate Hari who are editing her page and attempting to lock it down in a negative way, and blocking people who want to move it the other way. SageRad (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and try to refrain from using this forum (and the article) as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not using this forum as a battleground, sir. I am pointing out that the Vani Hari article is a battleground and that this is a bad situation. Do not shoot the messenger. Do not confuse the messenger with the message. The battleground dynamic is highly relevant to the content that is created in an article and therefore it is relevant to the content. I am focusing on the content, but to do so, one must diagnose why the content is so biased. SageRad (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense: "you are so quick to jump to a snap judgment that favors one side of this conflict" "What's your beef, Ronz"

Good luck at ArbCom. I think a ban is in order. --Ronz (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, can you not even see your bad behavior? Do you really think "Good luck at ArbCom" is an appropriate comment here? My comments that you quote above were a direct response to your insinuating comment as follows: "So it sounds some editors are ignoring BLPSELFPUB and specifically cherry-picking "positive" coverage to include? That would be a BLP violation" wherein i believe that you were saying that my addition of one single piece of positive coverage of Vani Hari (which was promptly removed by another editor) was "cherry-picking" and i did in fact see you as snapping to judgment favoring one side in this conflict. Now you are saying that i'm creating a "battleground" by saying that i thought you snapped to judgment in a biased way? Ok, then. I'm done with this thread. You've targeted me here, wrongly. Please take your own advice and focus on the content, and speak with substance and integrity. Please cease from trying to frame me as wikicriminal just because i brought up an issue of bias in an biography of a living person that seemed to be an attack informercial against her. Don't shoot the messenger. Talk about the substance, if you have anything to add. SageRad (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I took "Ok, then. I'm done with this thread." as an indication you were, done. What is the nature of your BLP emergency? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest closing

I suggest closing this thread for two reasons: first, there is discussion on the article talk page which seems in the most part to have converged on a consensus version witht he exception of two minor elements over whihic I have started RfCs; second, this article is related to the ongoing arbitration case on GMOs, and SageRad's presence there is primarily in furtherance of his agenda on GMOs, so encouraging him to continue arguing here risks tempting him to dig an even deeper hole for himself. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we continue to talk as long as there are relevant things to say, and that there is no need to close this dialogue. And please get off your targeting of me. You're onerous, sir. You're out of line. I bring up issues that seem relevant to the integrity of Wikipedia, and you attack me as a result. I'm not here for any agenda except to restore some balance and integrity. You're confusing that with something else, apparently, and you have taken to a pattern of attacking me with ad hominem remarks like this for the past month or so, and i am seriously tired of this behavior of yours. Please cease. Let's talk about the topic at hand if you have anything to offer regarding it. I created this thread for good reason, and it seems to be serving to foster discussion about the topic of the Vani Hari page and whether there is bias on that page. Let's not shut this discussion down just because you want to. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why the rush to close this thread?

I am really wondering why this thread was closed when there remains the possibility that further discussion would be useful. That was an inappropriate closing of an active thread.

The reason given by the editor who closed it was "Since SageRad is done here, so are we all. Related Arbcom case will likely have direct influence for future editing." There are problems with this:

I'm not done here necessarily and i just stated that plainly in my response to Guy/JzG.
This is not about me. I opened this thread as an editor on Wikipedia for other editors to also discuss this issue and this has happened, and is still happening. People have been discussing this issue, despite the harassment and bad behavior by several onerous editors here.
The mention of the ArbCom case, just like Ronz's comment above, is threatening language and inappropriate here. SageRad (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the BLP issue that needs to be addressed here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread explains itself, and its purpose was and still is to discuss bias in the Vani Hari article. Give it enough time to complete naturally. Strange to see the impulse to shut this down, and the reason being given that "SageRad is done here" and also the very strange off-topic reference to the ArbCom case. Discussions take some time and it's usually apparent when a discussion is completed because people are no longer contributing to it. There is room for discussion on Wikipedia. The presence of this thread does not impede or hurt anyone, does it? Where i wrote "i'm done with this thread" i meant the sub-thread in which Ronz was going ad hominem -- i didn't mean this whole discussion section. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I had just replied to JzG that i would prefer to keep this section open for the time being as i see it having been and still being useful. SageRad (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread has been open since the 22 September. There is no indication there is a pressing BLP issue, information in the article is reliably sourced. Your main complaint is that the article is overly negative and positive information (eg, Hari's response to criticism) is not being included. That the majority of reliably sourced information from secondary sources is negative about Hari is not a BLP issue when reliably sourced. Your complaint that positive information from Hari/elsewhere is not being included is a content issue currently being discussed (where it belongs) on the article talk page. Unless there is actually a BLP issue that needs to be resolved this conversation really is done. What outcome do you expect from further discussion here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no particular problem in providing SageRad with WP:ROPE. "Ok, then. I'm done with this thread" was confusing at best. But no big deal -- except that if things degenerate into unproductive bickering I'll close it myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Rope" comment inappropriate -- threatening/insinuating language not welcome here. The article still appears to suffer extreme bias to me, and i am still interested in others seeing this and evaluating whether this seems to be an issue to them. Wikipedia works by diversity of perspectives and by good dialogue. Please engage in helpful dialogue or refrain from dialogue. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And I suppose there's nothing to learn from the fact that everyone who has evaluated it has come to the same conclusion. That's the difficulty here, of course -- your notion of "helpful" dialogue has a particular meaning. With that in mind, I hope you won't continue to try to discourage others from participating -- the same way you want not to be discouraged from participating yourself... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence is not correct. The rest, i don't really understand what you mean. Anyone can participate, of course, as long as the guidelines and ideals of Wikipedia are respected. SageRad (talk) 20:45, 5 October 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.

Yu Tsai

Almost all of the content is unsourced, and virturally all of the sources and external links are junk. Czoal (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Since there was no input, I did the best I could to clean it up. Czoal (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ricardo Azziz

Has any body read this?? It is purely a PR piece by the subject or one of his minions. I don't think I have ever read such a blatantly self promoting piece in Wikipedia. This guy has been tremendously controversial, something you would get only a whisper of from this piece when it mentions in one sentence how "problems" in his admin were resolved. He "strong armed" a very controversial change of name at the merger of MCG and Augusta College (to the asinine "Regents University" which was genuinely felt to be an incredibly sycophantic offering to the Georgia Regents) and which has now been officially reverted back to the much more reasonable "Augusta University." I am no fan of this guy and have strong feelings of negativity about him and admit my prejudice--but come on now, can't some one other than one of his office interns write his biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.105.69 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the most gratuitously promotional sentence from the lead of the article. I have offered some advice at User talk:Lhubbard2203a, the editor who recently added that sentence. I have added a template to the article indicating that there are current issues with it resulting from the conflict of interest editing that has taken place over a long period of time. I suggest you head to Talk:Ricardo Azziz to discuss what should be included in the article that currently isn't. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been looking at this article for several years without attempting to edit it. I have noticed, whenever anyone attempts to re-write it with either a neutral or positive point of view of the subject, the user is either banned or blocked under the guise of "edit warring" or "sock puppetry". This has clearly happened in the case of the user Lonestar1776, who was accused of sock-puppetry despite the fact his IP address showed otherwise. The article has been hijacked by those who entertain an unfavorable view of the person being written about, and does not follow the criteria for :NPOV:. Corrective measures would be appreciated Rolusty33 (talk)

Hmm -- you are at risk of being blocked for edit-warring. If I had seen the edit you were trying to implement, I would have reverted it as well. There's no BLP violation currently; discussion can take place on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Your edits were reverted by three different administrators, presumably because you are trying to water down the subject's fringe positions. The advice to go to the talk page with you concerns is well-taken. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 09:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor told one Admin "I see this article has quite the array of meat-puppets to keep it in good order. Bravo". And changed the date of a post from someone who had reported some edit-warring 4 years ago to make it look as though it had been reported today. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The level of disruption caused by Rolusty33 in such a short space of time would suggest that some level of sanction should be implemented. I suggest a topic ban might be in order. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The article reads as unfavorable because the mainstream science community (as well as some who might by sympathetic to Hovind's views) has dismissed the subject's theories as junk science. There's also the matter of his well-covered tax evasion and prison sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer Grünwald

Why is there a wikipedia article on Jennifer Grünwald. It is clearly a self promotional article, relying too much on references to primary sources. Basically crap. Watcherchecker (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why there's an article: Somebody thought it worth creating, and after creation it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Grünwald. Do you have a suggestion for the article? -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I insists that the article is self-promotional and that is does not need inclusion in a encyclopedia. Jennifer Grünwald is not a notable person. The article needs to be deleted, as happened the other day with some foreign editor. That page was deleted as well, not even sure why but still. Delete this one too. Or is Wiki discriminating on real life persons when they have a non-western background? I will keep looking for more self-promotional pages. Watcherchecker (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that the outcome of the deletion discussion above was No Consensus, there would be nothing to stop you from following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to nominate it again if you believe it is clear that the individual is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and can demonstrate that. Complaining about it here, especially about "western backgrounds" whatever that means, will not get that done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The world is divided as we all know. Saudi Arabia is not a western region, is it? South-America is not a western region, is it? It is not my duty to educate you on this. Look it up yourself. Jennifer Grünwald does not belong on Wikipedia, the article on her does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. She is not some authority in her field whatsoever. Other pages were deleted, even recently, based upon article A7. (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) So why not this page? I will nominate the Jennifer Grünwald page for deletion, again. Watcherchecker (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Watcherchecker. You can nominate the article for deletion if you wish, but I believe you need to due so via WP:AFD. I'm pretty sure that WP:PROD cannot be used in this case because the article has been previously nominated for deletion via Afd once before. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It cannot - this can only be done via AfD. Watcherchecker, let myself or someone else know if you need help with this process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Shonda Rhimes

Someone keeps calling Shonda Rhimes a life ruiner

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shonda_Rhimes&diff=cur&oldid=684701887

Thanks. Semi-protected for three months, and I blocked a named account that looked to be behind at least some of it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Preparing two proposals that would change transgender policy

A recent proposal at the Village Pump: Policy about how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner in an article about the 1976 Olympics ended with the recommendation 1) that MOS:IDENTITY's policy on transgender individuals be revisited and 2) that the issue of how to refer to transgender individuals who are mentioned in passing in articles of which they are not the principal subject be addressed directly in the MoS.

We are preparing two separate proposals for the Village Pump, one about whether the main MOS:IDENTITY should be kept or changed, and one about drafting a new rule for transgender individuals who are mentioned in passing. Here's where we could use a little help: We don't want this to confuse anyone or to have too many moving parts. You guys have probably worked on more articles about transgender subjects than the MOS regulars have, so you probably know what issues actually come up and what just looks like it would. We don't want to ask the community "Should we have bananas or apples?" if half of them have been yelling "Oranges! Oranges!" for six years.

For Proposal 1, are the two options that we're offering actually what the community wants? Are they phrased well? Are they easy to understand? Did we leave anything out? Could we trim anything back?

For Proposal 2, are the four/five options that we're offering actually things that people say they want? Should any of them be discarded? Are they easy to understand? Are the examples easy to understand? Did we leave anything out? Could we trim anything back?

Your contribution is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html

[2] ttp://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html

[3] ttps://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/

[4] [JKL http://www.eonline.com/news/693905/emily-blunt-is-officially-a-u-s-citizen-but-can-she-pass-jimmy-kimmel-s-citizenship-test-watch-and-find-out]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]