Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive236

Why not fair use photos of living people for leads?

Can someone explain why we are unable to add a non-free image to a bio lead when a commons photo is not available, so long as the person is still alive?

I often come across articles of famous actors, such as Barbara Harris (actress) or Armand Assante, who lack an image because of that. It makes no sense, at least from a U.S. perspective, why a non-profit encyclopedia can't at least include a fair use image. The only rationale I could find is in Wikipedia:Non-free content:

Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.

However, that definition seems mostly useless for famous people:

• For one thing, it's not reasonable to expect an editor to take a photo of those kinds of people. We're not paparazzi, and WP should't expect that. We don't get paid.
• A retired actress like Harris has been inactive for 20 years. She's also 80. Is it even useful to have a photo of her when her prime career years were over 50 years ago? Is it a reasonable expectation to think a WP editor is going to track her down, invade her privacy (since she's no longer acting,) and take a photo, which wouldn't even add to the bio as being unrepresentative of her career look?
• WP was established and is still based in the U.S., which implies it should abide by U.S. copyright law. The U.S. has very clear fair use laws which would permit a non-profit encyclopedia using a non-free image. Those fair use laws don't require that person be dead before allowing us to use a non-free.
• The rationale that WP is stricter than U.S., therefore why someone in Bulgaria, for instance, shouldn't be allowed to view an online WP photo is unclear. We're not giving it to them. The non-free tags explain that it is non-free and can't be copied just because it came from WP. In fact the tag explains more than 99.99% of the images that anyone anywhere can copy from the web.
• And, FWIW, for publicity photos, copyright law in the U.S. is clear that rarely, if ever, were they even copyrighted and were actually intended to be free. Therefore allowing a fair use one would be more than reasonable.

If this issue is posted in wrong forum, let me know and I'll relocate it. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if you get 100% agreement with your views, it won't change policy, since WP:NFCCP isn't a Wikipedia policy but a Foundation resolution, so getting it changed would require a formal decision of the WMF Board. If you do want to try to get An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals removed from it, you'll need to go here and follow the "Contact the Board" instructions, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply; if anything, the Board would likely be more sympathetic to banning fair use altogether. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The resolution says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. " My emphasis. Just to show that we have leeway here and editorial discretion might allow the use of fair use in some contexts where a photo cannot reasonably be expected to be uploaded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The only case I have seen somewhat supported is the second bullet-point...what someone looked like long ago, as the notable timeframe. Essentially, the current-era free one (or potentially-creatable as of now) would not "serve the same encyclopediac purpose" compared to an old one that would be rationalized as "for purposes of identification of the subject" (based on the actual sources of notability). It's been kicked around from time to time on...probably WT:NFCC. But this hasn't been enshrined in any policy or guideline that I can find (but maybe some child-actors have been accepted as special cases by this reasonsing?). DMacks (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I know there were a couple of cases of 1970s punk bands where consensus was that their image was significant enough to justify illustration, and that the subculture of the time was one in which people were unlikely to have taken personal photos they'd release into the public domain, but that's something of a special case as what they looked like at a given time is such a significant part of the story. Certainly for Elvis Presley (who isn't even alive) the WMF ruled that fair use photos shouldn't be used since the number of people who saw him made it statistically too likely that there would be a potential free-use photo in circulation. (If you search Jimmy Wales's talk archives for "Elvis" you should find the original debate.) ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw this discussion, looked around a bit, found and added a free picture of Armand Assante in the appropriate place. Sort of as a proof that these things can be found; not always, but not never either. It's not a great picture (why was he always tilting his head to one side during the whole interview?) but it's not terrible, so it's better than nothing, especially as one of the advantages of having a mediocre picture in the article is that the actor will tend to see it, and will be motivated to donate a better one. Barnstars gratefully accepted. :-). --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

i respectfully agree with the original commentor's basic premise;

it would make a lot of sense for us to amend the rule to some thing like

'When a free-use photograph (or other image, or whatever other media-content) of adequate quality is AVAILABLE (to illustrate the subject), this should be used instead of a fair-use image (or whatever other media-content).'

our working standard should be based on the availability of the needed free-use content, not just the hypothetical possibility that "it might turn up some day'".

when something does turn up, then we can replace the fair-use item; until then, better fair-use than nothing.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

congrats @ gruban about finding the picture though; good job! :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin paying off right-wing groups represented as fact

I am concerned about this recent addition at Vladimir Putin which states that Putin directly funded right-wing groups in Europe. The wording is as follows:

Russia's foreign policy towards Europe under Putin has also included funding extremist far-right parties in Europe. These include the Neo-Nazi National Democratic Party in Germany, France's National Front (France), and Hungary's fascist Jobbik party. National Front's Marie Le Pen has confirmed receiving funds from Kremlin, which were transferred via a Russian bank in the Czech Republic. According to the Guardian, Putin has been funding far right parties in Eastern Europe since 2009 which, in addition to Jobbik, include Bulgaria's fascist Attack party and Slovakia's People's Party - Our Slovakia. Russia under Putin has also reportedly made loans to Greece's Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party, as well as Italy's Lega Nord, and Belgium's racist Vlaams Belang party.

The sources use lighter language than this. For example:

• The Independent: "Vladimir Putin is widely suspected of"
• NY Times - amid allegations that it has received funding from Russia
• The Guardian - source says "cultivated links" but the addition states it received direct funding
• The Week - Russia has also reportedly lent money

Whether this is notable, I doubt it. But strong claims need strong wording from strong sources, especially in BLP articles. In my opinion, such kinds of grave allegations, rumors, and suspicion should not be added to BLP articles, even if they are represented as such in the corresponding article. I would like to see what the BLPN community has to say about this before we can proceed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed the wording to include "reportedly", although in several instances (Le Pen, Golden dawn) the funding has been confirmed. And this is certaintly notable as it has been widely reported on (even the links EtienneDolet provides above exemplify that fact).

And one more time - this is not a BLP issue. It's a policy issue. Of course since this is Russian policy, and Putin is Russia's leader it's about Putin. But in this instance EtienneDolet is trying to WP:GAME BLP to remove anything that he/she thinks is critical of Russian policy not a person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin is a BLP article. By adding this info to his article, you are attributing it to him. Or else, why would you add it there? Also, adding the word reportedly doesn't change anything. It's a BLP and we shouldn't be adding such grave claims and allegations to it especially when they are merely reportedly or allegedly made. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So criticism according to you can only be added when there is solid universally accepted proof, whereas adding praise to a BLP is never problematic regardless of how insignificant the source is or implausible the claim is. No wonder the article reads like it was redacted at the Kreml. Would you make the same argument about mentioning the accusations of sexual abuse in the article about Bill Cosby?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A better analogy would be accusations against Cosby's employees.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No it wouldnt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• BLP is not meant to guarantee the exclusion of critical or negative information in biographies. It is meant to guarantee only that we only include criticism and negative information if it is significant and well sourced. If critical information is found repeatedly in reliable sources, then we can and should include it, especially when the accusations are grave, and hence more significant. Failing to accuse grave accusations that are found in reliable sources is to fail to comply with our responsibility to present the reader with a summary of the relevant information about the biographical subject.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Contentious claims" must be strongly sourced.

Where the claims are made as an "allegation" they generally do not belong in any BLP. Where there is a strong claim of fact, then the source of that claim must be clearly given. This is what is required by WP:BLP and is quite important. Else we would have "The National Enquirer reported that Putin has an illicit affair with Bat-Boy" or the like littering BLPs.

• The Independent is circumspect "President Vladimir Putin is widely suspected of being behind an extraordinary Russian cash and charm offensive that is reported to be trying to woo Europe’s far-right populist parties in order to strengthen the Kremlin’s political influence within the European Union." No claim of "fact" other than a small bank lent money to FN.
• The New York Times gives "Europe’s right-wing populists have been gripped by a contrarian fever of enthusiasm for Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin." and nothing much else.
• The Guardian: We should beware Russia’s links with Europe’s right by Luke Harding is an editorial opinion column, not a piece of journalistic reportage of fact. He ascribes the charges to "According to 'Political Capital (Institute)', a Budapest-based research institute which first observed this trend, the Kremlin has recently been wooing the far-right in western Europe as well." Harding does not ascribe this as "fact" but to a Hungarian source's report. Harding also made a now-deleted reference to "(This article was amended on 27 February 2015 to remove references to) Yuri Kudimov for legal reasons." And in the same editorial "Since at least 2009 Russia has actively cultivated links with the far right in eastern Europe. It has established ties with Hungary’s Jobbik, Slovakia’s far-right People’s party and Bulgaria’s nationalist, anti-EU Attack movement." Note that Harding does not say "funding" here at all -- the diff shows a very poor misreading of the actual content of the editorial.

In short - the diff as worded is highly troubling. The most that can be said is "Putin has sought ideological common ground with some right-wing European parties. The FN received a $9 million loan from a Czech-Russian bank when no French banks would make any loans to it." And that is about it for the sources provided. Collect (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not just something that can be sourced to news articles, the close relations with European far right groups is treated also in Academic peer reviewed articles: For example "Polyakova, Alina. "Strange bedfellows: Putin and Europe's far right." World Affairs 177, no. 3 (2014): 36-41.", "Pomerantsev, Peter. "The Kremlin's Information War." Journal of Democracy 26, no. 4 (2015): 40-50."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems obvious that "Putin" in this context means the Russian state or the Putin administration. It doesn't belong in the article on Putin, just as we don't mention drone killings of civilians in the Obama article. Prevalence (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course the two are related since Putin is the head of the "Putin administration". And this is about Putin's foreign policy regarding Europe. So a more appropriate comparison would be with Obama's foreign policy in regard to Africa or Israel or Libya or something rather than the more narrow issue of drones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course we should mention Obama's reliance on drones and the resulting civilian casualties in the article about him. This is an extremely prominent critique that has been made of him as a person responsible for the actions of his administration.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

They are, but in the dedicated article Foreign policy of Barack Obama rather than his biography. Likewise Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin has coverage of Putin's influence on right-wing parties in Europe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that seems like a completely wrong-headed editorial decision, especially given that the Obama article currently includes a paragraph on trinkets he keeps in his pocket.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I would argue what he keeps in his pockets shouldnt even be on the encyclopedia. Personally the editorial decision (assuming there was one rather than the natural placement of relevant info) to keep the fine details of his foreign policy decisions to a separate article where they can be covered appropriately is not a bad one. His use/promotion of drones while notable, is but one aspect of his administration's approach to armed conflict. Likewise Putin's supposed funding of right-wing groups is covered and attributed better on his foreign policy article - it makes it clears its reported and not a fact. But again its but one aspect of his foreign policy. The reason there *are* separate articles is because as men who have a significant amount of personal power and control in the decisions made during their administration's, there is just too much info to have it all in their biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, no of course what he keeps in his pockets shouldnt be in his biography, but the most widely critiqued aspect of his military policy of course should.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How about we shorten it to roughly what Collect proposes above and then include a link to Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(although it most definitely shouldn't be "right wing" - it should be "far right". That's a big part of what makes this notable) Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(and I think those parties need to be listed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that this is about Russian policy. So such contentious information should might as well go to the Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, but not in a BLP. As for the claims being made in the sources themselves, N-HH makes a good point regarding them. The only explanation given as to why this could be considered factual in any way is the bit about Le Pen admitting to accept money from the Russian government (i.e. Putin). But, as it turns out, it's merely borrowed money from a Russian (and also Cypriot) bank. To say that it was Putin sending money to her would be a bit of a stretch, even if the wording in the article says "reportedly". That would misrepresent the sources by turning these mysterious funds into alleged funds from Putin. Such misrepresentation of sources raises major BLP alarm bells. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Interpreting BLP to mean that a Presidents biography cannot include unappealing aspects of their policy is absurd in the extreme. A biography of a president should of course cover ALL significants aspect of the presidents policy. Their political office and police is what makes them notable. It is as absurd as claiming that BLP prohinbits us from including bad reviews in the biographies of musicians and authors. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no rule that states that a "biography of a president should of course cover ALL significants aspect of the presidents policy." That's just absurd. Russia is a powerful and influential country. There can be arguments made as to how each and every rule the government makes is significant in that regard. If we were to lay forth every single policy that the Russian government has done since Putin took charge, then we'd have a real mess on our hands. And that's starting to happen as we speak. So that's why we have separate articles (i.e. Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, Domestic policies of Vladimir Putin, and Foreign relations of Russia). It's best to defer such information over there. But as of now, such contentious information needs to be left out of a BLP article, especially when there's no consensus to have such information included in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is such a rule. It is called common sense, and cognizance of the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia. Your interpretation of BLP to as an argument for the exclusion of critical information about a presidents policy is a travesty and in fact I think you should be sanctioned for trying to make that argument because it shows a fundamental failure to understand the encyclopedic mission that would threaten to convey vital biographic articles into mere propaganda pieces. That would be the death of wikipedia as a relevant source of information about the world. And note here that I am not rweferring here to whether we decide to exclude this particular piece of information, which is an editorial decision that can make sense if this is not deemed to be a significant issue. But the specific argument you are advancing here is destructive for wikipedia and cannot be allowed to stand uncontradicted as it flies directly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK and WP:NOT.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My argument is that we should be wary of adding such contentious information into a BLP article, especially when it can be more appropriately added to other more relevant non-BLP articles. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that argument is invalid. Whether or not something should be added to a BLP article depends on two things only 1. is it reliably sourced? 2. Is it significant enough relative to the whole of the biography to merit weight? Those are the only two considerations we have to make. Whether it could also be included elsewhere is 100% irrelevant. Whether it is negative or positive is also irrelevant as long as it is sufficiently significant and reliably sourced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, those two points aren't the only factors necessary. Please see WP:BLP. Verifiability, NPOV, and UNDUE come to mind. The section appears to have failed those requirements. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Those two points encapsulate Verifiability, NPOV and Undue - policies that you apparently do not understand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So, that was fine on page Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Then it should be fine elsewhere because BLP and other rules equally apply to all pages. The only question if everything was properly summarized on his main BLP page. I think it was because the summary here is very brief. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I took part in discussion and editing this page and did not see any actual BLP violations. What happens are a couple of people who repeatedly insert irrelevant and ridiculous materials, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Dorothy Reitman Wiki

The following allegations should be either cited properly or removed. They are currently unverified anywhere with the exception of one source. That source does not appear to have verified that information since at least one of the claims is provably wrong (see below).

These claims were re-added (twice) after removal on the grounds that since the sites no longer included the names of the founders the claims couldn't be disputed.

Other biographies about this person do NOT contain the following claims:

1 She was a founding member of the Match International Centre

2 She was a founding member of the Council of Canadian Unity

3 Honorary chair of the McGill University Centre for Research and Teaching for Women

4 Educated at McGill

In my opinion, the claims that can't be demonstrated to be wrong (like the following) can be disputed on the grounds that they have not been verified properly at the source.

Match International clearly states that there were two founders and names them:

"The organization that created The MATCH International Women’s Fund is called MATCH International. In 1976, two Canadian women created Canada’s first international organization to place the issue of women’s rights and empowerment as central to successful and sustained development in the global South. Inspired by the women they met at the United Nation’s First World Conference on Women in Mexico City the year before, Dr. Norma E. Walmsley and Ms. Suzanne Johnson-Harvor created MATCH International to MATCH the needs and resources of Canadian women with the needs and resources of women in the global South."

http://matchinternational.org/history/

Dorothy Reitman is NOT one of the founders.

I have removed all 4 of the above claims (again) and ask that page be considered disputed unless the above claims can be verified and proper citations attached, if it is re-added a third time.

Tobeme free (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

Janae Marie Kroc

@Flyer22 Reborn: suggested I should bring some stuff up here. (As a disclaimer to pre-empt sock accusals, I've edited this before while logged in but I'm using a shared tablet during the day that I don't log in on -privacy mode- to avoid cluttering it with cookies). Apparently we do not normally rely upon Facebook or Instagram for BLP stuff. But in this case I have 2 sources which identify a person's Facebook and Instagram as topics of note since they were used to come out as genderfluid:

• "World champion bodybuilder and former Marine reveals on Instagram that she's transgender". DailyMail.co.uk.
  • https://www.instagram.com/janaemariekroc
• "Matt Kroczaleski: World champion powerlifter reveals gender change in heartfelt Facebook post". Mirror.co.uk.
  • https://www.facebook.com/MattKroc

I figure if I am going to cite Daily Mail's article about Janae's Instagram I should also cite the Instagram accout, and if I'm going to cite Mirror's article about Matt's Facebook that I should cite the Facebook account.

Above and beyond that though, I want to know if this would qualify as verifying the accounts to use as references for other stuff.

Like, what first comes to mind, is that when someone asked on Facebook about the name Janae, the above-cited account MattKroc replies and says it was a name chosen by Kroc's mother, so I thought that was informative to include on the article since people might be curious when someone changes from presenting male to presenting female what influenced their name choice. Was probably some other stuff too.

Due to the problems of imposters (Kroc actually reports a problem with this on all accounts, and I found an imposter on Twitter) I completely understand the problem with citing stuff like Facebook/Instagram wrecklessly, but in this case since we have secondary sources affirming the two accounts I want to know if it's okay. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've got a layer of problem here that you do not see yet. You're relying on the Daily Mail as a reliable source, which discussions like this one should show you is at the least controversial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just one I chose at random, they're not the only ones supporting it. Do you have any objections to Mirror? They refer to the FB and the FB refers to the Instagram. The MattKroc account on Facebook has been around longer than the JanaeMarieKroc account on Instagram so there would be more sources pointing to it, so if the Facebook is verified then a post from that Facebook verifying the Instagram should work.

Another verification chain: http://www.mattkroc.com links to https://twitter.com/mattkroc which in https://twitter.com/MattKroc/status/647281858548531200 links to https://www.instagram.com/p/8Crkw4lZVs/ which also supports the Instagram being run by the article subject and as a source for statements from them. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Janae Marie Kroc

Janae Marie Kroc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP, recently revealed to be Ranze (talk · contribs), has been making extensive, sometimes questionable, edits to the Janae Marie Kroc article, which concerns a bodybuilder who is genderfluid. Ranze (while editing as the IP) added Facebook and Instagram sources to the article, and I removed them per WP:Reliable sources (though official Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts that have been confirmed are occasionally used as sources here at Wikipedia). I also removed some wording that I felt was a violation of WP:Claim and/or WP:Editorializing. From what I can see, Ranze has added other sources that probably don't pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. I'm not very familiar with what bodybuilding sources qualify as reliable. At Talk:Janae Marie Kroc#Flyer response (WP:Permalink here), Ranze has been in an extensive discussion with me about what pronouns Kroc prefers. I have repeatedly made it clear to him that we can only go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and are not to engage in WP:Synthesis. He keeps pointing to MOS:IDENTITY, citing his interpretation of it, and talking about how Kroc is genderfluid and that her quotes indicate to him that we should treat Kroc as two different people when it comes to Kroc's life as a man as opposed to Kroc's life as a woman. In other words, we should only use feminine pronouns when referring to Kroc's womanly side. Much help is needed to sort all of this out. Ranze has made other arguments at the talk page, and has recently started a WP:Requested moves discussion there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see that he brought the matter here above on the page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"recently revealed" makes it sound like I haven't been forthright about editing sometimes without logging in, I've been open about that when the history overlaps to avoid people thinking I have weight of numbers. Like Special:Diff/704775189.

added Facebook and Instagram sources to the article, and I removed them per WP:Reliable sources (though official Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts that have been confirmed are occasionally used as sources here at Wikipedia).

As I brought up both above (shouldn't you merge this section into the above one?) and on the talk page, the Facebook and Instagram accounts were supported as being owned by the article subject in reliable sources. The use of Facebook and Instagram to come out was even in article subjects.

I also removed some wording that I felt was a violation of WP:Claim and/or WP:Editorializing.

I understand you feel that way but I thought I was simply reporting what the sources stated, and have been attempting to talk that out with you.

Ranze has added other sources that probably don't pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline.

Which ones are you talking about? The publiciation/date/author you're referring to would be nice to know so it can be discussed in further detail. If you dispute one source or a claim a source supports, I am comfortable checking the sources you don't object to to see if they could be used to support the information instead.

I have repeatedly made it clear to him that we can only go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and are not to engage in WP:Synthesis.

I have been perfectly clear with you that it is not synthesis to identify Janae referring to Matt as "he" as an expressed gender self-identification is not synthesis. Conversely, I believe that referring to Nichols' describing Janae's feelings as an "expressed gender self-identification" is synthesis and misrepresentation of the source. An expression is an actual statement which uses pronouns, not someone else talking about your feelings.

He keeps pointing to MOS:IDENTITY, citing his interpretation of it

Aren't you also guilty of "interpreting" MOS:ID ? We all interpret what we read, if we get different meanings form it I think it's useful to talk that out.

talking about how Kroc is genderfluid and that her quotes indicate to him that we should treat Kroc as two different people when it comes to Kroc's life as a man as opposed to Kroc's life as a woman

I agree with this summary, yes. This is how Janae is doing it. For example if you skip to 12:50 in this interview http://www.roverradio.com/watch/interviews/item/2734-transgender-champion-bodybuilder-janae-marie-kroc-full-interview Janae replies to the interviewer "I'm still living my life in both genders. Some days I dress and appear completely masculine, and some days completely feminine, and that includes work and anywhere else I may go." then at 13:23 "it depends on however I feel that day, how I dress and how I present". Other sources "I often feel like two completely different people trying to share one body with both fighting over who gets to be in control" and "this really isn’t about me being a boy or a girl". Glaringly Janae uses male pronouns to refer to her own past as Matt, so why should we use female ones when she doesn't? Ranze (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Eva Klotz - English version

Dear Sirs, I have to report that the English version of the article regarding Eva Klotz fully omits to cite the most important fact which we can call "the battle of her life": that she's profoundly anti-Italian and her political goal has always been to separate so called "Suedtirol" (in Italian "Alto Adige")from the Republic of Italy. Above all, it is noticeable that in the English version the same word "Italy" is never represented. (While at least in the German version it is written that Suedtirol is in Italy). An important recent source I can add to all the versions is that, despite being politically anti-Italian, thanks to the Italian law she has received a lump sum of € 946,000 from Italian State Pension Fund (INPS) for standing in the Provincial and Regional Councils for three decades, besides obviously earning a high salary for her position. Source: [1].Digitaldante (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Digitaldante

Cesar Conde (artist)

This appears to have been pretty much a spamicle from the beginning, and requires a lot of pruning of editorial and promotional content. Before that, a consensus as to whether notability is satisfied will be appreciated--I'm not sure that a few newspaper reviews are sufficient, but perhaps. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Upon further reading, I'm also concerned that there's a WP:COI account who's creating articles, apparently with assistance from related editors, to promote artists with whom they're acquainted. There's a backload of drafts that begin as links to the artists' websites, and my suspicion is that once started, the artists or connected accounts expand the articles. See Laura Kina (talk · contribs). 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Kennedy

Your article on Justice Anthony Kennedy starts out like this:

"Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan on November 11, 1987 and took the oath of office on February 18, 1988."

The US Constitution says "...he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

So it would seem that on November 11, 1987, President Reagan NOMINATED him, and after his nomination was confirmed with the advice and consent of the senate, he was then appointed. The senate approved his nomination on February 3, 1988. Therefore his appointment took place on or after that date.

Your own article says as much. In the section titled "Appointment to the Supreme Court" the text reads

"On November 11, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court seat that had been vacated by Lewis F. Powell, Jr.. "

Later in the same section it reads

"The United States Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0."

And according to the US Constitution, that's when the nomination becomes an appointment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.155.255.94 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't actually an issue involving a BLP violation; it's simply an issue about semantics and wording. Reagan, like other presidents, both nominated and appointed the justices they put on the Supreme Court. That's why we have Category:Lists of United States judicial appointments by president, which includes List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan. Also, keep in mind that there were nine SCOTUS justices who never even went through the Senate process because they were recess appointments by the president; Eisenhower alone had three recess appointments. In any case, it looks like appointed was changed to nominated in the lede. Rowssusan (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Mackenzie

It appears multiple instances of vandalism have occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Mackenzie&diff=prev&oldid=705106323

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Mackenzie&diff=prev&oldid=705106709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderburgh (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism was reverted. Meatsgains (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

More vandalism was reverted here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jim Brown

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

An editor added this very contentious "Controvery" section (with an unneccesary sub-heading), which includes content relating to four separate incidents involving sexual assualt and/or domestic violence incidents. It appears that Brown was only convicted in one of the four cases, was found not guilty in another, and the charges were dropped in the other two. In the one case where he was found guilty, the source says the only thing he was convicted of was "hitting his wife's car with a shovel", which the edtior failed to even mention. I hope that editors more skilled in BLP articles will review this content and make whatever edits are appropriate. Rowssusan (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed the revision history of the article and found this edit from June 2015, which removed a large amount of similar contentious content from the article. No other editor ever added it back. Rowssusan (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was the editor that made the revision in June to Brown. Just reverted it again. Same editor made a similar addition to Julian Edelman, which I have also reverted. His edit History deserves some scrutiny. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like the only noteworthy incident worth mentioning would be the case in which he was found guilty but given the he was only charged was "hitting his wife's car with a shovel", it would fall under WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would a conviction be pertinent in deciding whether the information should stay? As I noted in the edit summaries, if including that information is a violation, then so are the allegations on Peyton Manning's page. He hasn't been convicted of sexual assault, nor HGH, but those remain. Thus, if you remove the content on the pages of Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, then you must do so for Manning as well. Also, going by your logic @John from Idegon:, your edit history deserves scrutiny, too. If anything, I believe all of the information in that edit which @Rowssusan: provided should be added back. Also, Rowssusan, I did say that Brown smashed the window of his wife's car, which was mentioned in another one of the given sources, so you failed to read that part of the edit. Dsaun100 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said you didn't say he smashed the car's window. What I said is that you failed to mention that it was the "the only thing he was convicted of". Instead, the content you added falsely implied that he was convicted of domestic violence and threatening to kill his wife. Rowssusan (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While BLPCRIME suggests that such material can be included, you have nowhere near the level of sourcing required. More importantly, there are multiple editors opposing its inclusion on both articles in question, yet you continue to reinsert the information against consensus. That, as you should know since you were blocked for it less than a week ago, is edit warring. If other editors disagree with you, you still cannot use it even if policy says you can. Wikipedia 101. Further, no editor is required to do anything to any other article. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan:, nevermind, I see what you're saying. I should've worded that differently. Feel free to do so yourself, if you want, as I don't want to violate 3RR (even though I'm not sure if it applies in this case, but I don't want to risk it). @John from Idegon:, "nowhere near the level of sourcing required," according to who? You? Also, consensus hasn't been reached in removing all of the content, especially what you did in another edit back in June, which Rowssusan pointed out. You've also engaged in edit warring, so don't try to place this only on me. You still haven't addressed the point regarding Peyton Manning, as it's very much applicable in this case. You're applying two different standards, so, your reasoning in this matter is flawed. Dsaun100 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan:Let me get this straight: I'm edit warring, but @John from Idegon: isn't? No consensus has been reached. You seem to be making this personal, stalking my page, given what occurred over Super Bowl 50 edits. Do we need admin intervention, since you're clearly holding a grudge? Dsaun100 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dsaun100, yes, you are edit-warring because you were aware of this discussion and what other editors were saying, yet still chose to restore the contentious content afterwards. And, no, John and Calidum are not edit-warring because this involved BLP violations. BLP articles have extremely high standards when it comes to adding contentious content, which requires it to be immediately removed if it doesn't follow the rules. One other observation about the contentious content you added to the Brown article. You used wording that wasn't even in the source. You used the term "smashing the window" when in fact the source doesn't even use the word smashing (or smash), nor does it even mention a window. All it says is that he was convicted of hitting the car ("A jury found Brown guilty of hitting his wife's car with a shovel during the incident"). If he in fact smashed the window, then you should've included a source that actually said that in some form or fashion. But the point is moot now that it's been explained that your content is a BLP violation. Rowssusan (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there hasn't been any specific rule cited that the content given was a clear BLP violation. Also, just because this involved supposed BLP violations does not mean those two users were not edit warring. That's a misinterpretation of what the term means. I have no doubt an admin will agree, so ask one, if you don't believe me. I stated another source mentioned "smashing the window" here: [2]. The content was sourced, yet, you decided to remove everything. Seem familiar (i.e. those Super Bowl 50 edits)? Funny how the tables have turned, and you can't grasp the hypocritical logic you're using now. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin help

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.

---

As Dsaun100 continues to edit war over this, reverting warning templates and showing a general lack of CLUE, in the face of a 31 hour edit warring block a week ago, I'm asking for an immediate block so experienced editors can work this out without disruption. Pinging Calidum, another editor who has been trying to rein this in and may be unaware of this discussion, John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Going by that logic, @John from Idegon: should be blocked, too, as he's edit warring on the same topic. The condescending attitude of this individual, thinking only "experienced editors" are worthy of discussion on a topic, shows his lack of respect for the editing process on Wikipedia. Also, John from Idegon and @Calidum: reverted warning templates on their pages before I did so on mine, thus, they're engaging in blatant hypocrisy here. Dsaun100 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dsaun100, the rules for articles about living people (BLPs) are very strict, which requires improper content to be removed immediately. I wasn't certain about the propriety of the content, which is why I came here to inquire about it. The other editors made clear that the content isn't appropriate. Yet you chose to edit war with those editors in both Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, even though John and Calidum were doing the right thing by protecting those BLPs. In any case, you knew this BLP discussion was taking place and what was being said, yet you still inexplicably chose to edit war. Rowssusan (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Except I added those sections, initially, and they decided to revert multiple times. That's edit warring. Period. They removed content without discussion. It goes both ways, not just the way you see fit. Just because one or two editors disagree (by the way, it's been noted that John from Idegon removed a large portion of similar content before) doesn't mean their opinion is suddenly above mine. That's far from a consensus, and they have yet to cite any specific BLP violation. Also, let's be real why you posted Jim Brown and Julian Edelman here: You're still holding a grudge over the Super Bowl 50 edits. Is it any coincidence that the two pages I edited recently are mentioned here? You're stalking my page and holding a grudge. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT3RR, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is exempt from the edit-warring rules. The other editors explained that your content had violations that fell within this exemption. Therefore, you should've continued discussing it here, rather than restoring the contentious content. Rowssusan (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, they didn't explain that. The sources are credible and from respected publications, like USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. After all, that's the logic you used for those Super Bowl 50 edits, which you continue to brush aside. So, the exemption doesn't apply in this case. They were engaging in edit warring. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This situation is pretty straightfoward. You added (contentious) content to an article - a BLP, no less - and mutliple editors objected to the content. Therefore, it cannot be restored without consensus. So far, no editors have supported your position. For the record, the issues involved here go well beyond the sourcing. Rowssusan (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. Only one editor, other than the one who removed a large portion of similar content a while ago, questioned its inclusion. That's far from a consensus, and thus, the information can be restored. You, and others, have yet to provide any valid BLP violation. What are the issues that go "well beyond the sourcing"? Dsaun100 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

the content is controversial and I support its exclusion without wp:consensus in regards to wp:blp policy being of primary importance in regards to wikipedia articles about living people Govindaharihari (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Going by that logic then, the "Controversy" section on Peyton Manning's page should be removed. It's controversial and involves allegations, none of which he's received a conviction. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note The WP:3RR has not been breached yet by any one party and WP:1RR restrictions were not imposed about Dsaun100. No block will be imposed but I caution parties involved here to not allow this escalate further. The fact that there is a discussion going on should continue to do so either by expanding it to include other editors for a stronger consensus or the parties involved resolve the issue themselves. Dsaun100, you're on a very thin WP:ROPE considering you were recently blocked so regardless of the number of sources you find, I strongly suggest you establish a consensus first, before adding in any controversial material. Mkdw^talk 07:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Why am I being singled out here? @Rowssusan: was also recently blocked, and the person who asked for admin help, @John from Idegon:, engaged in edit warring and accused me of the same exact thing he's guilty of (i.e. reverting warning templates on his page). Why is he not on a thin WP:ROPE? Furthermore, why isn't there consensus on the exclusion of the content BEFORE it's removed? Dsaun100 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules, then do that first. The primary argument is so that contentious material doesn't stay up while it's debated. Editorial oversight works the same way whether it's one person or community consensus. Content isn't posted and then reviewed afterwards for balance, appropriateness, accuracy, etc. And if it is, Wikipedia has no intention of being one of those types of places. Changing a pillar policy like that would likely take months and almost the entire active community consensus to reverse. You're being singled out because unlike Rowssusan, you have returned to adding contentious material and reverting. Mkdw^talk 08:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw:So, adding contentious material is now not allowed? I see that all over the place on Wikipedia, so why is that suddenly an issue with Jim Brown and Julian Edelman? The only reason those two were even brought up here is because Rowssusan is still holding a grudge from Super Bowl 50 edits last week. Is it any coincidence that the two pages I recently edited are now suddenly an issue for Rowssusan? As I said before, that user was blocked not too long ago, and it was due to edit warring over that Super Bowl 50 page. If serious allegations can't be added to the pages of Brown and Edelman, then why are they allowed for Peyton Manning? There seems to be a double standard here that nobody has addressed yet. Maybe since you're an admin, you can tell me what the BLP violation is because I don't see it. Again, if there's a BLP violation for Brown and Edelman, then it also applies to Manning, thus, his "Controversy" section should be removed. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should participate in one of the many conversations going on at Talk:Peyton Manning about it. Or maybe you haven't noticed that there are edit wars and blocks occurring there too. Also, you might want to read WP:OTHERCRAP if you want to compare articles to articles. There are a lot of problems that need fixing. The solution isn't to introduce more problems because other problems exist elsewhere. Mkdw^talk 08:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: I'm not trying to introduce another problem; I'm merely contesting the double standard logic used in these cases. It makes no sense, and I don't appreciate Rowssusan stalking me. I feel like I'm being unfairly targeted here, but whatever. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And that's a valid feeling to have. Working with other editors will invariably be an aspect of Wikipedia, especially those who share the same interests. At the same time, Wikipedia is a big place and you can do things to simply stay away from each other. Likewise, there are harassment policies but I don't believe it's escalated to that level yet. There's nothing wrong about expressing concerns you have and to ask how to go about addressing them. In both the Jim Brown and Julian Edelman articles, you weren't reverted initially or in the majority of times by Rowssusan. If your goals were to add this coverage, your problem doesn't start with Rowssusan. Seeking a consensus to add this material is the way to go about it. If the consensus is against you, there's almost nothing that can overturn consensus aside from the fact that consensus can change. Despite there being much disagreement on the Peyton Manning article, the editors there have formulated a consensus to have the information in there, which is clearly not satisfying everyone. I'm sure if you go back far enough into the archives and article history the controversy section was likely removed and re-add multiple times before being engaged in lengthy discussions on the talk page. Ultimately, what's being enforced here is the need for everyone (not just you) to talk about it and come to a consensus and right now it's not to have it in there. Again, consensus can change, but it cannot be replaced by circular reverting. Mkdw^talk 08:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Yeah, but those reversions only happened after Rowssusan mentioned both pages here. That user has been holding a grudge toward me since edits on Super Bowl 50. Jim Brown and Julian Edelman were the only two pages I edited recently, then all of a sudden, Rowssusan feels the need to mention them here. I didn't provoke that user, and you can clearly see that by viewing my edit history. Rowssusan is stalking me. I came back to editing Wikipedia following a long hiatus, and now, I'm wondering why I ever did after being treated this way. I'm not saying everybody has to agree with each other, but there should be some civility and common sense. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I definitely support civility and common sense. WP:ANI is the appropriate venue for any accusations about stalking but right now (to me) it seems limited although understandably frustrating. Regardless of who has brought the subject up, there are still problems with how the entire situation is being handled. Reverting is not the solution. In the meantime, in regards to the original point of this section about edit warring, I'm closing it as no action. Mkdw^talk 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stalking? Oh, brother. Instead of the editor making ludicrous allegations, perhaps he should focus on the content issue at hand. For the record, there were multiple stories in the news today about Jim Brown, which is actually what prompted me to go to his article. The editor is free to check Google News if he doesn't believe it; the stories were published long before my original post here. I didn't even know about his edits to the Edelman article until John from Idegon mentioned it above. Read above and you'll see he was the first one to say anything about Edelman. If my intention was to upset the editor, I would have simply removed the content myself from the Brown article rather than coming here to seek opinions on whether the content was appropriate or not. Hopefully, the editor will realize that it's totally unproductive to argue with everyone and to repeatedly imply that editors are being unfair and plotting against him. Dsaun, Mkdw is a very experienced editor (and administrator) and has been more than respectful and patient with you. Rowssusan (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not questioning Mkdw's respect and patience. You're the problem. There are news stories nearly every day on high profile players, so you're not fooling anybody with that excuse. You act like this is an issue I have with multiple editors, when it's only you who is stalking me. What's unproductive is your incessant need to argue and contest anything I edit. Grow up. I'm done with you here, and if you continue to stalk me, I will be sure to go through WP:ANI, as Mkdw noted above. Out of respect to Mkdw, this will be my last reply to this conversation. Dsaun100 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2016 (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.

Bahar Mustafa race row incident

Bahar Mustafa race row incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trash magnet of an article that perhaps shouldn't even exist. WP:BLPCRIME issues, and citations to student newspapers abound before I found it. I'm too busy being on the cusp of failing my degree to keep a good eye on it though, so can other people please watchlist? Bosstopher2 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Will go through the article in the next day or so, and remove anything which clearly doesn't meet BLP and/or send to AfD if appropriate. Other eyes are, of course, appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Trash magnet of an article that perhaps shouldn't even exist"? This is an article about an incident that attracted national and international press attention (even The Washington Times and RussiaToday covered it, alongside all major British news sites). Given the fact that the event was so solidly intertwined with student politics it really is no surprise that it was discussed in student publications (moreover do we have a policy that states that student publications are not reliable sources? If so then I'm not aware of it). Frankly I am a little unsure as to why Bosstopher is so vehement in their desire to expunge this particular article, given that they went around unilaterally deleting massive chunks of it without discussiom and then brought the debate here... I do hope that they don't have a vested interest in its deletion. It really would be a shame to see this article (which, I believe, is well written and well sourced) lost to an excessive deletionist zeal. As always, I am happy to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ron Lugbill

Ron Lugbill

Someone has twice entered libelous and false information about Ron Lugbill. The first paragraph is correct. However, the latter part was added and is false and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairportuser (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to an older version. -- GB fan 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

[3], [4]

Are asserted on Talk:Vladimir Putin#Autism to be proper sources for stating that Putin is Autistic

I fear I think the sources - which do not have a medical professional making any actual diagnosis - and which are based in the Pentagon consultants seeing "videos" of Putin, fail to meet the burden required for us to state that any living person has a specific medical condition. Am I in error in my view on this? Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the sources linked above makes the assertion that "Person A has medical condition B" (Assertion 1); on the basis of WP:V that assertion cannot be included.
The sources do, however, make the assertion that "Government think tank C claims/theorises that (Assertion 1)". While this is surely interesting, on balance, I do not consider that it merits inclusion in an article on Person A; I would consider that it might merit inclusion in an article on Government think tank C.
Additionally, a reasonable, and IMHO compelling, case could be made for exclusion from the article on Person A on the basis of WP:BLPSTYLE; particularly the first paragraph of the Balance subsection. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) No, I'd say you're correct. A claim that a living person has a medical condition needs a solid source that explicitly states that person has been diagnosed with the condition by somebody qualified to do so, not layperson conjecture.
The sources say the report cites one psych. professor who never saw the finished report and wasn't prepared to say Putin has Asperger's/Autism. Medical professionals such as psychiatrists and neurologists diagnose through comprehensive in-person consultation and review of clinical history. Watching videos of him carrying out his "public actions" is no substitute. Additionally, the person seeing the videos, the author behind the report, isn't qualified to make a medical diagnosis. She'd earned degrees in political science. Her field is "movement pattern analysis" which is essentially kinesics (body language) applied to things like business and leadership. The only identified medical professional did not, in fact, say Putin has any condition.
Putin may flourish in smaller social settings, or he may dislike larger public-speaking engagements. That doesn't make him autistic, and the sources aren't sufficient to support any claim that he is. –91.125.15.80 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?

Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a notice to interested editors that a BLP-related discussion is taking place at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Madelon Finkel

Madelon Finkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are no citations to back up the information in this article. The only citation listed is an academic publication written by the subject of this Wikipedia entry and contains no information on the actual subject (Madelon Finkel). Therefore, none of this information can be corroborated and could potentially be libelous or incorrect. It is not verifiable.

This article seems like inappropriate self-promotion/promotion due to lack of citations and low visibility of the subject in the public or academic arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.158 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. And the article has carried a {{BLP sources}} tag since April 2013, to no effect. I'm going to prod it. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC).

I deprodded the article. Her books seem to get regularly reviewed in top medical journals. I think that indicates she's notable and she's likely to survive AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Couderc

 Done The "Conviction" section of the Raymond Couderc article should be improved. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed - BLPs are not a place to exact "justice" in such a strongly worded attack, and I suggest anyone seeking the information to be placed herein note "due weight" requirements before re-adding it. Collect (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was about to redact also. It also appears that many of the sources, suggest the City of Béziers was found culpable, not the article subject. I did not have time to review them all. Sources are in French, so fluent speakers might be needed to confirm & verify. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know anything about him, I found his article while gnoming, but I knew that this was a problem. The text was added in July 2015... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Article: Miguel Marquez

Hi, I am reviewing articles on Wikipedia, as well as creating some. I notice some Biographies of Living Persons already published are in gross violation of Wikipedia standards, and/or do not adhere to principals which have been brought to my attention when writing articles myself. For example, the article "Miguel Marquez" provides a plethora of unverified, un-cited information.

Why is this? How did this article come to be approved for Wikipedia?

Thank you,

Chan

ChopSticksChan (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add a WP:Citation needed tag or remove any unsourced claims, especially on BLPs. Meatsgains (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Christina Hoff Sommers has been subjected to biased editing by Binksternet. See here, where he alters the lead, changing the statement that "some feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist" to "most feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist", thus changing the article from being reasonably neutral to being strongly slanted against Sommers. I have attempted to engage with Binksternet on the talk page, asking him what the source for "most" is; he has not only failed to provide one but is now asserting that such a source is not necessary. He asserts that his change, "summarize[s] what is generally true, in fact quite well known in the field, thus being a sky-is-blue statement, a statement not needing a reference." In my judgement, the "not needing a reference" claim is blatantly contradicted by the spirit and letter of WP:BLP, and Binksternet's edits should be reverted. Outside opinions or comments would be welcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We should not whitewash the Sommers biography. Rather, we are obligated to tell the reader that many feminist scholars describe her in terms of working against feminism. One sentence in the lead section stating that fact is not a violation of our BLP guideline, nor is one sentence in the article body. We can take the list I compiled (see the above link) and say that 33 or more feminist scholars say that Sommers is antifeminist, contrasted by some number of feminist scholars who think she is a proponent of feminism. There are very few of the latter. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that a previous ANI complaint by the same person ended without any of the desired changes being implemented. Nobody in this discussion thought that it was any sort of violation to represent Sommers as antifeminist, since so many reliable sources do so. This new complaint is the same thing; it should be closed as inactionable. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You asserted that "most" feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist, not "many", as you now claim. Why misrepresent the text that anyone can see that you added to the article? You failed to provide any source for the "most" claim, and when challenged you effectively admitted that you did not have one. You could be right that most feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist, but the claim is hardly "fact" in the absence of a source. Your suggestion that discussion here should be ended immediately because of an ANI discussion more than a year ago is ludicrous. If you consider your position well-supported, why so anxious to stop further discussion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• While I agree that we should not whitewash any article, we must ensure compliance with our core policies; including WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. In this instance, I concur that there are issues including this information without a verifying reliable source for that exact information. The claim is clearly contentious; not least in that it is contested by the article subject, and therefore covered by WP:BLP, which requires sourcing. WP:OR & WP:SYNTH require that we do not perform our own research or use multiple sources to reach a conclusion not included in any of those sources. I am also unable to read WP:BLP and find support for the use of "sky is blue" reasoning to include information. (cf. essay WP:BLUE). Phrasing including "some" or "many" may be permissible, but "most" is not reasonably within the realms of the "simple arithmetic" permitted by WP:OR or WP:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for commenting. My view of the issue is similar. "Some" is acceptable, "many" perhaps acceptable, but "most" seems like original research at present. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are not following WP:NPOV by saying "some" when the scholarly literature runs at least 16 to 1 against Sommers. Representing that ratio as "some" is false. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

All you need per policy now is a source stating the "16 to 1" ratio - simple. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make such value statements on our own without a reliable source actually stating it as a fact, alas. Collect (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your argument works just as well for the word "some", which wrongly implies a minority. I am perfectly willing to cite three dozen sources to say that Sommers is antifeminist. By citing three dozen scholars, we would actually define her as antifeminist, despite her personal view that she is a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would still be original research to say 36 experts equates to "most". You need a reliable source that makes the claim that "most" academics consider Sommers as anti-feminist. It's certainly not UNDUE to mention that some academics consider her such, but it would violate BLP to make the claim "most" without reliable sourcing. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Terms like 'some' or 'many' are both pretty vague. Why don't you just tally up the number of scholars who call multiple works of hers AND multiple positions of hers (that means 4 things per scholar, if it's just one work or one position you should change the sentence to 'work or positions') and then just report the exact number of feminist scholars who have said this? Giving the exact number of scholars who has said something avoids speculation as to what portion (some/many/most) of the total number of feminist scholars (is there even an official number on that?) have said it. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi 184, As I see it, on a policy level, the reason that we don't is that such a tallying & comparision is a transformative, interpretive, original work in itself; a synthesis which is not permitted by WP:NOR@WP:SYNTH. On a practical level, we would also face the issues of both accidental and "accidental" exclusion of scholars or of works. On a philosophical level, I would also note that the scholarly works, not the scholars themselves, are reliable sources; we should not equivocate the two. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Adonai Rocha

This page looks like an ad and is basically ureferenced (the magazine has a short bio, but presumably penned by Mr Rocha, who guest edited). I searched for Ghits for this chap and found these book references (nothing in news). We can address the promotional tone, but is he actually notable? --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's an unsourced BLP innit? I've clicked on the inline links and they're nothing to the purpose of demonstrating notability, nor are the even more random links at the bottom of the page which are offered as "References". The books you found aren't secondary sources either, Dweller, except possibly this one — oh look, it's apparently edited by Books LLC, so it's "secondary" all right — those books are made up out of Wikipedia articles. Presumably including some version of the article about Adonai Rocha which we are now discussing. Also the article is a bloated peacock, it's an embarrassment. You should prod it, Dweller. Me, I just prodded Madelon Finkel above, I wouldn't want to get a reputation. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC).

Ta. Prodded. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lief Larson

-I am the named person -Much of the information here is not accurate nor current -If I have any say in this, would just prefer it is removed -Agree that is looks like a resume, and a poor on at that -My email address is (Redacted) -It looks to not be of a Neutral point of view (NPOV) -Limited/questionable Verifiability (V) -Limited or No original research (NOR) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.185.91 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed it for deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, nevermind, it was previously prodded and declined[[5]]. Will list in AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Carmen Marton

I am hoping for some help on Carmen Marton. Reliable sources say that the husband is Safwan Khalil, but User:Managementtkd, who identifies as Marton's manager says that her preferred word is "partner" and cites this article. So is this edit appropriate? In changing "husband" to "partner" we are (presumably) going along with the subject's wishes, but we are losing information and possibly misleading readers. ("Husband" currently still appears in the article.) StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect & appreciation of the subject's wishes, we do not determine article content on such a basis. We rely on reliable sources verifying information which we present from an impartial, neutral point of view. If Managementtkd is indeed the subject's manager, then they have a massive financial conflict of interest, and should not be editing this article. Reverted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (poet)

Ravi Shankar (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I visited this article a few weeks ago, and noticed that some reliably sourced and (as far as I could tell) non-libelous material had been removed without any kind of policy-based explanation. I restored it, but since then it's been removed several times again, most recently here. The IP editor who has done the most recent removals, 161.0.35.74, expressed concern (in edit summaries and on the talk page) that the material is libelous.

If the material in question really is against WP:BLP policy, then of course it should stay off the page, but I'd greatly appreciate others' advice on that. Given that Shankar was a state-employed professor at the time of his arrests and that he voluntarily participated in public discussion about at least one of them (see the NPR page cited in the article), it seems to me that he fulfills WP:PUBLICFIGURE and is therefore not covered by WP:BLPCRIME.

The information's now been removed three times in the last 24 hours; I haven't restored it the most recent time, since the issue seems to be mushrooming into an edit war. Further complicating the issue is that most or all of the accounts that have done the removing in the past three years have been single-purpose, and that at least two of them (User:Patriot4eva and User:Howlingiguana) have been blocked as sockpuppets. I appreciate any suggestions on how to proceed. Lemuellio (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best way to proceed is to a) allow the redactions to stand (per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE; b) start a discussion on the article Talk page; c) work through the discussion to reach a consensus for inclusion or exclusion of the material. I would also, respectfully, suggest that neither being a state-employed professor and/or involvement in public discussion of an accusation or wrong doing, either separately or in combination, is sufficient to make a person a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have redacted the information to allow such discussion to occur. I note that some of the sources appear to be court records, which intersects with WP:BLPPRIMARY. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The article has been a magnet for UNDUE material which should not be added without a strong positive finding that it does not violate policy. In my opinion, those who have added the claims are violating WP:BLP here, and should be quite ashamed of themselves. Especially egregious are listing an occupation of anyone as a "criminal" in the first line of a BLP, and including a DUI and a "one car" accident as evidence of his felonious nature <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Common practice of adding arrests and minor legal infractions: "legal controversies"

I think it's long past time that we have a serious discussion about how we are handling the routine insertion of DUIs, traffic offenses, misdemeanor convictions, and other minor legal scrapes in our BLP articles, especially for relatively low-profile BLP subjects. When we have a four- or five-sentence BLP article, and someone inserts a three- or four-sentence description of a DUI and related proceeding, the DUI instantly becomes the dominant focus of a relatively brief bio, with obvious WP:WEIGHT issues. Frankly, more often than not, we would probably do well to simply omit such matters all together, except when they become a significant public proceeding and/or have a significant impact on the subject's career. We need to do a better job of striking the right balance in handling these matters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The tendency of people to follow the conceits found in confessions of a chronic violator of the policy which I collected is still far too high - DUIs are, in general, not felonies. Using an impolite word is not a felony. The use of trivia in order to deride any person is, in my opinion, evil. As is the use of "guilt by association" argumentation to make sure folks know a person is evil. Collect (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• comment: i note, for the record, that the "essay" written by the above editor, & linked to by them in the above quote, is of poor quality & of only marginal relevance to the debate; i wish to note, in particular, the degree to which the editor has "trimmed" the claimed quotations, as shown in the page's edit-history. "cherrypicking", much? Lx 121 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Um -- the "essay" primarily consists of quotations from other editors and I daresay their own words are the best evidence of what they wrote. The "trimming" was done in accord with specific requests from administrators who feared the page might be viewed as an "attack page in user space" - had I left in the identifying information, I suspect some editors would be arguing that I ought to have trimmed it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. Felony convictions should be mentioned. Dropped charges, minor infractions and pending charges are rarely worthy of mention, unless such matters have had a major and indisputable impact on a person's life and career, as in the case of Bill Cosby. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That comment points in the right direction: it depends on what sort of coverage the incident has had. A blanket rule of this sort isn't going to work, in light of our other policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree on all counts. Unfortunately, the way the news and journalism business works, these things get major airplay, often in multiple venues, so people who have never even edited Wikipedia before will often show up and add them, and often fight to retain them. Silly and sad. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. As with anything, this requires individual editorial judgment (the very thing which separates a human-edited encyclopedia from a computer algorithm) but there are far too many examples of biographies overly dominated with trivial negative material that happened to make the newspapers once or twice, which has the tendency of giving significant undue weight to minor incidents which, in reality, have had very little impact in either the biographical subject's life or in the broader world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• strongly DISAGREE -- god forbid "BLP" on wikipedia should be factual, accurate, & comprehensive. IN NO OTHER CATEGORY ON WIKIPEDIA would be we discussing the deliberate exclusion of factual, verifiable content. THIS is why "blp" is a joke. Lx 121 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sharissa

The information on this page is inaccurate. The name, date of birth, place of birth and some of the information has been intentionally falsified. It was correct at one time. When I try to update with accurate information, someone clears my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notcomplicated (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

LaTour

Can anyone knowledgeable about American music take a look at LaTour. There is an edit war going on, with allegations of "libelous" content being added to the article. utcursch | talk 04:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I cant see anything immediatly 'ilbelous' but it is certainly being edit-warred over by two sets (or possibly just two people) of fans, one for LaTour (the person) and one for the Squids (the band he was/is in that is a redirect to LaTour) the edits and sourcing make it unclear as to if he is still a member, but the Squids are a redirect to him indicating they do not have independant notability, and at least one of the edit-warriors wants to make LaTour's biography substantially about the Squids - Obviously an issue if they are still touring without him. RFPP and go for full protect might be a better option, or hit up the edit warring noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Will Heard - Relationship section

Hi

The relationship section is totally incorrect for Will Heard This has been put up by someone who is abusing him on social media. I am a good friend of Wills and ask that you remove this section with immediate effect. Please can you confirm this has been done.

Yours Sincerely,

John WayJerseygoats (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has nuked that section, and I've put my eyes on it to help assure that it doesn't sneak back in. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Natalia Kills

I am with Teddy Sinclair's (formerly known as Natalia Kills) management company. As of July 2015, Natalia changed her name to Teddy, and I am trying to edit her Natalia Kills page to reflect her name change. What is the best way to do this? I thought about a re-direct, but the page Teddy Sinclair is already re-directed to Natalia Kills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCWIKI1001 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

While Teddy may have changed her name, it is Wikipedia's standard to lean on the name that article subject is most commonly referred to by - see our guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME. As such, after a recent name change, we often still want to keep the article under the old name... even sometimes not so recently (see Mos Def.) If you can provide evidence that the media is now largely using the Teddy name to refer to your client, the redirect page can be deleted, then the Natalia page can be moved to the Teddy name, leaving Natalia as a redirect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Minors (again) - not very notable "winners"

There are a number of competitions for young musicians, an example being International Tchaikovsky Competition for Young Musicians. The trend is for these articles to include a list of first place winners. I've been reviewing Draft:International Grumiaux Violin Competition, which is how I came across this. I am somewhat concerned that adding the names of these young people, without their permission, may not always be seen as a plus for them. Also, other winners (they often go to third or fourth place) are not being named, so the editors are making a cut based on their own convenience. All winners are named on the sites of the competitions, but those have much less visibility than Wikipedia. These are not public figures -- they probably are no more public than some youthful local sports figures. These competitions do not get international coverage. Does anyone else see this as an issue? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need the permission of the winners of the Tchaikovsky Competition to list their names. The widespread coverage of the competition and its results make it (and its winners) notable. As for other competition, the analysis is the same. If the competition garners significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, it should appear in Wikipedia. BLP is about derogatory information about living people. What on earth is derogatory about winning a notable competition?

I'm hard-pressed to come up with a reason that WP:CHILDPROTECT or WP:HARM might come into play here. David in DC (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Tchaikovsky competition page has no -- NO -- references, so it isn't clear that there is significant coverage. I do like using coverage as the decider -- that names of winners who have appeared in significant, widely-accessible media would warrant including them in Wikipedia, but listing on a competition web page would not. Does that make sense? It would neatly invoke the RS guidelines and WP would not be the one "outing" the contestants. LaMona (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton

I don't know if anyone cares or has time to look at this article. It's mainly taken from thepeerage.com and those sources have been tagged since 2012 as dubious, presumably on the basis of discussions such as this[6] where it's discussed in a section on Judgepedia, [7] and the 2 linked earlier discussions. It also uses a couple of UK tabloids. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I had a look the last time the discussion on thepeerage.com came up. As it stands, thepeerage.com is an extremely detailed royal fan-site. It generally fails our strict criteria for reliable sourcing as most fan-sites do, however where the information is sourced on thepeerage.com, it does accurately reflect the source the compiler is using. As the discussion you linked shows, the compiler didnt show sources originally and was working backwards to include them. From what I could see, I didnt (at the time) find anything on thepeerage (that was sourced) that was inaccurate. Like most detailed fan-sites the base source should be used rather than thepeerage, but unless something is contentious, I dont see any issue using thepeerage.com at the moment. Unless it starts saying the Queen is related to Josef Mengala or something... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Pete Williams (journalist)

Would some BLP-savvy editors please take a look at my recent posts to the Pete Williams talk page and offer their opinions. David in DC (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

David in DC - it would be better to point to the topic you want people to look at specifically this one. KoshVorlon 17:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

D'oh! Shoulda known that. Thank you for cleaning up after me. David in DC (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dolores Huerta

Dolores Huerta. These edits: [8], [9], [10], [11] (a few more related ones, there might be a 3RR violation in there).

The text being added is based on snopes.com, which is not a reliable source here. It's also written in highly POV language ("Clinton surrogate", "attempted to unilaterally translate", basically the whole thing). Also the edit summaries make it obvious the account here is for WP:ADVOCACY:

• "added current details on work for hillary clinton presidential campaign" - this was NOT "work for hillary clinton presidential campaign"
• "She should be held accountable" - pretty much an outright admission that the intent is to "punish" the BLP subject for her comment
• "The selling out of new left social movements is in fact an important historical trend that will define her legacy" - same, text is being added to "punish" the person (nevermind that it is idiotically ignorant)

Putting it up here rather than 3RR but someone should probably have a word with that user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Snopes may now qualify as a more general reliable source. In the past, the objection was that it was self-published without editorial oversight. However, Daniel Mikkelson now acts as editor with a number of writers working for the site, as discussed in this interview. Snopes's Huerta article is not written by a Mikkelson, but by Kim LaCapria, so it is not self-published. The site has a reputation for accuracy, is widely cited, is willing to make corrections. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the general case (personally, I doubt it), but definitely not in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of using Snopes.com in a BLP, either. This article from The Washington Post could be used instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Even with that it's still WP:UNDUE. This is a minor incident in a life of a person who has done some tremendous stuff. Not notable, and on BLPs we err on the side of caution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, that's not an article but just an opinion piece posted on the WP blog.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Carl Rinsch

− − A new editor, Websoftnew, has taken an interest in this page and is making radical changes to it on the grounds "please do not revert the changes my friend. The information is correct and is being requested again and again by Carl rinsch. can you please help me to make it permanent. Websoftnew (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)". Examples are here and here. I've reverted twice but don't want to fall foul of 3 revert rule. While the information they are trying to add may be correct, it is not backed up by any other source than the subject of the article's own website, and the changes all seem to instigated by Carl Rinsch. If someone else can pass their eyes over this it would be appreciated. 79616gr (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Updating for the onlookers: a couple of us have seen to this article, the editor of concern is now blocked, having created a sock puppet in an apparent attempt to continue his efforts without getting blocked for WP:3RR. But eyes are on it, so it should be managed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Paulo Dybala

In the mobile version of this Wikipedia article, underneath the title "Paulo Dybala", he is wrongly referred to as a "Chilean" Footballer. As the article mentions, Dybala is of Polish and Italian heritage with Argentine citizenship. This should be changed to "Argentine Footballer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkieduckie (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mobile version appears to be displaying correctly. Wiki-Blame can't seem to find the word "Chilean" in the history of the article (results). Are you accessing the mobile version via a third party program? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard Pestell

I'm the executive administrator to Dr. Richard Pestell, an oncologist at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, in Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Pestell needs an editor to clean up his wikipedia page. There are two flags that indicate the site doesn't conform to the standards of an objective or neutral voice. I've done some editing to the site but the flags remain. So, I'm appealing to the wikipedia community for help.

If someone wants to email me I'm at (Redacted)

Thank You!DavidDonovanMiller (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the first thing that would help is if you quit re-writing the article like an advertisement.

All articles should do is neutrally summarize sources, preferably secondary ones. No flourishes, no flattery, no commentary, no emotion, no unsourced claims. It should avoid citing works by him or by organizations affiliated with him, except to further support points raised by other authors commenting on his works.

In theory, you could actually do the rewrite yourself -- imagine that you have never met the man and don't care who he is. Imagine that, despite not caring who he is, you have to explain why anyone should care in a way that even people who absolutely hate him can agree is true. Stick only to sources that are not affiliated with him to form a rough draft, then use sources affiliated with him only to fill out points that the rough draft already raises. This article I wrote may give you an idea of how writing like that turns out. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

David Lorne "Dave" Steen

this is my dad. the wikipedia page doesn't mention his marriage to my mother Carol Gairdner or the three children they have. Laura Steen Heather Steen and Stefan Steen.

so strange.

how do we update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedi Tremblay (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hedi Tremblay if you can point us to a reliable source for this information (see WP:RELIABLE for an explanation of what counts as a reliable source), we can add this information. Also, it's helpful if you sign your posts with four tildes. --Jahaza (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

All I can find is this image which shows there was such a person as Carol Gairdner Steen, but that's not really enough. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Shue

I am not sure whether this is the right place for this, but the first picture in that article is God-awful, and there is an unresolved discussion on the talk page, which dates over six years ago. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We should take this issue to the talk page to discuss replacing the current image. Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Taken there, now debating over two very similar images, but since either would be better, marking this

 Done --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Devin Durrant

I am trying to add some detail to Devin's basketball career and I've added citations for it but ChristensenMJ keeps deleting the information. Not sure why. His only explanation is that he thinks it's too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:510:FC01:6C44:FC49:C515:5BA7 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the length, though as my edit summaries have noted, I do think there is undue weight and length to what has been included. But it is also related to an apparently new, good faith, but inexperienced editor including content. The edits typically lack WP style, including use and format of citations, lack of npov, personal commentary or description of things that could/should be linked, etc. Given the multiple IP addresses the user has edited from, hard to address the topic other than in the use of edit summaries, and trying avoid edit warring. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP is completely refusing to engage and is just repeatedly reinserting the same mass of poorly formatted undue material. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've reported this user for edit warring here. Marianna251TALK 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert David Redmile

This looks to be a well-written puff piece, with few or no sources supporting notability. Probably a WP:COI issue, given the unsourced personal life content. One question is whether the position within the church alone meets our guidelines. Any help will be welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mohan Deep

Anyone want to help with the puffery in Mohan Deep? The guy appears to be notable, but there is just so much puffery in the article that it's just ridiculous. I'm starting into the last weeks of a semester/quarter of graduate school, so my time on here is limited. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I can take a crude first pass, bringing it down to just a few puffs. I don't guarantee elegance. LaMona (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I too made a few contributions removing some of the unsourced or promotional content. Meatsgains (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ron Sargent

Ron Sargent

Ronald L. "Ron" Sargent is the current Chairman and CEO of Bidness. Although Sargent was giving the prestigious title of CEO of Bidness, it is widely argued that Otis "The Bidness Man" Pannell is the rightful owner of the title.[1]

If you read the above description, obviously it was written by someone in jest (use of the word "bidness" instead of business, calling it a "prestigious title").

This was just changed/edited today, 2/25/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markcautela (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Puerile vandalism, now reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

• Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most biographies list full place of birth in the first line of an 'Early Life' section. Specifically city/state/country. Is there a policy of doing this? For example -Henry Kissinger was born in Furth, Bavaria, Germany. Not just Furth and Bavaria. It's a completely neutral point of view, not an attack or contentious, and can't be challenged. Some editors of Ted Cruz insist on removing Canada from this first mention of place of birth. The only reason for doing so would be to downplay this fact. I'm completely neutral on this, not for or against Cruz. Again it's not an attack, simply a neutral fact. Isn't removing it for the only purpose to suit a (political?) point of view amount to vandalism? 1305cj (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not fully consistent -- quickly checking a batch of famed Canadians, a majority but far from all specify "Canada" in the text description. Joe Shuster, for example, just has "Toronto", and Justin Trudeau's article mentions the specific hospital, and suggests in a separate sentence that that's a Canadian hospital solely to make a point about Canadian hospitals. And in my experience, for the US it's a minority that mention the country, settling for city and state. And no, an editing dispute does not amount to vandalism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's people famous in one country who were born in another. Someone who still lives in country of birth, that isn't pointed out as much, as your examples suggest. This isn't simply an edit dispute. There's an underlying reason for removing it from this particular page, to downplay it and support a certain point of view. That's what I brought up as being probable vandalism. 1305cj (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We all know why Cruz' birth place is being removed from the Early life section. It is a well-sourced indisputable fact that should be included. Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

His birthplace isn't being removed from the section — there's a dispute about which form, "City, Province" or "City, Province, Canada", it should be presented in, but nobody's trying to entirely remove any mention of his birthplace at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right about the first part — in the cases of both Joe Shuster and Justin Trudeau, the fact that they're Canadian has already been specified in the introduction, so there's no longer any pressing need to go "City, Province, Canada" instead of just "City, Province" when we start getting down to details in the first subsection. So they can't necessarily be a precedent in and of themselves for how this should or shouldn't be handled in Ted Cruz's case, because his article doesn't already mention Canada anywhere earlier than the discussion of his birth. That said, the editor who's reverting you on this is only removing "Canada" from that one specific spot in the text and not completely whitewashing the entire article — so I think you need to dial back the assumptions of ulterior motives. If they were trying to completely wipe out any acknowledgement whatsoever of Cruz's birthplace on the grounds that it was completely irrelevant to a biography of him, then you would definitely have a point that they were trying to downplay or whitewash an issue that's dogged his campaign — but they're just taking issue with whether the country needs to be added, as a supplementary detail to a "City, Province" that everybody already knows what country it's in and the two extraterrestrial space aliens who don't already know that can click on the city or province links to find out anyway, at one specific place in the article. They're not taking issue with whether it warrants mention anywhere at all, and they're leaving the "City, Province" part in place. So I'm not at all convinced that this elevates beyond "editing dispute" into "bad faith". Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Again it's a completely neutral point of view, not an attack or contentious. The very FIRST place full place of birth should be mentioned is the first line of 'Early Life'. There is simply no other reason for removing it from there. No matter how many times it's mentioned in other parts of the article. 1305cj (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And why isn't including it considered "good faith"? It's accurate, truthful, undisputed. Seriously, space aliens? Shouldn't there be a better reason required for removing it? The reason for removing a fact, no matter how well known should have to have more weight than the reason for including it. 1305cj (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

no one in this duscussion has suggested that those seeking to include the nation are not working in good faith. It is a key tenet of Wikipedia editing that both sides in an editing dispute may be working in good faith. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted. But it's encyclopedic content. Shouldn't there have to be a really good reason for removing Country from City/Province/Country of place of birth on the first line of Early Life section. Not just a crazy space alien analogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1305cj (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What I was attacking with the "space aliens" comment is not the good faith bona fides of the people who want to include it, but the notion that bad faith is the only possible explanation for anybody ever thinking it's just unnecessary overkill. I'm Canadian, so "City, Province, Canada" always lands as unnecessarily redundant to my ears, for the exact same reason that "Denver, Colorado" is already specific enough and "Denver, Colorado, United States" would just be unnecessary overkill. I get that some people think it's useful, but I happen to disagree. (And don't even get me started on "City, Canada without province in between", which holy hell to the f-word never.)

What I'm objecting to is the notion that anybody who thinks it's unnecessary overkill is automatically acting in bad faith — you need to stop making assumptions about the motivations that an editor who thinks it's unnecessary might be harbouring. Biased "whitewashing" of his biography is not the only possible reason for anybody to disagree with you — there are plenty of perfectly good faith reasons why an unbiased and neutral and good faith editor can believe it's not mandatory to preference "City, Province, Canada" over "City, Province". Stick to debating the merits of including it, and kindly don't assume that you know the motivations of everybody who disagrees. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps looking to George W. Romney and John McCain for models would be helpful?--Jahaza (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is profoundly silly. An encyclopedia has no good reason to refrain from providing comprehensive information on a major politician's place of birth, and naming the country in an "early life" section would be an obvious thing to do if people weren't playing games. (FWIW, I would reject an argument that he is ineligible to be elected president on grounds of citizenship.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not trying to make any argument about eligibility or anything. How can a request be made to include full encyclopedic location (city/state/country) in 'Early life' with edit protection to prevent continued mischievous removal? 1305cj (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your continuing to paint those who disagree with you as having bad faith (as "mischievous" indicates) is not apt to help your cause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've started an RfC [12]. Expect to see some real silliness. But perhaps sense will prevail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I think the request for comment really should only be in the Biographies List. It's not a political argument. 1305cj (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Indictment of Rick Perry

I'd like people's opinion about whether it's a BLP violation for an article title to mention only a criminal accusation but not the subsequent acquittal. In this instance, I tried to move the article title to "Indictment and exoneration of Rick Perry", but was reverted. Then I tried moving the title to something suggested by another editor: "Rick Perry veto controversy" but was reverted again. Now, a formal move request (that I started) is happening at the article talk page, but I don't think it should be necessary. Reverting to "Indictment of Rick Perry" seems almost indistinguishable from moving the title so that it says "Rick Perry is a scumbag who didn't deserve exoneration". (I brought this up at ANI but it's relevant here too.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation to call the article by its subject. It is 100% factually correct that Perry was indicted. A formal move request is the appropriate action if you think the title should be moved.- MrX 12:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine to call an article by its subject, but the subject of this article is much broader than a mere accusation. Yes, it is 100% factually correct that Perry was accused, so you are preaching to the choir.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Ball (bishop) page - inaccuracies [[13]]

Resolved

 – The OP was right; the list of selected works has been amended accordingly; see talk page for the details GroupCohomologist (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Ball (bishop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The list of nine publications by 'Peter Ball' under Selected Works refers to at least eight books that are most definitely NOT written by the convicted bishop. They are in fact written by Canon Peter Ball, a retired Canon of St Paul's, now in his 80s, who lives in retirement in Ramsbury, Wiltshire. I know this because he is a friend of mine. You can check his entry in Crockford's. To my knowledge Bishop Peter Ball did not write at least eight of the nine books you list on this page. Please would you amend this? Thank you Simon Winn

I've removed all the books until this can be sorted out.--Jahaza (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just restored the chapter in the Connections book. It was most definitely written by the subject of our article Peter Ball (bishop), who was Bishop of Lewes at the time: I attended the talk on which it was based. I have also added the BLP noticeboard template to the article's talk page, as per the above instructions.

I am still a relatively inexperienced editor, and am unfamiliar with noticeboards; however I do note that "this page is not for … material which can easily be removed without argument". If this issue had been raised on the article's Talk page, then I am sure that it would have been dealt with speedily. Of course, a new user could not be expected to know that; but I am somewhat surprised that so much material has been deleted from the article without the issue being moved to the talk page first.

I am now going to copy this discussion to the article's talk page. After that I suggest that this BLP noticeboard report be considered to be resolved. If the original reporter subsequently feels that they cannot reach a satisfactory outcome via the talk page, then they can of course start a discussion here once more.

Thinking about it, in the early nineties I attended a very good workshop on the Holy Spirit by a minister called Peter Ball who was not the subject of the article under discussion: could this be the canon who authored the other books? GroupCohomologist (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Simon Winn (the OP) was right: eight of the nine works previously attributed to Bishop Peter J. Ball were actually written by Canon Peter W. Ball. I should like to thank the OP for drawing our attention to this unfortunate misattribution, which has now been corrected. Please see the talk page for more details. I declare this issue to be resolved. GroupCohomologist (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

More eyes would be very welcome on Carl Hewitt. This is a biography of a computer scientist. The subject of the article has, for many years, been banned by arbcom from autobiographical editing on Wikipedia [14], and there is also a ban on IP editors editing as a kind of sockpuppet. Various articles have been protected and/or semiprotected on and off for some time, including this one. Having additional editors watchlist the pages Carl Hewitt, Actor model, and their talk pages would be helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Pamela McColl

Some one has placed a message on my biography page that says that the material was written by someone close to me - that is not true and this warning does not have any credibility. Please help me to reinstate my page as soon as possible.

Thank you Pamela McColl— Preceding unsigned comment added by SATM Canada (talk • contribs)

Hi, Ms. McColl. Looks like that message was put on by a rather respected user named @Doc James. [15] He should be here soon, and might want to speak for himself, but I can guess. From looking at the history of the page, I can see that it was mostly written by an account named User:GreenDaySun92834. That account was part of a group of sock puppet accounts (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlowerStorm48/Archive), and from that account's history looks an awful lot like it was just here to create the Pamela McColl article; all its other edits were trivial. At that time, Doc James was very interested in paid editing, so I'm guessing that he believes that GreenDaySun92834 was hired to create that article. --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It was written by the sock [16] and that sock was a paid editor [17] via Fiverr. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that GreenDaySun92834 claimed to be the copyright holder of the photograph on that page, which I suspect is rather unlikely. Given that this particular editor was confirmed as a sock, I would suggest that the copyright assertion is false and the photo should be deleted. Shritwod (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Harjinder Singh Kukreja

Harjinder_Singh_Kukreja

- Not written from a neutral point of view - About someone relatively unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.198.8 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I went through and removed several unsourced and promotional claims but the page needs another set of eyes to remove the remaining puffery. Meatsgains (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, as you were in the process of doing that I nominated it for speedy deletion. I think it is just self puffery, written by an editor identified as a sock. Shritwod (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the page should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lennart Poettering

Remembering that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages (although I don't necessarily find that a great decision), I come here to point out that this material could be considered objectionable from that point of view, aside from the fact that it's not about the article. I tried to remove it but it was reinstated with accusations and threats to report me.

I issued a final warning and I'd like to ask for the situation to be monitored. LjL (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've watch listed the page and will revert if the IP attempts to reinstate the information. Meatsgains (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable people with a condition section

So there is we have an article on a fairly new, fairly rare, unclearly-diagnosed condition. An advocate for awareness about that condition who is new to WP has proposed adding a "notable people" section.

The section would be

Notable people with misophonia

• Kelly Ripa - source is ABC News Link 20/20
• Kelly Osbourne - sources are Daily Mail and Misophonia blog

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC) (edited for clarity via redaction Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC))

My sense is

• Kelly RIpa yes - to save you time that is a 20/20 video segment where she talks about it and then others report on it. At first it is goofy/fluffy but then it gets real.
• Kelly Osbourne no. Daily Mail is bad, and blog picking up on that lends no strength, and i have found no other RS on it.

- Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• No First of all, an organization dedicated to "raising awareness" about something which is not a "medically recognized condition" is not a good source for claims that a person has such a condition. It apparently means you have "misophonia" if any sound makes you "uncomfortable". That means the 99% of people who do not like the squeak of chalk on a blackboard technically have this "condition."

[18] has researchers at Newcastle University finding the problem with universally disliked sounds is "But all the noises have one thing in common: the sounds falls within the frequency range of 2,000 to 5,000 Hz, the same range that includes human screams. Our brains don’t like that much." in an article in the Journal of Neuroscience, but dealing with certain sounds a huge number of people can not abide. Amazingly enough, try to find studies that someone clicking a ball-point pen causes extreme reactions. Now fluff can be fun - but promoting an illness which is not an illness is not in accord with WP:MEDRS.

[19] states that only two studies total had been made on the subject. In short, it ranks somewhere about the same as "extreme broccoli aversion" (which is real) as a medical condition, alas. Are there people who go absolutely bonkers when they hear a person lisp? Yep. Is it a major medical condition? Nope. Especially since each subject examined has substantially different "triggering sounds." And where basically all the news articles - cite Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia promote it as a specific "medical condition" where one of the initial sources is Wikipedia? No. IMO, of course. Collect (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited the text above to make it a bit more clear. Collect if you do the typical search we do for MEDRS-compliant sources, there are 4 (yes, 3 by the same group) MEDRS sources on the condition (there are 3 more if you add SCOPUS-indexed sources); if you just do a pubmed search there are 30 papers. The most recent MEDRS source is here (happily the 1 of the 4 by an independent group), and is free, if you want to read it. I'm not questioning if it is a thing or not; I'm following the sources. They also asked for a third person to be listed, and I have no question about that, so I didn't bring it here. It is an NYU doctor and occasional NYT columnist Barron Lerner - source - Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In short the source you give seems to strongly imply that it is on the "obsessive-compulsive spectrum" or is a "neuropsychiatric disorder". I suspect it should, per the source so nicely given just above, be a section within the appropriate articles unless and until it achieves widespread medical coverage as being a specific notable diagnosis. It has not reached that level yet, as I had earlier noted, and which the source given clearly confirms. Collect (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Since the literature hasn't defined it completely nor what kind it is, i would hesitate to do the OR to put it as a subsection in either of those articles. I think this article would survive an AfD since there are 7 MEDRS sources, so i haven't tried deleting it. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Taken into account what Collect says on whether this is really a notable or appropriate topic: as long as the condition is not yet considered well-diagnosed, then while it seems appropriate to include notable people that claim they have it, these have to absolutely, 100%, be from self-identified statements, not second-hand information. Jytdog's analysis on the two cases above is spot on. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Parnelli Jones

In his bio it is stated that he first raced off-road in 1968 in the Stardust 7-11. That is wrong...Yes he did race in that race, but his first off-road race was the Mint 400 Off-Road Race, also staged in Las Vegas, NV in April. I was the creator of the Mint 400, and was the person who called Bill Stroppe to see if he could convince Parnelli to race. In the Mint 400 is where he blew up all his tires, etc. The Stardust 7-11 was a one-time race. Parnelli continued to race in the Mint 400 until he quit off-road entirely. In 2014 he was honored by the promoters of the Mint 400 as its Grand Marshall and received a specially produced gold watch by the race owner, Matt Martelli. Signed Norm Johnson Source: Me, Book "The History of Off-Road Racing 1976," and Wikipedia Mint 400. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1200:1A19:8C5E:9B92:77A1:99B0 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

todd hickman

Hello, I am asking you to delete defamatory information on the article concerning Todd Hickman. This is the second time in two months this person has put opinionated and defamatory information on the site. The person edited the article about Todd Hickman and said he was "terrible" as a football coach. That is opinion and defamatory. Also please remove the statement about him only having one winning season and the game getting cancelled for weather reasons. This is about my husband and he wants it deleted from the site. Is there a way to block this person from continuing to put defamatory information on wikipedia? Please take care of this immediately.

Sincerely,

Karie HickmanKrwhick (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism removed. The two IP addresses that added the information are on opposite sides of the United States, so it's probably different people. Also, please read WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Timothy D Snyder

Timothy D. Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a major criticism of Timothy Snyder made by Grover Furr. There should be a mention of Grover Furr's book "Blood Lies" on Timothy Snyder's page since the book alleges, and well-supports the idea, that Snyder's most famous work is filled with falsehoods. A couple of people have been making very politically charged comments in their reversions to edits on this page. Is there a way to lock the page so that a discussion can be had about including this major piece of critical scholarship on Snyder's webpage? 24.185.84.80 (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Furr's book is published by "red star press," and he's known for his pro-Stalin perspective. His position carries very little weight here, I don't think the material you want added is suitable for inclusion in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note I have blocked 24.185.84.80 for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on this article following a report at WP:AN3. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Natalie Gauci

I´d like to ask some BLP-savvy editors to take a look at this article. I think there are BLP-problems (and non-BLP-problems) with for example passages like " Natalie spent 8 months of her spiritual soul search in Berlin where she became addicted to Ketamine and became lost." and "In 2013 Natalie moved to the UK after being forced to face her darkest fears. She decided the drugs, the smoking and her addictions were no longer serving a purpose in her life and instantly turned her life around." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter Lee Williams

Earlier this month, an editor named User:Anthrousc (an almost certain WP:COI, because the subject of the article is a former anthropology professor at the University of Southern California) blanked almost this entire article with the edit summary "I deleted all the information on the sexual abuse of minors since it was inaccurate and misinformed (it was based on sensationalistic press news and not on the legal records produced for this case)" — he was instantly reverted by ClueBot the first time, but then reblanked the article again with the same edit summary and somehow didn't get reverted the second time. In the process he borked a ref tag, which left the article uncategorized because the categories were buried inside it — and all of this went completely undetected for 2.5 weeks until I found it languishing on uncats last night. In addition, the text and referencing they kept was entirely primary sourced "person who exists" PR bumf which didn't even really make a basic claim of notability per WP:NACADEMICS — so if there's any valid reason for his version to prevail over the existing one, then he should actually be deleted outright.

The claim of notability as a criminal is certainly substantive enough that we should keep the article if it's properly referenced and correct, but alleged or convicted criminals are a subject area where we do have to exercise extreme caution to make sure we're getting the article right, because of the extremely high potential for WP:BLP harm if we make mistakes or sensationalize. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody could do a WP:BLP check on the article and its sourcing to determine whether what we have is right, or whether the blanking editor actually has a valid point about misrepresentation. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many thousands of equally "notable" persons in the US - this article is, alas, entirely aimed at making people know how evil this person is - though the notability is entirely related to his possession of child pornography. Primary sources are used in the BLP - including an "inmate locator" which is decidedly improper IMO. In short - AfD is likely proper - he has no notability as a professor, to be sure, and the bit about being important in "Queer studies" is marginal, and listing him as notable on the claim that he was on the "FBI most wanted list" is clearly insufficient as it is the same as the criminal charge in its basis. I abhor the person in all likelihood, but that does not abrogate the policies of Wikipedia at all, and unless someone wishes to assert that appearing on the "FBI most wanted" list is intrinsically a claim of notability, I rather think he ought not have this BLP. Collect (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Article is currently fully protected - I ask any admin to nominate it at AfD per WP:BLP1E - that is, the person's appearance on the "most wanted list" is the only remote claim of notability and there is no sign of other normal notability standards being asserted at all. Collect (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Lee Williams. However, the person has oodles of notability as a professor - or, rather, as a historian and anthropologist, studying American Indians and Homosexuality. I'm gathering it up slowly (isn't it weird how history and anthropology books don't get as much front page coverage as convictions for sex crimes?), but the fastest thing that I could find is that his books were used as references and sources for way over a dozen unrelated Wikipedia articles, from History of Oklahoma to Non-penetrative sex. Yes, enough that he would have deserved an article even without the arrest; for one thing, he won a Stonewall Book Award, about 90% of the winners of which already have an article. Our article should be rewritten to focus on that, his works as a historian and anthropologist, though should, of course, still mention the arrest and conviction. (Yes, he was convicted and sentenced.) --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Neal Asbury

The article on Neal Asbury doesn't meet notoriety and is self-promotion. It was marked as needing immediate action in 2010. Requesting deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakbranch (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Asbury seems to meet notoriety illustrate notability in reliable sources [20]. The article could use some trimming of promotional language but shouldn't be deleted. Meatsgains (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Be careful of saying someone has "notoriety"; it's actually a BLP problem itself, because notoriety is a bad thing. It means being notable for something bad ("notoriety" is the noun version of "notorious".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thanks for pointing that out. I've stricken through my previous comment. Meatsgains (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wesbrook, Coy Wayne

Wesbrook, Coy Wayne shot 5 but did NOT kill 5 people. He is being executed for 3 deaths. The listing of 5 total killed is incorrectJoebrown1958 (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I modified the lead to better reflect the reference I added. Meatsgains (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Daniel Jouseff

This article should be removed. It is clearly a CV and does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.106.215 (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've take an axe to it and chopped out the spammy and unreferenced stuff.--ukexpat (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Olsen

Ashley Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article Ashley Olsen has a claim with ADHD, which is poorly sourced. In the source ADHD is only mentioned by passing, also there is no verifiability for the claim in the article that Olsen takes "Ritalin ever since she was a child" in the source. I don't consider the source (Gala women/lifestyle magazine) a reliable source for these claims made in the article. WP:BLPGOSSIP
I tried twice to remove the material accordingly to WP:BLP but my edits were Undid without any reason given, and I don't want to start an edit-war, thus I'm reporting the problem here. --212.95.7.48 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it again with an edit summary pointing to this noticeboard, however if there is a native French speaker available who wants to take a look at gala.fr, my limited understanding of the language indicates it is not a suitable or compliant source for a statement about a living person's medical history. Even should it be considered reliable for that sort of gossip, UNDUE applies - the amount of people in the US who are prescribed ritalin is well known for being 'large'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Which has been reverted by MightyDinoPower15, an editor who indicates they have a COI regarding the subject. I have notified them of the discussion here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Kyle Bass

Kyle Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has several questionable statements and sources that merit a second look based on their lack of verifiability and lack of NPOV which are both not in keeping with BLP standards.

For example, there is a statement about questionable ethics attributed to a Barron’s article that doesn’t corroborate that statement and the article is behind a paywall making verifying that error for non-subscribers exceeding difficult. The Japan section contains subjective analysis from a low-quality source (blog) which is not in keeping with BLP standards. There is also unattributed criticism of challenging drug patents that is not in line with BLP standards. A statement about CFAD and Celgene cites a WSJ article but the article does not contain information that supports the claim. Additionally, the biography states that Kyle Bass was tipped off to the sub-prime crisis and cites a CNBC interview from 2009 which is not verifiable nor accurate. The post ends with speculative reports about the performance of Hayman Capital that are also not accurate, verifiable or necessarily relevant to a BLP page.

This account is managed by Steele at Hayman Capital Management, L.P., which was founded by J. Kyle Bass in 2005. My goal is to serve as a resource in support of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. I will not be making edits, but rather participating in the community discussions. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicola Barker

The sentences "As a child... sleep disorder", although quoted accurately from the unverified source interview, create an exaggerated impression of physiological disorder when removed from their surrounding context which has caused distress to the subject's family. She would appreciate it if they could be deleted. (Correction submitted on Nicola Barker's behalf by her partner, Ben Thompson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.112.132 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it for now, because as presented it is trivia. This is not to say that it could not be legitimately readded were it to be stated in the context of things that shaped the content and style of her work (as it is in the source). --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Schorsch

Nicholas Schorsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Please provide sources in order for the page to be updated. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stacey Dash

Recently, on the page for Stacey Dash, the birth date was changed from 1967 to 1966, based on posts from AllMovie and Film Reference. But, Film Reference is not considered a reliable source, and AllMovie biographies are user updated, so I would also say that is not reliable. Since the official twitter for Dash says born in 1967, I think the article should say that too. (I also posted on the talk page, but here would be nice for some second opinion/more visible.) Beerest 2 Talk page 00:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

We should find a secondary source. But in the meantime I agree the official Twitter page would be more reliable than websites with user generated content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric Chaisson

• Eric Chaisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is almost entirely the work of two WP:SPAs and reads like a promotional bio. Could someone with an interest in cosmology please look into it and the related articles? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Strout

Elizabeth Strout's birthdate is stated as both January 5 and January 6.

Gene Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.203.47 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done The birth date was unsourced according to a source published by Encyclopædia Britannica she was born on the 6th so I corrected the date and added the reference.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Saheed Balogun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saheed_Balogun His name is Saidi not Saheed' - This should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabioerdters (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like both uses of his name (Saheed and Saidi) are used. [21] & [22]. Might want to submit a WP:RM. Let me know if you need any help with this process. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

One thing to note, the page's current references use the name "Saheed". Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Fabioerdters is now | mis-representing sources to attempt to prove that "Saidi" is the only spelling. I made the change on the title after looking through google to find the spellings of his name, and for the record, more spellings show up as "Saheed", to be fair, in the same articles (sometimes) his name is spelled as both "Saidi" and "Shaeed". I don't have a stake in this article, however, I'm not crazy about Fabio changing the hidden comment to favor his preferred spelling. KoshVorlon 17:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Isaiah Richardson Jr.

Would someone have a look at Isaiah Richardson Jr. where the (apparent) subject has said on the talk page "This entire page is based on a false article written by an ignorant racist who assumed that a black man playing any other type of music beyomd hip hop or gospel is some type of con artist. I will not allow this false article ruining my career to be on wikipedia. Unacceptable Mambojazz1 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I had this on my watchlist from a previous ANI post (I think it was ANI). I honestly cannot find anything problematic about the current article. The NYTimes piece is basically everything said in the stub article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I get the impression it's the NYT article that is objected to. See his comment of February 19 2013 below the Jewish Humor Central article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. I must learn how to do the green quote thing.

I've changed the Jewish Humor Central reference (a blog simply quoting an article in Algemeiner) with the original Algemeiner article. I suspect the problem is that he doesn't want the NYT article even linked as a reference because he doesn't like the way he's been presented there, although I can't see what he's objecting to. It seems both respectful and unsensational, and Jackson obviously talked to the reporter and supplied a fair amount of personal information. Perhaps we should wait to see if he replies to EvergreenFir's question at Talk:Isaiah Richardson Jr. asking him what exactly he objects to. At the moment, we're only guessing, and he's simply blanking the article with no discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that Jackson made a comment at the Jewish Humor Central blog outlining what he didn't like about the NYT article:

The New York Times article is a lie. A media induced article written by the writer for laughs. The truth is Ive always been interested in and played klezmer all the way back to Juilliard same as all professional clarinetists I know. The writer watched me play about 40 minutes of Jewish music then 3 minutes of anything else but still wrote the title and article the way he wanted. Sad. Many people wouldve loved to hear the real story. [23] (scroll down to comment section).

Again, I'm only guessing, but he seems to think the article should not have been about him playing national anthems (and titled as such) and should have talked more about the background to him playing Jewish music. He also appears to think the article implies that he only plays Jewish music to make money from tourists. I certainly didn't get that impression from the article at all, but there you have it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. EvergreenFir, Malcolmxl5, Ponyo, any thoughts? He's reverted yet again to re-add this mess, which is what he wants us to say about him. I've also left him a 3RR warning as he'd reverted six times in 24 hours. His next move after receiving the warning, was to revert yet again. However, he has at least started posting on the talk page, so I'm reluctant to take him to AN/3RR where he'll almost certainly be blocked. My other thought is that perhaps he doesn't really meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. All the sources are simply about his street performances in New York in 2012/2013 and pretty much repeat each other. The rest of his career to date pretty comprehensively fails WP:MUSICBIO. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. I think I would agree with you that he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Essentially, he has just been noted for one thing, the street performances. We're not able to build a more rounded biography without better sourcing and it would probably be best if this article went. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's nominate for deletion. Perhaps he'll agree to it and it gets deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

He's now blocked for 31 hours for edit-warring (another editor reported him). I've re-written the article somewhat. It's about as good as it can get given the sources, but the notability still remains marginal. Voceditenore (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, you did a great job on the article. Given the obvious dissatisfaction of the subject despite the absence of contentious content combined with the borderline notability, perhaps an AfD would be best? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Contentious content at Nate Parker

Can I get some objective eyes on this content removal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think in general it was a good edit but it went a bit too far. I would favor the following content:

Parker was accused of rape while a sophomore at Pennsylvania State University in 1999 Parker was cleared of those charges in 2001.ref name="FHRtH"

I don't think any further details about un-corroborated allegations to be useful for the reader or fair to the subject of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Keithbob, Thanks for the advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Even better grammar would be:

Parker was accused of rape while a sophomore at Pennsylvania State University in 1999 but he was cleared of those charges in 2001.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Bring Chrome Home

The article Bring Chrome Home is tagged for speedy deletion and should be, as it basically is a WP:CFORK from DAP Racing and contains probable BLP violations involving the current and previous owners of California Chrome. It's basically an article about a Facebook group of folks who post an odd mix of anti-"foreigner" sentiment, an animal rights tone, total ignorance of horse racing, and a lot of unfounded accusations about the majority owner of California Chrome. The article repeats the same accusations. Pretty strong BLP violations. Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Now at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Francine Shapiro

• Francine Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page on Dr. Francine Shapiro is regularly edited by uninformed people with the agenda of discrediting Dr. Shapiro and EMDR. Dr. Shapiro is the creator of EMDR therapy, and EMDR therapy is considered a first-line treatment for trauma by organizations such as ISTSS (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Departments of Health in Northern Ireland, UK, Israel, the Netherlands, France, and other countries and organizations. There are 35 randomized controlled (and 20 nonrandomized) studies that have been conducted on EMDR therapy in the treatment of trauma to date. A randomized controlled study is the gold standard for evidence-based therapy, and for any research. And more excellent research now on the role of eye movements, mechanism of action, and other Randomized Controlled Studies, not only on trauma and PTSD, but also on the use of EMDR therapy with generalized anxiety disorder, treatment of distressful experiences that fail to meet the criteria for PTSD, dental phobia, depression, body dysmorphic disorder, chronic phantom limb pain, panic disorder with agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and peer verbal abuse.

The World Health Organization published Guidelines for the management of conditions that are specifically related to stress: Trauma-focused CBT and EMDR are the only therapies recommended for children, adolescents and adults with PTSD. "Like CBT with a trauma focus, EMDR therapy aims to reduce subjective distress and strengthen adaptive cognitions related to the traumatic event. Unlike CBT with a trauma focus, EMDR does not involve (a) detailed descriptions of the event, (b) direct challenging of beliefs, (c) extended exposure, or (d) homework." (Geneva, WHO, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpattijane (talk • contribs)

For some reason you seem to have deleted the previous contents of the talk page and replaced them with a poorly formatted copy of the main article. I don't know what you were trying to achieve, but I have reverted this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, there's not a single third-party source with any tendency to establish notability in the article, despite all the footnotes referencing Shapiro's own books and website (even some of those are dead links). See the reliable sources policy. The awards section is totally unreferenced. I think this biography of a living person should be prodded. I'll do it myself if the sourcing isn't improved in a few days. Please sign your posts on discussion pages, User:Drpattijane. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

I think she's notable, there are some legit sources out there. The article def. needs cleaning up though - and someone with MEDRS expertise should probably look it over. Maybe Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing too. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

She's definitely notable as the person who developed EMDR, which is a notable therapy for PTSD and there is research material out there. I have enough of a COI (a family member is trained to do EMDR therapy) that I should not edit the article or say much more than this here. That said, a cursory search [24] shows plenty of stuff not self-written and from peer-reviewed sources, whether positive or negative, I can't say. But enough for GNG, definitely. Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Martha Wright (Actress)

Friends, I tried to make some very simple edits to this Wikipedia page, but my edits were blocked or revised. Sadly, Martha Wright died on March 1st, 2016. I saw the notice from her youngest daughter Jenny Manuche Vellante on Facebook. Maybe you folks can make these simple biographical changes. ----Todd Ruel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.18.12 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Todd. I'm sure you made the edit in good faith, but we simply cannot report that someone has died on the basis of a Facebook post. We require a published reliable source such as an obituary or funeral notice. The damage that can be done by mistakenly reporting someone's death is far, far, greater than a delay of a few days in updating their Wikipedia article. I'll keep a watch for obituaries, and will update Martha Wright (actress) as soon as one is published. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Brianna Wu talk page

I redacted a few comments regarding a person named in a source. The source cites Wu's opinion that the reason this person wasn't prosecuted for threats was he was too unstable. There's no chance we would use Wu's opinion of his mental state or Wu's opinion of prosecutor discretion. Speculating on the talk page about a named living person who has neither been charged, convicted, committed or otherwise is a clear BLP violation and I removed it and hatted the comments. Considering that much less severe comments have been oversighted on that page, I think it wise to simply not have BLP vios of any kind there. Here's a diff of my edit.[25]. I left the link to WaPo as the source but considering that GG topics don't even tolerate BLP violating links, it should go to. Just common sense taht it's also highly implausible as I've yet to here a prosecutor press conference that says "Well, right before he killed those people he made a bunch of threats but he was too unstable to prosecute." Anyone think that's a plausible rationale or that we would attribute such a view with an opinion by a person unassociated with police, prosecutors, doctors or other mental health experts? --DHeyward (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Didn't even notice this had been brought to BLPN! In my opinion, editors should be free to discuss what the sources (especially reliable sources) state about a person on the talk page. While consensus may be to not include it in the article, discussing whether or not to include it on the talk page should be fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The above editor has restored the BLP violations saying the burden is on Dheyward to prove it, when WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." 68.82.64.132 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on those making the claim. A reliable source isn't making the claim, the are repeating an unsubstantiated allegation made against a living person. The Washington Post is publishing an opinion which has no chance of making it in the article. The washington Post doesn't make the claim and as stated above, it's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of people that have made statements about Wu and the conclusion made in those cases was oversight. It is certainly not okay to use the talk page as a forum to disparage living people with statements that have no chance of making it in thae article. PtF knows this and he is not even taking part in the discussion, just restoring BLP violations. More eyes are needed if this nonsense is going to continue. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth you are aware of the boilerplate at the top of the page Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous (sic). If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. Wu is a poor source for assessing mental stability with no known training in psychiatary or any health field. She is a poor source for interpreting prosecutor discretion with no known training or expertise in either law or law enforcement. WaPo did not make any claims but left the potentially libelous statements attributed to Wu alone. Discussing the statements on the talk page servers no Wikipedia purpose as they have zero chance of making it into the article with current sources. The poorly sourced and potentially libelous material was removed and the conversation hatted. Please stop restoring it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I see this as essentially a non-issue, as I am not aware of a real suggestion for including the challenged material (and I currently don't think it would be an improvement). But so long as we're engaging in original research omphaloskepsis, I would recommend that DHeyward have a bit of a read on mens rea. Modern stalking and harassment statutes often require specific mental states (the intent to cause fear, for instance). "Instability," for lack of a better term, can make it hard to prove a necessary element of those crimes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You should try staying in your lane. Psychological impairment gives prosecutors more tools, not less. They are also more likely to use them. Involuntary psych hold requires only a police officer to think "unstable, danger to self or others." 72 hours psych hold, guns seized, potentially indef hold if judge orders it - they don't even need to meet probable cause standards. Virtually all crimes require mental culpability but the alternative isn't "nothing we can do." Ask John Hinckley what not having a culpable mental state means. Instead of a fixed criminal term in jail, it's a trip to state hospital until well enough to be tried (oh yeah, ask Jared Loughner what being unstable meant when he stalked Gabby Giffords.) "He was too unstable to arrest" said no prosecutor or cop ever which is exactly why relying on Wu for that interpretation is potentially libelous and poorly sourced. If you really want to engage in idle speculation, "not a credible threat" or "not a true threat" is much more likely but we've already had that removed because of how it reflects on Wu and Sarkeesian and BLP (even with Law enforcement experts as the source). --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, I guess I would be interested to know where my lane is! I would just say that major felonies and misdemeanors are dealt with in different ways. People are not sent to state hospitals for what would be a violation or lesser misdemeanor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the BLP concerns, but it just isn't true that People are not sent to state hospitals for what would be a violation or lesser misdemeanor. Defendants must be mentally competent to enter a plea or proceed to trial, even for a minor offense or VoP. If they aren't, in most jurisdictions they are sent off to the state hospital for competency restoration. This often involves spending weeks or months in jail with only minimal psychiatric treatment waiting for a hospital bed to open up. It's awful and it happens all the time. Lawsuits have been brought over it in at least 10 states since 2002. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - There appear to be a number of questions and issues raised above. Editors should note:
  a) WP:BLP applies everywhere, including on Talk pages;
  b) WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE places the burden for obtaining consensus for re-inclusion of material redacted under BLP on those wishing to include it. The edit summary Onus is on person removing material to bring to BLPN if challenged, is therefore erroneous;
  c) WP:BLPTALK prescribes a method by which contentious material might be discussed without repetition of that material on Wikipedia - editors are generally free to discuss what the sources (especially reliable sources) state about a person on the talk page, provided they remain within the limits of BLP policy; editors are not free to insert poorly sourced or unsourced information about living persons.
  d) The method prescribed by WP:BLPTALK permits the inclusion of hyperlinks to potential sources; consequently, such links, in isolation of other information about living persons, cannot be violations of BLP. I would not support redaction of such links. NOTE: I believe we have previous erred in this regard.
  With respect to this particular case, I would additionally note:
  e) The information added to the Talk page was not consistent with that verified by the source, which attributes the statement to the article subject, the Talk page inclusion presented it as fact;
  f) In an ideal world, this should be essentially a non-issue; the information once redacted should not have been re-inserted without consensus that it did not violate BLP; if such had occured there would be no issue for this forum. Unfortunately, the information was re-inserted 3 times, including edit warring to do so, and that is an issue.
  g) I support the redaction performed by DHeyward (linked above) - this was a clear BLP violation, and a good redaction - but note that it is larger than that which I, personally, would have made - I make no admonishment, but rather a personal encouragement to editors to be surgical in their redactions.
  Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I also support redaction as per DHeyward above and endorse Ryk72's comments. I will add that in some cases discussion of BLP violating material can happen, where there is zero chance this will make it into an article, it should not be included on talkpages. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

My reading and interpretation of the relevant policies is consistent with that of Ryk72 above as well. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom Ford

• Tom Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on the competing positions as to the shape of this article would be helpful. There's an ongoing discussion on the Talk page as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Gilbert Strang

Gilbert Strang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor introduced potentially defamatory material earlier this week, which I deleted with a note to the IP's talk page:

[26]

Today an editor from the same IP address (presumably the same person) added this to the talk page:

[27]

This is literally my first rodeo in this WP realm so I'm reporting it here and asking for further steps or guidance as to what, if anything, I can do to help out further. I would offer to do a little research regarding the level of hyperbole involved in the assertion that anything alleged on the linked website (which is, of course, entirely self-reported by the blogger and thus axiomatically subjective) comes close to felonious conduct under federal law in the U.S., but WMF has never retained me as counsel so that is a thing I will defer to their able legal department.

Please let me know if further information or reformatting is required. (I'm pretty good at following directions and that John Doe template looks like I made a huge mistake by using it, and I was following the directions as they are written and with some level of angsty interpretation, so if I messed that up, I would humbly submit that an instruction revision might be worth considering...) Onward and upward!—Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also an edit summary re: the article's talk page that may warrant revdel. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Good redactions. The "source" provided is self-published; fails WP:BLPSPS. The IP editor also appears to be the creator of that source, and involved in a dispute with the article subject; WP:COI implications. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Julietdeltalima. I've revdel those edits as serious BLP violations. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

zahia dehar

If born in 1992 she can not have been 17 years old in 2008 as the article states. It's contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.156.132 (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@81.170.156.132: Yes, you're right. The source say merely that she was 'under 18' at the time so I've revised the text according. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Xiulu Ruan

This is a low profile individual; the page is poorly sourced, and not deserving of a wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekish (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno if the man is notable, but the article was an unholy mess. I've cleaned it up and pruned it considerably. Someone might want to take a look at whether it should be sent to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed an additional section, per WP:BLP; and submitted a CSD A7 "unremarkable person" an AfD request. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC) amended - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dusty Saxton

Dusty Saxton

I am Dusty Saxton and I'd like for someone to delete the Biography and 2011 and Beyond sections of my page. I believe the page is still complete without them. All I am is a professional drummer. My personal life is insignificant. Thank you!

dustysaxton.com @dustysaxton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.248 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have deleted everything, apart from the lead paragraph, for policy reasons. However, it's quite possible that the entire article will eventually be deleted as there is no sourcing which indicates that the subject meets the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. You'll find a fuller explanation of these issues at Talk:Dusty Saxton. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Richard Oland

Murder of Richard Oland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article includes the names of and information about a number of people involved in the case who are not mentioned in the media (or at least not mentioned in such detail). For instance,the article lists suspects in the murder who were not mentioned in the media, only in unproven court documents. This appears to violate WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I haven't dealt with situation like this before and would appreciate some input on how to proceed. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Tried to make compliant with S&P for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexandra Daddario

First paragraph relates to someone total different. Occupation under her photograph is labelled as 'prostitute' instead of actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.150.250 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been vandalism. It has now been reverted by other editors. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)