Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive256

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

Richard Donovan (runner)

Needs review. Someone purporting to be subject has serious content concerns-- it's a hot mess and you can pick any dif at random from today. The WP:RFPP request indicated possibly libelous content, though I did not see it myself. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion including allegations of libel is on my talk page. To summarize the situation, users have been adding content suggesting Donovan has a reputation for litigious behavior, claiming he stifles criticism of his poor events using the courts. [1] for one example. I had trimmed it down to a brief well-sourced paragraph documenting that he won a defamation settlement from Forbes. [2]

The most recent comment on my talk page contains a legal threat, and it's not the first: "I must now caution you as to further edits on this page: in fact it should be simply deleted. I will however be seeking identities of users who edited and making legal contact with Wikipedia in this regard."

I don't have time at the moment for further editing, but generally I think we should treat this like any other BLP; remove unsourced content, avoid undue weight, and write an overall good article. —Guan aco 00:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reset the visibility of contentious prior revisions. Someone should check my work.Dlohcierekim (talk)

Looks good. —Guan aco 03:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've oversighted some of the deleted revisions as potentially libellous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC) @Thryduulf: Thanks, Always a pleasure.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ade Olufeko

Ade Olufeko, an article for a living bio, whose work and persona is known in west african circles had an article poorly created which has been deleted a few. Now there is consistent verifiable coverage on him in Nigeria, there seems to be an unconscious bias of weighing his notability according to western media standards. Seeking assistance to verifying the primary sources which focus of Ade Olufeko independently of other sources. A recent declined and resubmitted draft can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ade_Olufeko all issues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ad%C3%A9_Olufeko has been addressed. Thanks wiki familyWaleFam (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, you want us to apply different notability standards to individuals depending on where in the world they live? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Far from it Nomoskedasticity, Not at all : D There are many regions wiki covers outside the U.S. for example; projects and groups like Wiki Loves Africa this some editors may not be familiar with. This article meets the baseline notability standards and has been shortchanged by those who overlooked the sources. I am only putting this notice here to bring it to attention to independent editors so it can be moved from draft to its own article space. With wiki love. thanks! WaleFam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Isidro A. T. Savillo

Could people experienced with sourcing and BLP take a look at this article? I removed a BLP-violating section that seemed to be mocking the subject (I think that was the goal? I don't think it was an attempt at flattery/bragging?), but the more I look at this article, the more it looks like 50%-75% is puffery sourced to questionable sources, and although this person clearly exists, I'm beginning to become a little suspicious of many of the claims, and where they're coming from. Lots of throwaway accounts in the article history, but not all of them were contributing the the "Relationships" section, some were adding "sources" from google sites. Lots of similar editing from multiple IP's in one IP range. However, I don't have the knowledge, nor actual scientist-BLP-writing experience, to prune it. I know there are often people who frequent this board who like doing this kind of thing, so I thought I'd highlight the article for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

His main claim to notability is presidency of the International Society For Molecular and Cell Biology and Biotechnology Protocols and Researches, about which I have serious doubts regarding notability. The organization's web site is not at all what one would expect for a major scientific organization. More substantively it is hard to find any information at all on this organization (convenience link to web search). The story for his other main society, International Society for Collaborating Scientists in Personalized Medicine, is similar. Otherwise he seems to be a typical professor who writes papers, serves on editorial boards, the usual stuff. That's a perfectly fine way to contribute to society but not enough in itself to pass WP:PROF. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nisha Adhikari

Nisha Adhikari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi there. I monitor an article about an actress, Nisha Adhikari. I met her once at an event that I photographed so I added the article to my watch list after the event. Anyway, I noticed some interesting edits made that could potentially violate WP:BLP. The inclusions linked to "gossipy"-type news websites and the edits discussed how she is "considered controversial." I reverted the edits suggested we needed to stay neutral and use more reliable secondary sources.

A very passionate editor, User:1NepalPatriot, left a rather threatening comment on my talk page (so threatening to the point that I thought he had mistaken me for a "real" vandal, so to say) accusing me of using my "POV" to revert and threatening to report me to a noticeboard, or something. You can see the conversation (and the fact that I gave up even bothering to respond due to the disrespectful tone and strange interaction) here. That user left similar comments on the Wikipedia article here, practically declaring themselves the winner over some battle about POV that I'm "imposing." I am reporting this here because it's best that I step away from drama and recuse myself, and let someone take a look at the "controversy" section to see if the sources are adequate and that the tone is appropriate.

On that note, I don't think I've used that many quotes in a paragraph in my life, ha! My radar just always pops up with gossip-style websites, YouTube video citations, and argumentative people claiming I'm being a vandal. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Missvain for so cheekily trying to divert the topic and blaming for threats and what not. The issue is clear. A simple google of the person of the article in concern will give too many references of the controversy the person was involved in including a video from a national daily newspaper on youtube. The user reverting the edits clearly has confessed she met the articles person and is a friend, which clearly declares her ineligible for editing this article as she is clearly violating WP:POV and shows bias in editing the article. The user doesnt want to include the section controversy at all and blanked the section. Admins, please intervene! 1NepalPatriot (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

1NepalPatriot Actually, what Missvain is telling you is that you aren't providing reliable sources for your claim. Without a reliable source, any contentious claim has to be removed, and no, Missvain isn't violating NPOV nor COI, yes Missvain says they met the subject article once, that doesn't show COI or NPOV.

If you have reliable sources, feel free to use them to support your edit, otherwise, it doesn't matter how many tabloid references you have, they won't work. The references need to be reliable. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A national daily newspaper is not a tabloid! Stop saying anything before you check the references!1NepalPatriot (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone. For the record I am not friends with the subject. I attended an event with a friend where the subject SPOKE (she lectured about her climbing of Mt. Everest) and I photographed her (while she received an award) and I met her briefly. We are not friends nor would I consider me photographing her at a public event and meeting her for 20 seconds being a conflict of interest. Cheers and thanks User:KoshVorlon for your attention to the matter. Missvain (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming subject inline whose removal from government was compared something out of Game of Thrones?

[3]

I made this edit, but I'm not sure about it. It seems a little tasteless to me for The Age to be making tongue-in-cheek comparisons of real-world power-politics with political outcasts who are now in jail for life to Game of Thrones and for us to essentially mirror them, but it also seems more useful to readers of our Game of Thrones article to link the relevant page than just give some vague malarchy about "power struggles in the Chinese government".

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cara Santa Maria

Cara Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She appears to pass GNG, but there is a high amount of unsourced content that really detracts from article being up to par. I get the impression that editors of the page have added OR from the point of view of a fan. More eyes are needed on the page. Delta13C (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Mikhail Golubev

Attn editors:

my fourth book is published this month: please, add it to the list (Books section): Golubev, Mikhail (2017). Understanding the Sicilian. Gambit Publications. ISBN: 978-1911465102

also (in the beginning of Chess strength section), the ChessMetrics game statistics with the incomplete Biel 1995 performance (there were 11 rounds/games in a tournament, not 6) hardly makes sense at all, imho

With best regards, Mikhail Golubev (Odessa, Ukraine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikhailGolubev (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeated unverifiable claims at Mike Doyle (actor)

Mike Doyle (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several or more IPs attempted to add unverifiable "updated" info about the actor's relationship breakup. The attempts have been reverted repeatedly. Also, the matter was discussed in the article talk page, but that happened before another IP user attempted to add similar info. I wonder what to do with the relationship info. Should I suppress the relationship info, or should I repeatedly face more IPs trying to update the status of the relationship? I tried finding sources to verify such information. I even told one of IPs that this video doesn't explicitly verify the update. --George Ho (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

jack posobiec

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idekoe (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This entry appears to be self-produced and self-aggrandizing in order to promote the subject's self-published book on Amazon. Is it relevant, noteworthy, or merely an attempt to use Wikipedia as a justification for popularity? Idekoe (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman and Brian D. Litman

A user claiming to be the subject of the article which is currently discussed at AfD left me a rather long message at User talk:SoWhy#Brian Litman Afd in which they are (among other things) asking to remove a keep-!vote from said AFD which mentions FOIA requests because of various reasons. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to remove a !vote from an ongoing discussion but since BLPs get special treatment, I'd like to invite others to weigh in. The rest of the message is something for WP:RSN but I'd be happy with help with that part as well. Regards So Why 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:SoWhy, The FOIA thing should be deleted as it violates the spirit (if not the precise letter) of WP:NLT. It's a suggestion to use a legal procedure that would have a chilling effect on the target. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with redacting the comment. I don't think rev del is necessary because it certainly isn't a legal threat (even if it does violate the spirit). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that PaleoNeonate (pinging) reverted an user (probably the same one) removing the comment already. I'm off to bed now and tomorrow I'm probably not online until late in the evening, so if someone else can implement whatever consensus reached here, that would be great. Regards So Why 20:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of that other message on SoWhy's talk page. I also received a message on my talk page in relation to that AfD discussion, but it wasn't a request to change my vote (or to delete that particular keep vote), and was not from an IP address. I indeed restored back the keep comment from an IP address that was partially removed by another IP address, but if someone else removes it because it is inappropriate, I have no objection (also make sure to also remove its associated SPA template tag if doing so). Although I did not understand that vote's rationale at the time, the discussion really needed more participation and I was glad to see another vote. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

After reading that request on SoWhy's talk page, I see no real issue with it. It would be even better if WP:VRT was used to confirm that it is not impersonation, but I also see no strong evidence that it would be. —Paleo Neonate - 21:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the !vote now. Thanks for the input. Regards So Why 16:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Austin Petersen

Austin Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert (over the objections of three others), particular content (revert #1, revert #2, revert #3, revert #4) based on the following:

(1) "FreedomGulch" - an opinion blog post by a law student, consultant, and libertarian activist;

(2) an anonymous blog post by "Zeroth Position" on a self-published website (another opinion blog);

(3) an anonymous blog post on "Libertarian Republic" (another opinion blog) by someone under the pseudonym "R. Brownell" (a self-described "shadow contributor"); and

(4) "TruthInMedia.com" - website of unknown reliability that won't let you read it without a username and password.

I don't think these sources are sufficient to make claims (especially negative claims, and especially in Wikipedia's voice). More eyeballs and comments at Talk:Austin_Petersen#NAP_opposition would be much appreciated. Neutrality^talk 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Eastbrook School

Could somebody please delete from the history the revisions that I just reverted? Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Neutrality^talk 14:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dieumerci Mbokani

Resolved

– Page already protected Yashovardhan (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

During the last hours there is a continuous vandalism of Mbokani's article by multiple IP's. Can anyone protect it? Thanks! Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done by Keith D. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jason V Brock

Nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure). Yashovardhan (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

COI - the subject or persons involved with the subject have or are creating content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsand21266 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

And where is your proof backing up these COI assertions? Meatsgains (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:COIN is likely to be a more appropriate place to discuss a possible COI than here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Rsand21266 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2017 (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.

Thomas L. Tedrow

This article is of an irrelevant, little-known writer. One source proves that statements he made about the Laura Ingalls Wilder series he wrote were untrue, as he misstated the book print run and broadcast production: ^[1]

There is no properly-sourced material confirming his stature as worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Chuck Mall 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutthegirls (talk • contribs)

References

^ http://ew.com/article/1992/09/18/laura-ingalls-wilder-goes-court/

Prodded by User:Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_L._Tedrow&diff=786499977&oldid=760202612 Govindaharihari (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyo Chang-won

Hello, please could people consider this series of edits which seem questionable. I have examined them but I struggle to understand whether they are positive or negative but I feel quite strongly that at least some part may be inappropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This, at the very least, needs some very strong sourcing. I don't know much about the subject, but things like "he described his political opponents as having the mindset of rapists" seems to require elaboration. My gut tells me there is something being taken out of context here. Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Tiago Mattos

The article about Tiago Mattos seems really a promotion about the person, repeating few facts with vague information such as "awards: multiple recognitions".

The article seems to break the Notability Principle, being an autopromotion and, maybe, not encyclopedic. He's a professor at some universities and a small personality. There are references pointing to his appearances in media, but in the end the article seems like just another media appearance, instead of being really a reference about him - his LinkedIn should be enough in such cases.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorsantos07 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see a single reliable source. It's written like a resume, in first-person (even though all the pronouns have been changed to make it appear third-person) from an egocentric perspective. A lot of puffery and weasel words. I'd recommend taking this to WP:Articles for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Debórah Dwork

Debórah Dwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone take a look at this page? An editor has expressed major concerns with the article's content (seems promotional and barely sourced) as well as its major contributors (IP editors) on the article's talkpage. I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, hence the request. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have the same answer here as to the section below this one. It is written like a resume, in pseudo-third person, but obviously by the subject herself. The only three sources are articles written by her, none of which are about her or contain any information found in the article. I'd also recommend this for WP:AFD Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken Maiuri

Hello,

I am brand-new to using Wikipedia (besides as a search/research tool). A fan of one of the bands I'm in recently made a Wikipedia page about me. He did this on his own, and though I am thankful he was inspired to do it, it is full of factual inaccuracies and personal information that I would not want included. I removed the incorrect and unwanted information and attempted to update the page with correct information. All seemed well.

But then I received this message:

"You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Maiuri. KMF (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)"

I didn't mean to "disrupt" the website...maybe the way I attempted to edit the page wasn't following an important rule? If that's the case, I apologize. But this is my first time being "represented" on Wikipedia, and I do not want the page to exist in its current form. I need help. And thank you for your time.

- Ken Maiuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereo45 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted a link about this talk thread at Talk:Ken Maiuri, and would suggest you also post information there. Technically, by Wikipedia standards, it's a conflict of interest for the subject of an article to be also editing it. However, it's also good that you posted here. Perhaps someone will post a more definitive answer for you here. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing to remember is articles need to be verifiable. That's why we stress that information in articles—and especially biographies of living people—be sourced to reliable sources. We prefer sources to be secondary sources, independent of the subject.

Maile66 noted the conflict of interest situation. Let me take it a step further: other editors have no way to verify your claim that you are Maiuri. We will assume good faith that you are, but we will also err on the side of caution that you could be an impostor. How would you feel if somebody else logged in, claimed to be you, and changed the article? That's another reason we prefer published sources, so anybody can look up the source (either online or at a library) and verify the information; we're then not relying on anybody's claims about their identity.

(There is a mechanism to have your identity verified, but it involves sending email to the Volunteer Response Team. Follow that link for instructions. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred offers good advice. For the purposes of this discussion, I will assume you are Mr. Maiuri.

I am seeing several other problems. This appears to be an article built entirely out of original research. Most of the sources are things like facebook, youtube videos of him playing the piano (so that we can list a piano as one of his instruments), chords to his songs on Riffstation.com, an op/ed piece from Crypticrock.com, etc... The only thing close to reliable sources are the actual news articles from The Daily Hampshire Gazette, which are articles written by the subject himself, intended to show that he does indeed write articles. This is the perfect example of OR. There is not a single, reliable, secondary source that is about the subject.

I fear this probably qualifies your article for deletion, so you may find it posted there. Since you likely know what has been written about you, perhaps you can find some reliable sources, and bring them to the talk page of that article, so that we may salvage it in a respectable manner. Zaereth (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cut all but the basic info due to a total lack of reliable sourcing. Also removed any info in violation of BLPPRIVACY. Per the subject's request on the talk page, I recommended taking it to AFD. (That's a whole process I don't have time to deal with right now.) Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

John Larroquette

John Larroquette was in camera store and he is not credit for the movie! I keep adding it to the list of his movies and someone keeps deleting it. Please help me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4651666/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuit777 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Was it a cameo appearance? If so, those are usually not included. —Paleo Neonate - 01:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Years of SPAs editing Laura Skandera Trombley

Can some other BLP-experienced editors please look into the content and editing history at Laura Skandera Trombley? The article has been dominated for years by SPAs who make the article as glowing as possible. I imagine, but cannot prove and don't really care, that one or more of the subject's employees have been editing the article for a long time. The SPA(s) also refuse to communicate with other editors and persistently revert without comment or communication others' edits to the article. It's clear that something has to be done but other than asking for the editor(s) in question to be blocked I'm not sure what can be done. Is that the next step? I'd appreciate any additional eyes, hands, and advice! ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

I outlined an edit request, including an update to language around legal disputes over at Talk:Cassandra Clare a week ago. I realize the requested edits list is backlogged and that "there is no deadline." However, was hoping one of the editors who regularly visits this noticeboard might be willing to take a look and give feedback. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the controversies section as a BLP violation. We cannot use primary court documents as sources, so anything of that nature needs to be removed at first sight. I haven't addressed your other request, but did a brief scan of the article. I see a lot of dead links and primary sources, so it might be worth it to look into this a little deeper, if someone is interested and has a few minutes to spare. Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I might add, as an aside, that "controversy" is probably best defined as "a lot of public disagreement about a topic or issue." Unless there is a lot of media coverage, and people everywhere are debating it, then it can't really be called a controversy. (ie: Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal were controversies.) A dispute between two parties does not come close to rising to that level. That's why I believe that a "controversies" (notice it's always plural when there is usually only one) section is not only a dumping ground for POV, but the title itself often lends undue weight. Zaereth (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This dispute has received very high-profile coverage (NY Times, Entertainment Weekly) and likely deserves mention in the bios of both involved authors. A more difficult question is to what extent the Clare bio should mention the earlier. similar allegations regarding her fan faction which have now actually achieved RS coverage in this context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That's different. I cut the section based solely on the fact that the only source was a court document. However, in my opinion I'd say if information about the dispute is to be added, then it should probably be worked into the timeline of the article. If there is a controversy, and the sources document the wide public disagreement, then that would be relevant to a section titled "controversy." Zaereth (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Reagle updates

Hello all, I abstain from editing the substance of my biography Joseph M. Reagle Jr. but provide a page of User:Reagle/Bio-factoids should anyone want to improve/expand it. I'll note that the biography is now out of date with respect to my position. I haven't been formally affiliated with the Berkman Klein center for a couple years now and was (recently) promoted to associate professor. I have provided many verifiable factoids and citations with which the biography can be improved. -Reagle (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Eric_Deis

Article is a stub. I've added some additional topics and sources to the Talk page, which should be useful for filling it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photokunst53 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Katy Tur's Personal Life

User:Knope7 and I believe the famed journalist's relationship with Keith Olbermann, having NYTimes as an RS, is a key part of her personal life that should be documented without tabloid style details. But User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:Mirokado thought otherwise. To not get any of us into trouble on editing war, I am filing this notice. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:RSN or WP:DRN instead? Yashovardhan (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RSN is unnecessary since her personal life with Keith is well documented by RS. I thought I should head over here before I go to WP:DRN. Supermann (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka

If you came here because of this facebook post, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The page is inappropriately defaming the concerned person on whom the article is written. The page may kindly be edited appropriatley or removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IqraIQs (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Can be more specific? I don't see anything defamatory. -- John Reaves 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is to defame Waqar zaka so plz delete it as soon as possible he is a social worker and a brilliant man It is from someone who is non other than a hater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.117.103 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This graphy of waqar zaka the great is all false. I was not expecting this careless type of or false behavior of wikipedia that they are giving only half information, not even the one which is given on his verified social media pages and even his official website. Such a careless behavior... #BikGyaHaiWikipedia #GoNawazGo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.144.30 (talk) 12:33, June 23, 2017‎

I see nothing defaming or even remotely negative on that page. Can you please explain better exactly what the problem is? Are you referring to the English Wikipedia article, or another language Wikipedia? Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka is a great personality, In his Biography there is no mentioning of his great social work, I request wikipedia to resolve this issue as soon as possible and Upload the authentic Information about Waqar Zaka.Thank You. By Waqas Arshad.

We do not upload information, as that would be a violation of copyright law. Information is written in our own words based on what reliable sources say. If you have any reliable sources, then I would suggest bringing them to the talk page of the article and nicely asking that someone help you. Reliable sources are things like news articles, books, magazine reviews, or reputable websites. They are not blogs, facebook, promotional websites, or other user-generated content. (For example, you and I are not considered reliable sources.) I would be happy to help, but I live on the other side of the planet and have never even heard of this person. I need reliable sources for so that I can learn for myself. Keep in mind that, no matter how great this person may be, Wikipedia is not here to promote that greatness. We simply report the factual information and notable opinions. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

kindly post whatever is truth. Waqar Zaka's life and his social work is still unknown by many. be authentic and reliable in describing someone to general public. by Aman Hussain.203.221.145.151 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What is truth? If I ask you to post the truth about Jay Hammond, can you? Jay Hammond is a great man and did many great works where I live, but I doubt you have heard of him. How can you post the truth about him unless I give you a source to read? You must do the same for Waqar Zaka. Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove this Waqar Zaka page as it has incorrect info on hateful basis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.35 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE WAQAR ZAKA WITH HATEFUL THINGS AND WITH WRONNNG INFO

you have a wrong info about waqar zaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerfarooqsheikh (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Omerfarooqsheikh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article Waqar Zaka is not superb by any means. Since all of this has kicked off in June 2017, my guess is that the problem is being caused by the "Controversies" section, and a BLP article should not have one of these. Singer Ali Haider lashes out at Waqar Zaka for exploiting Aamir Zaki's demise looks to have a range of problems, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV. I've removed this, let's see if this makes the baying mob happy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

My name is Sehar Shahid. All this written about our well known celebrity Waqar Zaka is wrong and must immediately be removed from Wikipedia because this is really sick that you put up anything without confirmation. i strongly condemn against this unfair act. WAAAR ZAKA IS A SOCIAL WORKER AND ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN DONOR'S OF PAKISTAN. this this shot at once! he's a peaceful person and a patriot who helps people and talks about their rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehar.56 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC) — Sehar.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have you have concrete proof that he is a social worker? Maybe an interview in which he talked about his work?--Auric talk 11:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sean Paul

I was trying to edit Sean Paul's page, but I encountered some issues. Sean Paul is repeatedly advertised as a rapper, but he id not. He is a deejay (Jamaican DJ), not to be confused with selector (DJ). This is a term that many dancehall artists go by, due to their rhythmic, poetic style, which is usually limited in vocal range; deejays that have a style closer to singing are sometimes called singjays. Most deejays today alternate deejaying, singjaying and singing. Sean Paul has won numerous awards under the category of rap, but that is because America and England usually class dancehall under the category of rap or reggae, although it is a genre by itself. Some examples of deejays are Vybz Kartel, Alkaline, Spice Popcaan, Aidonia, Gaza Slim/ Vanessa Bling, Pamputae, Timberlee, Charlie Black, Konshens and QQ. These people are not rappers (Spice did one rap song, Panda Remix, but she is predominantly a deejay, singjay and singer). This is a violation of the Biography of Living Persons Policy because the information on this page is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAbatteryy (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is something that you'll need to discuss at the article's talk page. It's not really a BLP issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Rendon (politician)

Anthony Rendon (politician) just pissed off a bunch of political activists and is being targeted by YouTubers. Last few edits have been defamatory and unsourced. Might need protected status short term. 76.168.4.212 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Just reverted it back to the last good version. I'll protect it if the disruption continues. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Someone is accusing him of running some sort of cult. A baseless defamatory claim! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:D5DF:FCFD:54D5:E1B1:91CD:1E6D (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To make progress on your plea, you would need to bring information to the Talk:Stefan Molyneux page that shows why the sources currently cited regarding cult accusations are unreliable or being given too much weight. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ambika (actress) - Someone is impersonating my father and planting his name in my mother's biography

Article in question: [[4]]

It appears someone by the name of NRI Shinu John keeps editing my mother's Personal Life section (2nd paragraph), and adding himself as her first husband. This is certifiably incorrect, and frankly has been causing our family a tremendous deal of worry. Every time one of her friends changes the name to the correct one, or attempts to remove the section altogether, this guy comes back and re-inserts himself into it.

This intrusion is certainly fraught with libel, as my mother's profession in the Indian entertainment industry is predicated upon reputation and class. We have no idea who this individual is and that mystery alone is damaging to her reputation. That is why Shinu John is violating Wikipedia's BLP policies.

We ask is the name Shinu John as her first husband be struck from all page records, and that the poster responsible for those edits no longer be able to make edits to her page. We assume the poster is the aforementioned.

Sincerely, Her son — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk3shi (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I see several problems. Any information like you've described --especially private information-- needs a very reliable source. Without one, it should be removed at first sight. (It looks like Fyddlestix took care of that.) In most cases, there is no need to name family members, unless they are also notable of their own right. It is enough to say she has parents, brothers and sisters, an ex-husband. Naming them does nothing to help the reader understand, plus it is often an intrusion on a private citizen's own privacy.

The second problem is that the article is obviously the product of conflict of interest editing. There is a lot of puffery and weasel wording. The correct way to approach any problems is to bring them up here or on the talk page. Friends, family members, and the subject herself should refrain from making edits to the article, because that also (often unwittingly) leads to the types of problems I described above, which looks very unprofessional in an encyclopedia. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lavinia Woodward

It is well known that the tabloid newspapers the Sun and Daily Mail have slandered this poor girl to the point where her life has been ruined. She is not relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article filled solely by sources from tabloid papers written by disgraced journalists. The article is filled with falsehoods and assumptions about her wealth, a completely made up figure for the value of her 'holiday villa', which is actually the mother's only home. It also levels false accusations of 'flaunting wealth', as well as claiming that she was not present during the trial and instead again 'on holiday' in Milan, which is simply untrue. The most disgusting false accusations are claims that Woodward posted naked pictures of herself on social media, which is another libellous statement made up. Furthermore, Woodward is portrayed as a consistent perpetrator of domestic violence, when in reality the BBC article sourced on the page clearly states that Woodward had been abused by multiple men in the past.

The victim went home on the bus by himself after the incident, while some articles portray the victim Fairclough as being almost dead or seriously injured. This article should be removed on the basis that it is both libellous and that inflicting a 1cm cut requiring 2 stitches to one's ex-boyfriend is not a justification to create a Wikipedia article on an individual. 87.224.90.205 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Giving it the once-over now. There is an issue that her conviction has sparked widespread discussion in the UK due to the controversial remarks by the judge and the extremely leniant sentence. But the Sun and Mail online are being used here to sex it up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by the 'once-over'? Plus the sentence has not been issued, the sentencing date was set for September 25th, 2017. Plus Ethan Couch should not be in the See Also section; that is a totally irrelevant and different case. 87.224.90.205 (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As in 'I am giving it a once over now due to your concerns'. I imagine another BLP regular or two will also take a look at some point. (I see Ritchie has nominated it at AFD) RE Couch - I had not got that far down at the point you replied, but I agree, doesnt seem relevant. Arguably there is a case here that the subject around the court case (the judge's comments, the controversy about the wealthy female being treated differently etc etc is a notable subject, but the individual spark, Woodward, by herself is not particularly notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading this in the news, but it has now faded from memory. I call WP:BLP1E and have started a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavinia Woodward. At the very least, The Sun must absolutely not be used on a BLP like this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason its died down is they are waiting for the official sentence in Sep. I suspect it will blare up again once thats in. The bad sources (mail, sun) are concerned with the gossip around Woodward. The good sources (BBC, Independant and others) are concerned with the Judge's decision & comments - and implications as to the disparity in which citizens get treated by the justice system. Which are controversial and valid points. I suspect the article could be reworked to something more neutral concerning the controversy over the judge's comments. As Woodward was merely the catalyst for long held criticisms about the UK system. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, but in that case I would expect the trial to be the encyclopedic topic, something like R vs Woodward, and focusing on the legal precedents. However, since that hasn't happened yet, we can't write the article until it does. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the sun basically copied/regurgitated the Oxford Mail (a local newspaper) and added a load of sensationlist/false etc. So whats currently there is sourced to a local newspaper article written by their court reporter, is neutral (mostly) in tone given the subject. I'm doing some tweaking. But essentially I agree with you above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Frank Chopp and Mike Kreidler

Both Frank Chopp and Mike Kreidler need some more eyes, please. Recent problematic edits here too, which I've already reverted once, are being reinstated. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur and have reverted the edits. While both articles need improvement, including partisan editorializing and Wiki-voice commentary is not the answer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Shooting of Kathryn Steinle

There has been some discussion by way of editing (and some discussion on the talk page, AFAIK only by me) as to whether there's a BLP issue with saying that Lopez-Sanchez fired the gun. He has admitted as much, but has not yet been found guilty of anything. I'd welcome comments from other disinterested editors - at the moment I've tried to err on the side of caution but am not sure that's really necessary. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ben Knight (graphic designer)

Looks like the article was conflating 2 people maybe? One born in 1977 and one who was described as a teenager in the early 2000s? Not sure, but I removed the latter stuff as it wasn't verifiable or sourced to RS anyway. It's still questionable whether what's left is reliably sourced, or if this person is notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(murderer), etc. for disambiguation

There are several BLP articles which use (murderer) in the title to disambiguate. Often, as with Kevin Cooper (murderer), the factual guilt of the convicted person is disputed. I link that article because there's an ongoing move discussion. I moved it to Kevin Cooper (prisoner) out of process because of my BLP concerns. Thank you Amakuru for pointing out the broader issue.

My opinion on this is that such titles should be avoided whenever the facts are disputed. If "X murdered Y" wouldn't be allowable as an unqualified, NPOV statement of fact, don't put it in the title. Conviction in a court of law is a good standard for avoiding a libel suit, but our editorial standards are about more than dodging liability. Courts can and often do get it wrong, and we must get it right. In the article we have plenty of room to discuss the evidence on all sides; titles either label someone as guilty or they don't.

I propose as a guideline:

Labels of criminal guilt should not be used for disambiguation of living persons except when all of the following are true:

The person is notable primarily for said crime.
The person has been convicted of the crime in a court of law.
There is no dispute about the person's factual guilt.

—Guan aco 14:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guanaco, thanks for starting this conversation. I think in general your point is a good one. I do wonder about point (3) though - how would we assess whether the guilt was disputed of factual? Presumably in any case where the defendant pleaded not guilty (which is most cases), you could argue there is a dispute.

Also, what would you propose as an alternative? Some sort of qualified disambiguator to be used for all cases (disputed or otherwise) might be more appropriate. For example "(convicted murderer)" or something... — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going to comment on the 3rd piece, and would suggest that this means at least one appeal case has occurred that maintained that person's conviction, or argubly that all appeals processes have been exhausted and the person remains convicted of the crime.

I'm not a big fan of "convicted murderer", it's just a bit POVish even if it true. Perhaps to normalize we use "criminal" for those where there's no question of guilt, "convicted criminal" for those who have been convincted at least once but still in the trial process, and "suspected criminal" for those still awaiting trial. These presume that they have never been notable for anything else, or if they were, the criminal aspect far outweighs any of their previous notability. I think "criminal" remains accurate but sufficient tone-neutral. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The factual assessment may need to be an editorial one, on a case-by-case basis. Setting (2) and "living person" aside, let's use Mohamed Atta as an example. There are conspiracy theories which deny his involvement in 9/11; we discount those in favor of reliable sources which agree he was one of the hijackers.

In some cases the person pleads not guilty, then admits guilt some time after conviction. It might be okay, barring unusual circumstances, to label that person a murderer.

The "(convicted murderer)" tag may not be any better, because it reads like an intensifier. "He's not just a murderer—he's a convicted murderer." Prisoner or convict could be better, but I'm sure somewhere we have an ambiguous "John Doe (rapist)" and "John Doe (murderer)" to contend with. —Guan aco 15:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the proposal is seriously misguided. "Criminal" is a legal idea; it doesn't exist as a fact apart from the legal connotation. Someone is a murderer by virtue of having been convicted of murder. A separate notion of "factual" guilt is not a coherent idea. In general the proposal seems to invite all sorts of "original research"; Wikipedia editors shouldn't get into the business of disputing whether the person is guilty. In particular, we shouldn't pay attention to the assertions of murderers themselves that they are not in fact guilty. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What Nomo said. A murderer is someone who has been convicted (and not had that conviction overturned) of murder. For the vast majority of our 'murderers' that is the only reason they are notable - so if they need to be disambiguated, thats what gets picked up. 'Prisoner' is not why they are notable, thats a consequence of them being a murderer. For some individuals disambiguating them on a case by case basis might be necessary due to multiple notability issues. There are some extenuating issues with certain legal systems, Italy comes to mind as I recall, when technically you are not guilty until all appeals have been considered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is why I propose "criminal"; if you've been convicted of murder, rape, abuse, terrorism, and the like, you're a criminal; however, the word can also apply neutrally to people who have been convicted but where there is doubt (due to self-claims of innocence, pending appeals, etc.) Regardless of the crime or the question of doubt, one would still be considered a "criminal". It's a more neutral term across the board and all legal systems, and sufficient for disambiguation, and would even apply to someone that served their time, they are still a criminal. Add that the first sentence of such articles where we have to use this are going to likely explain the crime that was done since we're presuming this is their only reason for notability. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to criminal (or murderer, or felon). The main objection to 'prisoner' is that it does not indicate they have been convicted of a crime. Many people have been wrongly imprisoned, or imprisoned without due process (political prisoners etc). In this case the first is unproven speculation and the second is not relevant here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

We should be using the term that is least ambiguous. Kevin Cooper (prisoner) was a good choice because the first sentence of the lead of that article reads "... is a death row inmate currently held in California's San Quentin Prison". The fact of being a prisoner is incontrovertible. There can be a degree of ambiguity to "murderer" and "convict". The purpose is disambiguation. We are not necessarily looking for the most notable characteristic. We are trying to distinguish this person from a person with a similar or identical name but at the same time we want to avoid any characterization that can by any stretch of the imagination be considered our personal opinion or a perspective that might not be shared by others. Policy guidelines should articulate that it is not necessarily reason for notability that matters but incontrovertible factuality that is of paramount importance. Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There can't be any ambiguity of the sort you're suggesting. If someone is a murderer, they are of course a criminal -- and if someone is a criminal, there is a specific crime for which they have been convicted (and if that conviction was for murder, then they are a murderer). There's no scope for opinion about the matter -- reliable sources (referring to the action of a court) will tell us what the conviction was for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Therefore you would change the title of Kevin Cooper (prisoner) to what? Why would we characterize a person in a title if this were avoidable? Disambiguation only requires differentiation. Disambiguation should be based on incontrovertible facts, even if those facts are not the most notable facts about the person who is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, if I were writing an article like this, I would probably opt for the legal term, which is "felon." That term is about as neutral as you can get without having the connotations of these other terms (connotations which may imply a judgment or conclusion on our part.) But that's just my own opinion, as Only in Death, Masem, and Nomoskedasticity all make some very good points. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it weird to think of a dead person as a prisoner. Seems conditional on being in prison. A murderer is much more usually a person who has murderered (or is known to have murdered) than one who murders. When a murderer not sentenced to life or death serves his time, he becomes an ex-con, but the idea of an ex-murderer is absurd (unless they murdered their ex). "Criminal" and "felon" are also rather permanent, so I prefer those equally to "prisoner".

Alternatively, we could find his middle name. It won't be easy, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If execution takes place the title could be changed to "Kevin Cooper (executed inmate)". The point is not to characterize. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I could see someone arguing "executed" is POV-ish (I don't think personally it is but I trying to see it from other's views.) That's why if we moved to "criminal" or "felon", those do not change due to being on Death Row or the like. They are more stable and more neutral solution. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could argue that "executed" was POV-ish. Bus stop (talk)

Trying to play devil's advocate here, but if I were someone that strongly backed death penalties, I could see that pushing my point in the lede, and someone against death penalty taken aback by that. It's basically an unnecessary word that may be mis-construed by a small number of readers. Further, there is likely no need to add excessive unneeded terms for the disamb to be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I almost said as much, then didn't because I figured the death penalty was a can of worms. Since that can's open now, I'll just add that he was notable before he was executed, and this would suggest otherwise. Qualifiers should suggest...samewise? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason for notability is only one consideration. We should treat people fairly. That is another consideration. We are discussing the title. At WP:TITLE I read "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." If a person is a "prisoner", that is an incontrovertible fact. They may be innocent, even if convicted. They may not be a criminal at all. Titles only indicate what an article is about and distinguish it from other articles. We should be trying to avoid means of disambiguation that treat people unfairly, therefore "murderer" and "criminal" should not be used. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair is nice, but treating someone fairly doesn't mean treating them nicely, just to a standard. If we don't call this person convicted of murder a murderer, it becomes unfair to the rest of the people we do call murderers for being convicted of murder. Once you set the bar to something abstract like a level of doubt, the potential for unfair treatment increases significantly. Some wrongfully convicted murderers' objections will always get less press than others, for many reasons, and so they will appear more guilty. A simple true/false check on a conviction is a far cleaner sort of truth, no matter how complicated the story behind it is, and seems better suited to Wikipedians objectively classifying people we ultimately don't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't "accused murderer" or "accused of murder" be preferable to "murderer"? We don't know if the person is a murderer but we know they are accused of murder. That they were convicted by a court of law, if that be the case, may not be all that important, because we know they may be innocent, and the reader still can follow the language of "accused of murder", on a disambiguation page, to find the article they are interested in. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My only issue here would be that "accused murderer" implies to me that there has been no conviction. I personally would find that a bit misleading if the person had, in fact, been convicted. Again, I think whatever nomenclature the reliable sources use is probably best. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Aye. Individually, we're sure of very little about very much of this encyclopedia's topics. Rather than driving ourselves nuts by learning the truth of everything or qualifying it all with accused/alleged/suspected/reported/apparent, we've agreed to agree with authoritative sources instead. The US judiciary isn't perfect, but for matters of American justice, it's the best we've got. On the bright side, calling a death row inmate a murderer in his BLP doesn't risk the same harm it does for an untried, acquitted or released murderer; his prospects for employment, privacy, homeowning and the like are already extremely low. We could rewrite his entire history here and it would make no difference in his real world. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Prisoner" may be okay now, but as the article notes, there is a possibility he might be given clemency. If that happens "prisoner" is no longer appropriate though neither is "murderer". However, he still is notable that he was considered a criminal or a felon (with his notability coming from the challenge to his case), so even if he is granted clemency and allowed to leave prison, either term still applies. Of course, the other option could be to use "Kevin Cooper (born 1958)" which removes all questions over neutrality. Anyone searching for him will either find the disambiguation page or through the normal search results if they know he was charged with murder, etc. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think as a disambiguation issue we should use a qualifier that readers would recognise on the disambiguation page; I would therefore propose that (murderer) is suitable for the article name for someone who is currently convicted of murder, even where the article text goes on to mention appeals, doubts etc.Martinlc (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this general approach. While it's good to be skeptical, Wikipedia does not deal in metaphysical certainty; rather, it follows the reliable sources. Thus in the general case of someone convicted of murder, I think "murderer" is appropriate notwithstanding pending appeals or protestations of actual innocence. That can, of course, be overcome, where the reliable sources are convinced. The examples that come to my mind are where DNA has fairly definitively shown that a person convicted of a given crime was not, in fact, responsible. But as I say, it never hurts to default to the RSes. Just a random thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation is used to separate people with basically identical names - and there is rarely anything to be gained by using "murderer", "criminal" or the like if any other mode of disambiguation is useful. Thus using place name or the like is often the best mode of disambiguation, rather than using what may well be an incorrect or loaded disambiguation term. "Kevin Cooper (California)" would thus appear to be proper, and the description of him as an inmate on the disambiguation page may be proper, but the term "prisoner" or "murderer" in the article title is, to me, objectionable on BLP grounds. Collect (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and Masem on this. There are only three or four other people with this name at the "Kevin Cooper" disambiguation page. The title of the article shouldn't be used to state possibly incorrect information. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

To stress this point more, if I am searching for this person, search "Kevin Cooper" gets me to the disamb page, so no matter what we use in the parenthetical, they'll get to that article. Similarly, "Kevin cooper murderer" or other variations related to the crime gets me his page as the first hit by our search engine. Ergo, what is in the parenthetical doesn't matter from an accessibility standpoint, it should be a neutral term that would apply to this person for all time. I think we need to establish something stronger for cases like this at WP:NCPDAB, to balance neutrality and BLP with the need to disambig. Either the state/country or the "born YYYY" approach may seem best. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This whole notion depends on the idea that "murderer" is somehow not neutral. For someone who has been convicted (and where there has not been a successful appeal), this is simply not a problem. On the contrary -- when we are dealing with someone who is notable for having committed murder, using murderer in the article name is the right choice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not that "murderer" is not neutral. It is that "murderer" is gratuitous. A WP:TITLE "...indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." A title doesn't have to contain a reference to that which is most notable about a subject. A title must merely distinguish it from other articles. It is not inconceivable that there could be exceptional circumstances in which the best choice for terminology for disambiguation is a term such as "murderer" but that certainly isn't the case with the individual article under discussion. Anyone at the disambiguation page that is looking for this article will have a good idea that none of the sports players with the same name are the person they are searching for. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That kind of argument would have us renaming James Wilson (Welsh footballer) to something else that isn't what actually distinguishes that person from the other James Wilsons. The approach we currently have shouldn't be the exception -- it should be the norm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So, "Welsh footballer" is gratuitous? Is there a possibility he may not be a "Welsh footballer"? That is what is at issue here—the possibility of innocence. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding the point about the legal nature of terms associated with criminal guilt. If someone has been convicted of murder then they are a murderer. This is sometimes true even when the individual in question did not in fact kill anyone. That point comes out in the British legal doctrine of "common purpose" [5]. You seem to be trying to determine whether someone is "actually" a murderer. It isn't up to you -- the judgement can only be made by a court. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to come up with a title for an article that respects the possibility of innocence. I don't think legal definitions matter here. The man's name is his legal name. (It is also the name that most readers might know him by.) The problem is that other people have the same name. Notability doesn't matter here and legal status don't matter here. "Differentiation" matters. Distinguishing this person from other people with the same name matters. The title doesn't serve the same purpose as the body of the article. Yes, we state his legal status as murderer in the body of the article, but not necessarily in the title. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree very much with Nomoskedasticity on this point. "A title that "respects the possibility of innocence" is a judgment call on our part. The courts have the job of making the judgments. We simple follow the reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As noted, I agree as well. It's just that "the possibility of innocence" sounds far more like "truth" than "verifiability" to me. But I'm often wrong, especially before Friday. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much making a judgement on the courts' decisions, but a judgement if the term is tone-neutral, given that there are several other alternatives. Normally we'd use a neutral statement about profession or principle activity, but a "murderer" is neither. It's factually true as far as the legal system is concerned, no question. But it sets a ton for the article right off the bat, before we even hit the lede to give context. "Murderer" is going to make a reading likely think negatively about the person. That may be justified in some cases, but it may not - when it applies is something we cannot judge, but we can judge that it can be inappropriate in some cases. Since we're trying to normalize a route here, we should select an topin that is going to remain tone-neutral for all such cases, and that's why using something like "murderer" as the disambig is a bad choice, when we have at least two other tone-neutral ways to go (the principle state, or the birth year). The first sentence of the lede is still going to explain the person was a murderer, but at least there context can be given ("X is a convicted murderer..."). --MASEM (t) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but "criminal" can also carry similar connotations. That's why I chose the term "felon." That's what the courts call a murderer, so why should we be any different? As I see it, there is no need to disambig further unless there happens to be two felons with the same name. Lets say I turned on the news and only saw the last half of this guy's story. I go to Wikipedia to learn more, but am directed to a DAB page with multiple people that all have the same name. I wouldn't know to look for a guy from California, and "prisoner" would be the last thing I'd search, but I could easily distinguish a scientist, lawyer, or doctor, etc., from a felon. Zaereth (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What if the murderer's name is Cragmore Seachest? There are no other notable people named Cragmore Seachest so we would just title the article "Cragmore Seachest" even if he was convicted of murder. Do people only get articles calling them "murderer" in the title if other notable people have the same name? Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say yes! In much the same way that Mr. Seachest, were he notable as the world's most virtuosic bassoon player, would only be called (musician) if the need for disambiguation arose. Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the only "bassoon virtuoso" in the world today is Rachel Begley, whose three-line article is devoted to her recorder skills instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dumuzid—we can't ignore that the title is the most prominent part of an article. The prominence of the title doesn't become a problem when we are merely distinguishing between musicians and cricketeers. We don't commonly have people denying that they are musicians and cricketeers. Nor do we have people tried in courts of law for being musicians and cricketeers. People rarely go to jail for being musicians and cricketeers. There is rarely shame associated with being a musician or a cricketeer. Our sensitivity should extend to not prominently displaying in the title that someone might be a murderer. Disambiguation does not require it. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I don't think it's wrong, per se. But I do believe in cases where someone's notability is based on the fact (perhaps strong belief?) that they have committed a murder, and the reliable sources say as much, we do a disservice by trying to soft-peddle that idea. While I agree with sensitivity, I don't think it is offended in situations wherein someone has been pronounced guilty by a court of law and the same has been reported in reliable sources. I certainly believe doubts and the like should be explored--but I don't think Wikipedia should position itself as a champion of skepticism where our RSes are concerned. I hope that makes sense, and I certainly don't think it's a slam dunk. Reasonable minds can differ! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that a certain amount of sensitivity is required for certain subjects, too much of anything is usually a bad idea. Sensitivity should not come at the cost of impartiality, and as harsh as it may sound, impartiality requires a sort of cold, detached approach. A murderer is obviously someone who has committed murder, which could be in doubt, but he was convicted of it. A criminal has committed a crime, so the same applies. But a felon is nothing more than someone who was convicted of a felony. It may be cold, but it is a very factual way to differentiate. There is no doubt he was convicted. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly neither Dumuzid nor Zaereth demonstrate any recognition of any distinction between the title of an article and an article proper. And it is not just me. Please look at the post by Collect at 13:56, 29 June. Do you notice the bolded words? The bolded words are "in the article title". Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, please append "in the article title" as necessary. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you left it out. Is it so hard to talk about the subject of this thread? The first sentence of this thread, started by Guanaco, reads "There are several BLP articles which use (murderer) in the title to disambiguate." We are talking about "in the title". Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, for your convenience: I understand your position, and I don't think it's wrong, per se. But I do believe in cases where someone's notability is based on the fact (perhaps strong belief?) that they have committed a murder, and the reliable sources say as much, we do a disservice by trying to soft-peddle that idea. While I agree with sensitivity, I don't think it is offended in situations wherein someone has been pronounced guilty by a court of law and the same has been reported in reliable sources. I certainly believe doubts and the like should be explored--but I don't think Wikipedia should position itself as a champion of skepticism where our RSes are concerned. Therefore, on disambiguation pages, it makes sense to list people in the style of "Dumuzid Shepherd (murderer)", if applicable. I hope that makes sense, and I certainly don't think it's a slam dunk. Reasonable minds can differ! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, murderer. We are talking about the title of the article. The most applicable policy is WP:TITLE. Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, for your convenience: I understand your position, and I don't think it's wrong, per se. But I do believe in cases where someone's notability is based on the fact (perhaps strong belief?) that they have committed a murder, and the reliable sources say as much, we do a disservice by trying to soft-peddle that idea. While I agree with sensitivity, I don't think it is offended in situations wherein someone has been pronounced guilty by a court of law and the same has been reported in reliable sources. I certainly believe doubts and the like should be explored--but I don't think Wikipedia should position itself as a champion of skepticism where our RSes are concerned. Therefore, in titles where disambiguation is a concern, it makes sense to list people in the style of "Dumuzid Shepherd (murderer)", if applicable, per WP:TITLE. I hope that makes sense, and I certainly don't think it's a slam dunk. Reasonable minds can differ! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC):

Since Bus Stop prefers to speak in the third person, very well, perhaps that knowledge can help communication. Zaereth is very much aware this is about a title. He wonders if Bus Stop is aware that a title is nothing more than a keyword which carries no meaning for the reader until it is defined by the article. Thus, the primary purpose of a title is to provide an easy route for connecting said reader to the article they are seeking. (In other words, if it looks like dihydrogen oxide, smells like dihydrogen oxide, and tastes like dihydrogen oxide, shouldn't we at some point screw the technicalities and just call it water?) Zaereth (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth—an article title is like a billboard. Its purpose is to help the reader to find the article. It certainly must provide sufficient information to allow the reader to successfully find the article. But it does not have to provide a surplus of information. That is using the billboard-quality of titles improperly. We know that in cases where there are no other individuals with the same name, we simply use the name of the individual as the subject of the article. That is sufficient information. But in cases where other individuals have identical names, we must distinguish one from the other. But there is no reason to provide surplus information in order to accomplish the purpose of distinguishing one article from another. Adding "murderer" represents a surplus of information, when other distinguishing factors can accomplish that purpose with less potential damage to the person we are writing about. The body of the article will obviously delve into issues of guilt concerning murder. But the article title need not allude to "murder" in order to help the reader find the article. Therefore the practice of putting "murderer" in the title should be avoided, as opined in the opening post of this thread. Guanaco writes "My opinion on this is that such titles should be avoided whenever the facts are disputed." I agree and I would add that I think we should avoid such titles even when the facts are not disputed. I think it is just improper to title an article in such a way that we are prominently displaying the ugliest aspect of a person's life. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I found this discussion very interesting. I recently suggested at Talk:Michael Stone (English murderer) that the article might need to be renamed as Chillenden murders because of the material presented in a recent BBC documentary. But no-one else seems to be very concerned. And of course Stone is just convicted, but convicted twice over and serving three life sentences. I guess "the rule of law" must always prevail, especially in article titles? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it "must always prevail," necessarily, but I think it is a strong presumption to overcome. Mere protestations of innocence from a convict do not, to me, rise to the level of true controversy. In cases whereby there is strong forensic or other evidence (say, DNA) showing that someone is likely innocent of a crime he or she committed, then I think we need to break out our encyclopedic sensitivity. As to Mr. Stone, whose article I just read, I am personally fine with calling him a "murderer," though of course I believe perfect certainty is impossible. Just my Friday thoughts! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) If you care to watch that particular documentary you'd realize that the Stone case goes far, far beyond "mere protestations of innocence". The article content and the article title are perfectly well-aligned. But to me they seem to be both "somewhat removed" from what the public (after watching that documentary) might reasonably consider to be actuality. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That might very well be! But I would look for more "pick up" in reliable sources before I personally would consider injecting some real epistemic doubt. As I've said elsewhere, that's my lodestone -- the sources. The documentary might well be one. But it if it is somewhat isolated (I don't know one way or the other!), then I'd say we have to consider it in context. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment. As far as I know, this documentary is unique and extremely up to date. But secondary sources, assessing its impact, should be easy to find. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

But why misuse the purpose of a title?Of course we are going to call him a murderer in the body of the article. Do you recognize any distinctions between the purposes of titles and the purposes of bodies of articles? Your fascinating responses make no references to article titles. Do you notice that Martinevans123 writes "especially in article titles"? Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, for your convenience: I understand your position, and I don't think it's wrong, per se. But I do believe in cases where someone's notability is based on the fact (perhaps strong belief?) that they have committed a murder, and the reliable sources say as much, we do a disservice by trying to soft-peddle that idea. While I agree with sensitivity, I don't think it is offended in situations wherein someone has been pronounced guilty by a court of law and the same has been reported in reliable sources. I certainly believe doubts and the like should be explored--but I don't think Wikipedia should position itself as a champion of skepticism where our RSes are concerned. Therefore, in titles where disambiguation is a concern, it makes sense to list people in the style of "Dumuzid Shepherd (murderer)", if applicable, per WP:TITLE. I hope that makes sense, and I certainly don't think it's a slam dunk. Reasonable minds can differ! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dumuzid—Martinevans123 writes that "the article might need to be renamed". We are talking about the title of an article. In your response to Martinevans123 you appear to be talking about the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop -- I hope you have a wonderful weekend! Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The same to you, Dumuzid, but nobody is disputing whether a person should be called a murderer in the body of an article. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Big Brother 19 (U.S.)

Repeatedly, there are edits where the ages of some houseguests are changed without reliable sources. For now, CBS is the primary source of such information and will stay that way until more reliable sources (i.e. birth certificate) can be found.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Van Jones

This is a request for clarification. Does a video of a person specifically stating what is written on a wikipedia page qualify as a good source? As is, not contentious, not libelous, and fit to be on the page itself? See Talk:Van Jones Justin15w (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Justin15w, can you please point out or provide a link to the video, and what it is substantiating? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the video. As an unbiased Wikipedia editor I am simply asking if this is enough to settle the debate of whether it's appropriate to include on his wiki page. The only thing it's substantiating is that he said that "the Russia thing is a big nothing burger". Of course I think so as it's right there. Other editors say it's "poorly sourced", "contentious", "possibly libelous". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ7VQT8JKEg Justin15w (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Although youtube may not be an adequate source, does a newsweek article stating what's inside the video count as legitimate? http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 Justin15w (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, the question here is not whether or not he said it, but whether or not there is a consensus on the talk page that the material is relevant and important enough to Jones' life to include in a brief encyclopedic biography. Absent such a consensus, the material should not be included. The burden lies upon the editor wishing to include the material to demonstrate that such a consensus exists. You need to stop edit-warring, open a discussion and justify your proposed inclusion; if you wish to draw upon a wider editorial pool, you should start a request for comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

For some juxtaposition here. I just finished up editing Kellyanne Conway where it was deemed appropriate to include information about how she hates her job - by two random people - which she denies. And this is relevant? And yet it is inappropriate to include verbatim words in a different article? Wiki is starting to get... Kooky. Justin15w (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Good question, I'm not sure that's relevant, but my personal opinion isn't the only one that matters. Is there a consensus on the article talk page that that material should be included? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael Ching (businessman)

Looks like an Attack Page. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Already being discussed for deletion at AfD. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Lists of people from London for AfD?

This is more about the list of people than their articles. I see BLP issues in lists of this nature. I would like to nominate the whole lot for AfD on WP:Listcraft, WP:Unsourced and on Privacy laws. I know it's not a full address, but unless there is sufficient citation each name should be removed if they are alive. This list is doing what a category does but in a very poor format, I wonder what numbers the list articles get, do people really look it up? You're more likely to go straight to a persons article when people come to wikipedia then they can go through the categories at the bottom of the article. These lists will simply be a miss-placed reference guide which won't work. I would like some input and what people think. Govvy (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We have lists like this for cities all over the world, many of them of high quality. See Category:Lists of people by place and its many subcategories. Although the specific list you have prodded today, List of people from Westminster, is not in good shape yet, these lists can be expanded and used in ways that simple categories cannot, as explained at WP:AOAL, while categories, of course, have their own advantges; thus, WP:CLN counsels that there is a place for both. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Completely unsourced and you removed the Prod, whats with the obsession of these list articles, wikipedia is going over the top, they are non-encyclopaedic, it's just a repeat of a category. Govvy (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

David Sulzer and Dave Soldier

David Sulzer is a professor of neuroscience, Dave Soldier is a musician, but the articles are actually about two personas of one person. The articles have been tagged for merging since 2015, but no action has actually been taken. The WP:REDUNDANTFORK rule does not appear to allow any exceptions, thus the question is whether the subject(s) of these articles are/is the different personas or the singular person? Given that this case is also a BLP issue, I'm raising it here to get the neccessary attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging the two sounds like a good idea to me. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Edit is self-explanatory and sourced [6]. Opposing editors fail to articulate a reason not to include content [7], and demonstrate incompetence [8] as well as a complete lack of knowledge about the page they're editing [9]. This is a clear example of abusing privilege. In another revert, opposing editor puts inapplicable label in edit summary [10]. Source for content can be viewed directly here [11]. This shouldn't even be up for debate, but ze and ze have continuously reverted, so I request assistance. Kas42 (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

David Van Wie

Written by apparent undisclosed COI editor(s), previously had some relevant tags which also were removed. More eyes needed for auditing and promotional tone fixes. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

For now the tags have been restored. The IP user that removed the templates also engaged in edit warring and has been blocked by Drmies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

All in a days' work. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That was indeed fast... thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 00:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Susan Zakin

Does the article about Susan Zakin meet notoriety? It looks like it may have been added by the author, and/or includes self-promotion. Oakbranch (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Article was created by a WP:SPA in 2010. Notability is marginal. Have nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Zakin. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Oleg Bezuglov for deletion - more comments needed in AfD discussion

Article Oleg Bezuglov was nominated for AfD shortly after it was created on suspicion of not meeting the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Since the nomination the AfD discussion was rather slow and the article was expanded with more facts and sources. The subject is the classical and jazz violinist. Requesting editors to participate in the AfD discussion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Bezuglov --Fiddler11 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Easily survived AfD. Edwardx (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Gary Grisafi

Gary Grisafi is a professional musician from Philadelphia. He teaches guitar at Grisafi Music Institute in Bensalem, Pa and performs with many bands that include the BLU DOGZ and BOUNCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjgmusic (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Good for him. So what? Edwardx (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Emerson Spartz

BLP policy says to be cautious about using primary source documents on bios. Is it OK to use a court filing as the reference for a divorce filing, as at the page for Emerson Spartz? I wonder if there are no secondary sources, then maybe info isn't important enough to appear in the bio. Not a regular editor, though, so not sure. 118.108.44.72 (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." In any event the other party is a MARIA Spartz, not Gaby, so it does not even look like the correct person! Have removed it from the article. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Oathkeepers

There is a potential statement about an WP:NPF that might be problematic on the Oathkeepers article [12] This quote has been attributed to the founder of the group Stuart Rhodes by the Huffington Post. From what research I have done, Rhodes may or may not be considered a "limited purpose public figure" ― but I am not an expert on defamation laws. There have also been disagreements on the page in the past about whether the organization itself, a non-profit, should be protected by the BLP policy. This is a little complicated. I don't know if a non-profit would be considered a "public figure" or what rules would govern it, but I believe they can take legal action against defamatory statements. Most of the statements in the article can be sourced to press sources. Most are direct quotes, but some of the lede is sourced directly to SPLC. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the possible defamation lawsuit against the SPLC, so the other question I want to pose to the community here is whether SPLC should be used as a direct WP:RS for negative opinion statements before this issue is resolved.

All of that said, I am stepping away from the article myself. Amidst accusations that I don't want to repeat, I don't want to be involved in editing the article myself anymore. I will also step away from the main SPLC article for the same reasons. I think this issue of WP:BLP and defamatory statements should be considered by uninvolved editors and not just on article talk pages. Maybe an editor who has some experience with BLP issues can read through Oath Keepers and see if there are any potential issues. I have become more involved with the article then I wanted or intended and I very much want to step away from it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For whoever looks at this, one of the key questions is whether the founder of the group is, or is not, a WP:NPF. Some editors hold that he seeks media attention, whereas the guideline states, "it seems clear that Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Evidently, though, this is not clear to everybody. Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

A person who publicly organizes and operates an armed anti-government organization is not likely to be a non-public figure for any purpose; he has voluntarily placed himself and his group in the public square on numerous occasions to involve himself and his organization in public controversies. He has quite voluntarily conducted interviews with media outlets as recently as a month ago. The rest of this blather about "defamation" is quite simply an attempt at creating fear, uncertainty and doubt and a chilling effect; you are using someone's purported threat to file a lawsuit as a cudgel against a reliable source as if the mere existence of such a threat renders that source invalid. Anyone can threaten a lawsuit about anything and such a threat is proof of nothing more than a person's displeasure.

I also do not think that the BLP policy extends in any way to an organization of any sort, or any corporation, or any government — the policy is quite explicitly about protecting living people. (By the way, if the Oathkeepers were to fall under BLP policy, so too would the Southern Poverty Law Center.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

He is a veteran and a Yale law graduate. Is this like, a thing? Well, if it was me, personally, I would not roll the dice, on this particular occasion―but I have no stake in the outcome of this. ~~I have no displeasure―everyone who has accused me of POV about this is significantly more excited about it then I am, whatever the personal interest in SPLC is, I don't know.~~ But I have done my civic duty. There is line beyond which it is not my problem, and we have long since past it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You think being a veteran and a Yale law graduate implies that one cannot be a public figure? Well, that's a WP:WORLDVIEW. Newimpartial (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My purpose in posting this was to bring several issues that I think should not be taken lightly to the broader community's attention, not to continue any content disputes from which I am trying to disengage. My interest in possibly defamatory language simply can not compete with the POV-driven content disputes that have now spilled over onto this noticeboard, rather inappropriately in my opinion, so you will have to excuse me, but I no longer want to be involved in the content dispute. All I can say is, personally, what happened with Kim Davis does not effect me and she turned them down and it happened two years ago, you know? There are open questions here. Not my idea of a good time, but if that's what your into, this is the right crew for sure. That's all I have to say about it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

However, Seraphim, you are the one that brought both the POV and content issues to this noticeboard, along with whatever "engagement" you are feeling. Nobody is keeping you here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether SPLC is a reliable source for any particular piece of information is a question better suited for WP:RSN. The question we discussed bringing here was whether the founder of Oath Keepers, Stuart Rhodes (not the same individual as was linked in the OP), is a low-profile individual. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to post it to RS/n myself. I think I've said enough about it already and I'm certainly not trying to push anything, just because they are about to be sued for defamation. Personally, I am staying away from SPLC topics and articles that rely heavily on SPLC as a source until their legal problems are resolved because I dont want to use them as WP:RS until they have been cleared and I dont want to be involved in the POV issues on those articles. I think my time is better spent elsewhere. That's my decision. Other editors can keep using them as WP:RS as long as our community standards allow it. If another editor thinks it is detrimental to the encyclopedia, they can post it to RS/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think we should not use sources because someone has threatened to sue them for defamation, then we won't have any reliable sources. Trump's planning on suing the New York Times so maybe you think we should stop using it as a source. Anyway your link is not sourced to the SPLC, but to The Raw Story. Yes, we can cite what people are quoted as saying in reliable sources, despite the remote risk they may sue and win for being misquoted. However, I agree the text should not say "threatened" - it's not in the source. TFD (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Bilal Philips

Bilal Philips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some more eyes on this article and the recently added material would be helpful. The editor has added a significant amount of material to the article that is WP:UNDUE and often involves non-neutral, personal commentary in Wikipedia's voice. I challenged the material, but the editor overrode me (who cares about WP:BRD or WP:BLP?) and since added even more material. Articles that involve subjects who are, uh, not appealing deserve, whether we like it or not, a greater degree of protection from injecting this kind of negative material.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone speak Thai?

Surachai Danwattananusorn could do with some close inspection, and I'm about to go out. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Zachariah Anani

Sy Rogers

The article on Sy Rogers is clearly written by a supporter, and is not objective. By this, I do not imply that it is necessarily inaccurate (nor accurate), but that the reader needs to be informed of the subjective disposition of the article, so that they may more easily make up their own mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.70.248 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken it back to the last non-promotional and fully cited version, and have added it to my watchlist. Edwardx (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Luke Messer (Republican member of the US House of Congress)

Luke Messer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is the BLP of a Republican member of the US House of Congress. I'm specifically concerned with this edit, which added "Messer authored legislation in 2017 that would close the Child Tax Credit loophole, which has enabled illegal immigrants to wrongfully claim billions of taxpayer dollars each year^[1]. The proposal was included in President Donald Trump's budget request to Congress^[2]." The Marketwatch source doesn't mention Messer, and I get the impression from the Fox News source and a Google News search that this is a pretty minor episode in his Congressional career. As I'm staying out of such articles I'm bringing it here for more eyesDoug Weller talk 06:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a recent addition by a new user. I've reverted it (along with some other changes by the same user) because it seems to me to have added opinion in Wikipedia's voice. I've provided full rationales for my reverts on Talk:Luke Messer. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC).

References

^ "Groups want Trump to close loophole allowing illegal immigrants to abuse tax credits". Fox News. 2017-02-08. Retrieved 9 February 2017.
^ Trump's budget takes aim at illegal immigrants by limiting tax credits. "Trump's budget takes aim at illegal immigrants by limiting tax credits". MarketWatch. Retrieved 22 May 2017.

Nader El-Bizri

The placement of the 'Press Release' tag is arbitrary since the article "Nader El-Bizri" is fully supported by references, multiple wikipedia internal links, and key philosophical aspects of notability. It is also in contradiction with the other tag that judges the content as being 'technical', hence 'philosophical' and 'conceptual', which runs against the random claim that the article is routine or akin to a press release. It is essential that some experienced wikipedia editors look into this, especially given the very rare circumstances in our contemporary era to find an Arab Philosopher who has such international and multidisciplinary profile; and rather than harming such figures we are in need to support them in this terrible time that faces the Arab world. All this needs is a little bit of attention from knowledgable wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:D145:6D31:DDA1:4AC7 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the article requires some editorial intervention to improve it, and this has not been resolved. Can experienced editors look into it for consensus and third-party opinion as to how this can be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:B5C0:2DC8:262B:AA15 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Some issues have been highlighted with the presentation of the article "Nader El-Bizri" but it was not noted to other editors specific ways of improving them. Is there a chance any of the experienced editors can make some suggestions or steps as to how these issues would be resolved? There has been some lack of consensus lately, and there were worries that some arbitrary decisions on the part of come editors would result in some form of vandalizing the article, and it was hence locked for few months to protect it and not harm the biography of the living person concerned. How to make these improvements needs experienced Wikipedia editors to address them and not only to state them, or have lack of consensus over them with randomness and haste in decision and dismissiveness. Maybe experienced editors can flag this on noticeboards or via the article's talk page, and may know better what can be done to improve the article or entice other editors to do so. In any case, thanks for your editorial attention (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:352A:DF7E:4EE0:E04E (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability is marginal, as he appears to only be an associate professor according to the IIS website. In any event, the page needs to be heavily trimmed, which I will start. Edwardx (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not marginal, he is not an Associate Professor since the IIS website is outdated. The actual academic profile is accessible from his webpage at the American University of Beirut where he is a Full Professor and also is Director of the Civilization Studies Program as per the following summary CV that is downloadable from his webpage: http://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/Nader%20El-Bizri%20Summary%20CV%20(Spring%202017).pdf His AUB webpage is: http://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Pages/El-Bizri.aspx He received several awards including: https://ordered-universe.com/2015/12/04/kuwait-honours-professor-nader-el-bizri-arabic-science-and-philosophy/ Haste in making decision on living persons and judging their notability should be undertaken with greater care especially if they are academics. Can experienced academically-friendly editors look into this, otherwose this is some form of vandalism that harms a living person if done with carelessness! (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3872:3A8B:AFE3:BAB6 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

Even if he is a full professor at AUB, I'm not convinced that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC, and the article needs MUCH more trimming. For what it's worth, I'm hardly an inexperienced editor... Edwardx (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue requires further inquiries and has to be handled with greater editorial care, and preferably by editors who are academics or who are well knowledgable in the domain of philosophy and the humanities to avoid misjudgment, another marker of notability is indicated in the following site: http://www.thoughtleaders.world/en/leader/nader-el-bizri/ Other examples can be checked about citations in the humanities and in philosophy, and these are well known measures in academia; otherwise this matter should be brought to a consensus amongst editors (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

A nomination for deletion was suggested by EdwardX and this is possibly an act of vandalism or at least malicious, or requested by a user who has no clue about the content. Edwardx who requested the deletion is a user who focuses on businessmen and billionaires, and it is regrettable that academics and scholars have to be judged by users who have no clue about their areas of research and specialism. This is very serious and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia altogether (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

This article exists since 2008 with hundreds of edits, improvements, updates by multiple users and editors. It has many references and the impact of the person that it presents touches upon hundreds of articles in wikipedia. Arbitrary and malicious decisions have to be kept in check since they cause harm to living people. Are there no editors who have knowledge of academia even at a basic level to make sure that academics are sheltered from malicious acts? (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

The article "Nader El-Bizri" that is about an academic philosopher and architect has been proposed for deletion by EdwardX who seems to specialize in businessmen and billionaires. The article "Nader El-Bizri" exists since 2008 and received over 100 edits by a vast number of diverse editors over the years. This article has on average 35 visits daily, which since 2008 might have accumulated to over 100,000 visit. Numerous wikipedia articles in the dozens make reference to the "Nader El-Bizri" article in various forms. The living person in question is a Full Professor, and a Director of three programs at the American University of Beirut; received many awards, including the one for the Advancement of Sciences from Kuwait, and has been ranked 59 as Thought Leader in the Arab world (3rd on top of all living Arab philosophers), with a vast array of publications with prestigious presses such as Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, SUNY. The indicators of his CV, awards, rankings in the Arab world are accessible via the official external links at the bottom of the article. It is utterly arbitrary and damaging to the integrity of wikipedia that all of this is ignored by a single user who does not even seem to have a connection to academia. Such randomness is very harmful to the professor in question and it should not be left unmonitored and could even be motivated by malicious intents. It is essential that it receives immediate attention by responsible knowledgable editors, and such sensitive decisions should not be made with haste (AcademeEditorial (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

As I said at the article Talk page, you should participate at the deletion discussion, and you should also stop making unfounded personal attacks on other editors, or you will not get on well here. This is also a bit premature, as discussion has only started today at the article. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri - Govindaharihari (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Bethany Black

I changed "born with male genitals" to "assigned male at birth" on this article, as no trans woman is born with male anything, and it was reverted because the original was "factually correct." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plattypus1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the page, you might want to try that first before coming here. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, its basically a trans-jargon issue. Some sections of the trans community deny that they were in fact, ever the pre-transition gender. It was one assigned to them at birth, not their actual gender (despite the medical evidence otherwise). So 'she was assigned male' is a trans-jargon way of indicating that they were not female previously, but also that they were not male. This is of course, leaving aside the actual rare medical condition with some babies born indeterminate who end up assigned a gender - of which there is no evidence Black is one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made this edit. I think my wording represents both arguments. Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

omar suleiman (imam)

There is clearly an effort to smear by inserting so called controversies on Omar Suleiman regarding homosexuality and Anwar Al Awlaki. A simple google search would show that neither thing caused a controversy or is fully representative of his views. In fact, he has stood in solidarity with the LGBT community many times. The references are hate sites as noted by the Southern Poverty Law Center. As for the Awlaki stance, Omar was actually applauded for being the first of the Imams to come out against Awlaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaudi34 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Daily Mail is not a hate site as such, but still not so good on a BLP. I have removed the sub-section in question, pending any better sources that may or may not be unearthed. MPS1992 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Narendra Modi

I have nominated Narendra Modi for good article reassessment because I find the article to be violating the BLP, OR and using terms that violate WP:LABEL. More issues have been raised by other editors on this page. Remember that Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is rated at C-Class, thus GA seems overestimation for this article IMO. Lorstaking (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Darius Guppy

Note: this is the IP address of the now retired user, User:L.R. Wormwood.

The previous version of the Darius Guppy article (a man notable mainly for a failed 1993 insurance fraud, and his association with Boris Johnson), which can be found here, reads as though it has either been paid-for, written by the subject or someone close to the subject, and is otherwise clearly inconsistent with WP:BLPSTYLE. For instance, the opening line used to read:

"Darius Guppy (born 1964) is a British–Iranian businessman, noted for his colourful ancestry, high-society contacts and unconventional opinions."

The article continued in a similar vein.

I made some substantial (and perhaps rushed) changes a few months ago, before I left Wikipedia. There are several IPs (possibly the same person) who have repeatedly reverted the article back to the former non-policy/guideline compliant version. I'm not prepared to argue with them/him, firstly since they have repeatedly accused people on the talk page of being defendants in a libel trial (and for this reason alone it would clearly be a waste of my time), and also because I'm supposed to have left Wikipedia for good.

Perhaps someone should open an RfC? That might settle it. Please ping to get my attention. 86.189.191.103 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Same editor Although this may be a less interesting/urgent request, I would appreciate someone taking a look. 86.146.14.13 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wormwood seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Darius Guppy which implies some personal connection or grudge although I admit this is only speculation. Why else harp on about it? Especially after he's left Wikipedia because he thinks that most of the contributors are a shower of .... !! My own interest in Mr Guppy comes from my interest in the Feasta group in Ireland of which he was a member and my interest in his articles. Mr Guppy is known in his own right as an original commentator and has written for all the more serious British journals. But the main point is surely this: Wormwood insists that we revert to a version which he, and he alone, has written. All I have done is to revert it to a version which has grown over the years with contributions from numerous sources including Colonel Warden, for example. It makes for more interesting reading and is more consistent with the Wikipedia project. If Wikipedia was about single contributors rigidly deciding the contents of articles on subject matters, especially living persons, well the dangers should be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.233.211 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted back to L.R. Wormwood's version, cleaned up some prose, and removed citations to the Daily Mail. My only knowledge of Darius Guppy (as I suspect is most peoples) is Boris Johnson's inability to help him beat up a journalist, as well documented on Have I Got News For You. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. As I noted, my version was a quick cleanup of an obviously inappropriate BLP. In the light of their recent comments, can the IP confirm whether they know Guppy personally? If they do know him personally, they should refrain from editing his page per WP:COI. 86.146.14.13 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

James White (theologian)

Some background, James white is a conservative Calvinist who in 2017 held a dialogue with a Muslim Imam, Yasir Qadhi in a church in Memphis. A few months later, a group of Islamophobes got wind of it and launched a negative campaign against him. I do not use the term "Islamophobe" lightly btw, just read some of the stuff like accusing his guest of being a Jihadi Imam, engaging in slanderous attacks, taking dozens 2-3 second clips of an 8 hour lecture series and stitching them together in a dishonest way

The other person in the dialogue, Yasir Qadhi, was the other member of the dialogue. Robert Spencer, Sam shamoun and his ilk were responsible for a slanderous video posted (third link in the list though Youtube might have taken it down already).

With that background, the bio page has been repeatedly edited by people with libelous intent. Here are the relevant sections

James White (theologian)#Education (Controversy) White graduated with a Bachelor's Degree from Grand Canyon University (formerly known as Grand Canyon College) and an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary. In March 2017, despite using and justifying an unaccredited Doctor title for two decades [6], he enrolled in the Ph.D. program at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Views on Islam (Controversy) In 2017 White received multiple streams of criticism from Christian groups and a former FBI counter terrorism expert after having an interfaith dialogue with a Muslim Brotherhood Imam Yasir Qadhi in a church.[9][10][11] Yasir has recently publicly defended Linda Sarsour, an outspoken supporter of Muslim Jihad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric the fever (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Watching. Wikipeda is not a place for such claims in a BLP. Collect (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Liberty7777 --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner

Persistent edit warring and apparent block evasion; see this report from January. [13]. Needs oversight, protection and probably further blocks. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a number of suggested edits which so far no other editor has discussed. I'd appreciate another editor(s) opinion before I amend the article. Thanks in advance. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A number of users who have been edit warring on the Dan Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page have now been blocked for a variety of reasons, inc sock-puppetry, and 3 revert complaints, failing to engage with other users on talk pages etc. I think the entire article needs a comprehensive review from a senior editor as there are clearly users trying to whitewash the article (most of which appear to have been one user, using a variety of sock-puppets). An editor has now protected the page to stop the edit-warring, and can only be updated by admin access so can a senior editor please review? There is alot of content on the talk page where discussion appears to have been attempted. (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Gard treatment controversy

Could use more eyes on this article from editors experienced with BLP. Concerns regarding BLP have been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Gard treatment controversy--DynaGirl (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

James L. Dolan

Under "Controversies - New York Knicks", this sentence is incorrect: "Although the Knicks made the NBA Finals in 1999, they have not posted a winning season until the 2012-2013 season."

The Knicks posted winning records in the 99-00 season and 00-01 season as noted in the link below. Please see that this is corrected. Thanks.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.65.107 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Rory McGrath

There are continuing attempts by IPs to insert referenced but - in my view - unbalanced (and undiscussed) commentary to the article on Rory McGrath. Additional eyes, and thoughts on the article talk page, would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Leanne Pittsford

Unsourced allegations added by new editor to Leanne Pittsford bio are potentially libelous (1, 2, 3). I have warned the editor (twice), but an admin might want to redact. (Contrary to the editor's accusations in edit summaries and on their talk page, I have no connection with the subject.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter Molyneux

The entire section titled "In the Media" has quite a lot of issues with impartiality. In particular, claiming games are a "success" despite neither being critically received nor well received by the public is of particular note.

Peter Molyneux, the man the article is based on, has a history of making exaggerated claims about the games he creates, his companies, and his "success". Godus, one of the projects that is highlighted as being "a huge success" is, to put it bluntly, not a success at all. The game has failed to be completed, people who crowd funded the game on the website Kickstarter have not had their goals met, nor their money returned, nor received any product that they were promised. Many complaints are visible on both the Kickstarter page for the game Godus, as well as the 22Cans forums; in addition a person who was promised profits of the game as well as the ability to be a "God" among all the players has received nothing at all from either 22Cans or Peter Molyneux himself: this is confirmed in both interviews with the person as well as Peter Molyneux himself (easily found online).

To call a game a success which was never finished, as well as resulted in the near bankruptcy of the company and the laying off of almost every employee of said company, is suspect at minimum and an outright lie at worst.

Peter Molyneux has a history of lying to the press, the people who anticipate his games, and his customers. He is infamous for this in the industry, and it would appear that either he himself, or others who have a relation to him (either financially, personally, or perhaps even a simple fan of his) have perhaps written parts of this article, which would explain the impartiality and the extreme positive spin put on what some people could call objective failures.

I believe that at minimum, the "In the Media" section needs to be redone, or at least remove unbiased claims, such as calling a game a success based on mere downloads alone: if something were defined as a success simply by this metric, then any game, or even any piece of software, could be called a success simply based on the number of people who have downloaded it, either willingly or unwillingly, and in spite of facts that would state that the game or software was in fact a failure, but simply was downloaded many times for any reason, be it curiosity, or in order to review it themselves.

At worst, I believe the entire biography of this person needs to be redone. I also find several related articles to be suspect in some ways, including the articles surrounding his company 22Cans, and IN PARTICULAR, his game Godus, which was NEVER FINISHED, WAS IN THE EYES OF CRITICS A FAILURE, AND IN THE EYES OF THE PEOPLE WHO FUNDED THE VERY GAME A TOTAL AND COMPLETE FAILURE AND BORDERLINE THEFT OF THEIR MONEY: they have never received money back despite not meeting the Kickstarter goal, which is guaranteed in part both by the company utilizing the service, as well as Kickstarter themselves.

While I do possess editing skills, having been editors of certain scholastic publications (college newspapers), I have no skills whatsoever in editing wikipedia articles, and thus would defer this to people with experience in that particular area.

Most of the information I have posted here is very easily verified by anyone looking to do so, and much of what is written in the biography, again is suspect at best, and outright lies at worst.148.74.28.2 (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)K

Hello! I certainly understand that editing Wikipedia can seem daunting, but I promise it's not. Your request here isn't likely to stir up much action; I would recommend trying some well-sourced edits to the page itself, or even trying to start some discussion on the relevant talk page. Pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines, but by all means, jump in! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Balloon boy hoax

Edit-warring by a new account at Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A new account has resumed adding a youtube junk source by a fringe theorist who accuses Larimer County Sheriff's office and the prosecution of foul play. For relevant discussions please see the talkpage, where several new accounts have popped up arguing in favour of adding the youtube junk source. There is also a discussion open at WP:ORN on the same subject. The article is still semi-protected, due to heavy edit-warring by IPs trying to add the same youtube source in the past. Please keep an eye on the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected now as one account is autoconfirmed. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug: Thank you Doug. The problem is, the new account will not take no for an answer, despite the fact that all experienced editors who have commented so far, agree with me. Please see my comment at Callanecc's talkpage. Dr. K. 22:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Larry Merchant

This sentence was added recently: "Merchant also acknowledged he drank too much vodka during the bout, and after being uncomfortable from urinating himself became a bit crotchety" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.243.73 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The material has been removed.--Auric talk 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Charice/Jake Zyrus

Some BLP-savvy editors are needed to help out with the article about Charice, a performer from the Phillipines. The issues here are about how to handle pronouns for a transgender man. And about whether the sources support "transgender" or whether the article should say "transvestite" or "cross-dresser".

There's been some edit-warring and there's a fairly clueless thread started on the talk page. That's where the transvestite/cross-dresser issue is raised. I've added my two cents to the talk page thread. Sensitive assistance from experienced folk here would be a big help, whether you agree with my take on it or not. David in DC (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is it clueless? Because it looks like it's going against your opinion? — Myk Streja ^(who?) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The part that's clueless is the part where it's suggested that we use female pronouns for things up until the date that the performer announced their new identity and erased all of their prior social media posts and male pronouns thereafter. This is clearly out of compliance with our policies. Either we don't change them at all or we change all of them. David in DC (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clueless? Yeah, I would agree that someone tagging a Filipina as transgender without understanding LGBT culture in the Philippines is pretty clueless, I'm glad we agree on that point. The problems here are that Charice has not identified as male or transgender, she fits the image of "tomboy" in the Philippines, ie. a butch lesbian. She has said that beyond wearing men's clothes and having short hair, she has stated that she isn't transitioning to being a man. I realize that it's currently quite fashionable in Wikipedia to jump all over transgender articles and change all the pro-nouns while crying "but they identify as another gender" and that seems fair enough. However, I think it's a major step to assume that someone identifies as male, just because they are a butch lesbian. The pronouns should remain female or neutral, until such time as Charice actually comments that she identifies as male or transgender. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Four sources currently used in the article refer to Jake Zyrus with male pronouns. One quotes a representative of the singer who also uses male pronouns about his client. I've identified all four on the talk page thread. David in DC (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And none of them have Jake identifying as male. Wait until the actual subject of the article expresses their preference rather than letting someone else decide Jake's preferred pronouns and identity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for Jake using female pronouns since adopting that name, Spacecowboy? Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any chance that someone other than the people discussing this on the article's talk page might join the discussion? David in DC (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. This is far-removed from the things I normally work on, so maybe I can give an impartial view. The first is that we can't speculate one way or the other about how a subject perceives themselves. We can quote the subject on it, but beyond that, it is all OR. Even quotes are rarely reliable, as the subject themselves usually are really not aware just how their subconscious perception differs from their conscious. (The biggest job of the conscious mind is often to lie to ourselves. In example, the biggest and most vocal haters of gays often turn out to be secretly gay themselves.) We also have to keep the language as standardized as possible, because this article is not just for one country or demographic. Everyone who reads this article should be able to use the dictionary definitions of words, so how these words are used in a certain country (or certain demographic in that country) little matters. This is for a general audience, so specializing terms (jargon) will only add confusion, unless the jargon is defined immediately after using it (in mid-sentence). As to the pronouns themselves, I think we should default to those most widely used in reliable sources. If the subject preferred differently, we can only assume they would have asked for corrections from the sources themselves. (In most cases with a reliable source, the subject has that choice.) Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent reliable sources show that Jake Zyler has undergone surgery and hormone injections and no longer identifies using female pronouns.[14] For now, I have edited all female pronouns referring to the subject of the article, added male pronouns for the time since he announced his new name, and left "Charice" (as a stage name) along with the surname Pempengco in discussions of the artist's career before 2017. I imagine that more changes will be required, but the subject of the article has relieved us of most of our uncertainties. Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The cluelessness continues here. We really need additional opinions on the talk page from people who actually understand how pronouns and names of transgender people are supposed to be handled. The Chelsea Manning article is the proper model. David in DC (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Zulkifli Hasan

Numerous things are going badly wrong in the article on Zulkifli Hasan, the chairman of the second chamber of Indonesian parliament (the People's Consultative Assembly), which would seem to me to be a rather important position in a democracy of some 260 million people.

- No sources: there seem to be numeral references to sources but in plain text (non-hypertext) and a list at the end is lacking.
- Neutrality: the article reads as a promotional bio-page one could find on a political party's webpage, not a neutral and objective biography.
- Language: the article is written in poor English.

A remark was already made on the article's own talk page quite a while ago, so I felt the article needed to be reported as there has been no reaction there. I hope this is the right place to report these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.183.81 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. Sources in plain text can normally be considered acceptable -- no one citation style is dictated -- but such a proliferation of non-neutral language accompanied by plaintext [1][2] type notes is often an indication of a WP:COPYVIO copy-paste from somewhere else. We need to find out from where. MPS1992 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Natalie Holt

Probably a very simple issue: There's been a lot of backing-and-forthing in this article about whether the subject was involved in a particular incident. No discussion- just edits back and forth. Something needs to be done, I fear, but I would rather not step in myself. Would anyone mind spending a few minutes to look into this? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a random IP reverting information that is pretty obviously correct (and is covered in far more detail at Britain's Got Talent (series 7)). I have, however, replaced the source that was used (a tabloid newspaper), with a more reliable one. If the IP continues to remove the information, blocks and/or semi-protection are in order. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Douglas Ulmer

I am the author of the article Douglas Ulmer which recently went through a deletion discussion with no consensus and is now threatened with another possible deletion discussion. I confirmed that I was a COI editor but don't think that I should be asked to reveal the exact nature of my COI because I use my own name and don't want to change it on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons. Revealing the exact connection would be an invasion of my privacy and that of others in most cases. There is nothing libelous about anything I have written, nor do I ever accept payment for articles I write or edit.--Mitzi.humphrey 15:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate danger of deletion, the recent deletion discussion had a decent keep position, it will be a while before anyone can reasonably renominate it. Improving it and finding extra independent sources that help to assert his wp:notability is the way forward. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, Thank you for your reply. I have been told not to edit the article or even to take part in the deletion discussions on the article's talk page. I hope some of those who voted KEEP in the original deletion discussion and others will begin to find and replace some of the independent sources which have been deleted in the current version.Mitzi.humphrey 20:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Current article says, "Ulmer was a C. L. E. Moore instructor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1987.[4]" One of my suggestions for improvement would be to add the category: Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. (C.L.E Moore was a post-doctoral award of distinction). I added the category earlier, but it was removed because of my COI.Mitzi.humphrey 21:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC) The category was replaced. Thank you, whoever you are!Mitzi.humphrey 14:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are some parts of this article that are unreferenced. I removed them, as the article is currently nominated in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, but Juniorpetjua insists on restoring that unreferenced info, with no edit summaries. He did not show up on the article talk page, and his actions are hindering the nomination, as the people point (with good reason) that an article with cn tags should not be in the main page. As In the News nominations only last for a limited time, I would like some help here. Cambalachero (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, have taken it back to the last reasonable version and left that editor a message. Good luck with ITN! Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And now he has returned. He has ignored all warnings and requests for comment, and restored the deleted info with no explanation. Is it time for admin action? Cambalachero (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cambalachero. Have raised it at WP:3AN. Edwardx (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Rhonda Patrick (2nd nom.)

More opinions are needed on this AfD, as it appears there are highly divergent views on what constitutes passing NACADEMIC or BASIC for this subject. Delta13C (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Petchey

PeterFV has added a large chunk of text to this BLP. It's about a political controversy that apparently occurred in a competition that carries Petchey's name. There's no suggestion in the text that Petchey himself was in any way involved in the controversy - the tournament is handled by a charity on behalf of another charity. I reverted the edit, with the edit summary "Nothing to do with Petchey himself." PeterFV has now undone my revision without edit summary. I won't edit war. Grateful for input from you. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a relatively trivial incident, and certainly has no place in an article about Jack Petchey. Doubtful even if it should appear in any article about the foundation, but one might make a case in an article about the youth speaking competition. The only source given is an article from Middle East Monitor, a pro-Palestine press monitoring organisation. The Independent gives a wider, more nuanced, account of events. Edwardx (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If there's no further dissent in the next hour or so, I'll revert on the basis of this response. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ehsan Sehgal

We're having problems over at the page Ehsan Sehgal. An editor who is apparently the daughter of the subject acting on his behalf is making repeated attempts to delete information, having blanked the page at least once recently and entering multiple AfD requests. The page itself is poorly sourced, having 19 references at present, almost all of which seem not to exist anymore or be inaccessible or come from sources who's reliability is unclear. There have been multiple issues of sources being misrepresented, which we've already cut. It'd be much appreciated if people here could give a steer on how much of this page is salvageable and what else from it needs to be removed. The page is currently in AfD, started by the daughter of the subject, but it looks like the result will be 'keep'. Thanks for any help that can be offered.Landscape repton (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

August Busch IV

This article looks mostly fine, except when you get to the "Arrests" section. There is far too much weight on this. Can someone please confirm if Im correct and discus ways to fix it?That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Have edited the other parts of the article a bit, some of which are lacking citations. The "Run-ins with the law" might appear disproportionate, but they are serious incidents, fairly concise, and well-referenced. Perhaps the rest of the article could be expanded to create a better balance? Edwardx (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but this *is* a BLP after all. WP:WEIGHT should dictates that this be trimmed down while we are waiting for that to happen (if ever).That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In light of my suspicion that very little will be done to expand the rest of the article to bring it into alignment with the section describing his experience with law enforcment (if history of BLPs is any indication), and taking into consideration these encounters are well sourced, I went ahead and removed much of this content from view. Since the content remains in the source of the article it should be easily added back to public view if and when the other sections have been suitably expanded.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be a WEIGHT problem if you removed it. WEIGHT doesn't mean less bad stuff and more good stuff. The notability of Bush is highly tied up in his many and very serious problems over the years and sufficient coverage is needed to explain what happened. He is well known for all these incidents. There are whole books about it. His career is not very notable, there isn't much to say. He headed the company for 18 months after his father died before selling the company and prior to that didn't do much, his positions in the company were not significant. He was best known as an embarrassment for the family, constantly in the local news for negative things, a serious drug and alcohol user who had continual run-ins with the law. -- GreenC 03:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jared O'Mara

An account (User:Daj1) keeps adding poorly sourced claims to the article about a recently elected British Labour MP. I have tried to explain to the user the problems, but this material seems likely to be restored again. Philip Cross (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Philip Cross I have removed the contested content and brought the challenged BLP discussion to the Talk Page due to the 3RR rule. The claim has nothing to do with the subject; and is clearly agenda driven for reasons other than anecdotal. It does not belong. If User:Daj1 edits or rv's again, he will be blocked. Unfortunately, since you have reached the 3RR, you may be too. I would suggest reserving your cause to the Talk Page and gaining support there. Maineartists (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Bana al-Abed

This story is obvious propaganda which is not hard to disprove, yet the dissenting view are relegated to sections after the main article under headings of "Scripting incidents" and "Trolling attacks". These sections may have the effect of defaming and committing libel against authors of such views. The validity of these dissenting opinions, if not the outright truthfulness, can be understood by anyone just by viewing this video of Bana al-Abed speaking - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ7Pq4sSnGk. This link is included in footnote #26 of the article. Please keep Wikipedia free from such blatant attempts at political propaganda.

NOTE: I have tried many times to log in - have logged out and back in too. And though it shows me as logged in, when submitting this form, it says I'm not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.139.12 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe Mande

Anonymous user keeps inserting section labeled "Cyberbulling Activity" into Joe Mande article that is merely opinion commentary and violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. The edits continuously state the subject has committed cyberbulling without 1) noting what the specific allegations of cyberbulling are, thus failing to be accurate and fully informative, and 2) only presenting one side of the issue and citing just a single obscure source, thus violating the Neutral Point of View policy that states articles should "represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable source on a topic." Moreover, the sourcing is of poor quality - the edits use an article from a local Australian television station to address a story relating to an American comic and American political figures that were made in the United States.

Furthermore, the comments are not written in an impartial tone. As per the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone The section as written contains subjection opinions such as, "Parents should not think that everyone is teaching their children to be kind and tolerant online. Because some of the trolls bullying Barron Trump would undoubtedly have children themselves."

I've removed the material and semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fergie Olver

This is a perpetual issue with this article, the latest here [15]. I've deleted the BLP violation on the talk page but a revision deletion is needed. freshacconci (✉) 00:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Juanita Castro

Juanita Castro - claims one person was going to murder another. Citation goes to paywall site. Does not contain quotation as cited. Though, I can easily believe that guy would say that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.140.83 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that the above refers to this passage:

When the two revolutionaries insisted on including the family plantation in their agrarian reform program to limit private land ownership, their older brother Ramón, who had been maintaining the property, angrily exploded, "Raúl is a dirty little Communist. Some day I am going to kill him."^[1]

^ "The Bitter Family". Time. Time Magazine. 10 July 1964. Retrieved 19 February 2008.

Not really a BLP problem since Ramón Castro Ruz is no longer alive (although Raúl Castro is). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Anders_Behring_Breivik

Under the title Anders Behring Breivik the wikipedia article author has speculated links to the (chapter)EDL, and (chapter)Knights Templar. Both These chapters should be removed because this is speculation and not fact. In fact it is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.87.173 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Referencing looks pretty solid. Have not been through to see if the text is accurately supported by the citations. Can we have some clarification of more precisely what is at issue please? Edwardx (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Carmen A. Puliafito

This article probably could use some eyes to monitor it. Was dean of USC medical school and the LA Times just published an investigative journalism piece that is very scandalous. Seems totally legit journalism but people are probably be going to go wild with it. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani

In the wake of mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani's recent and untimely death, many new editors have come to the article. This is not a bad thing in itself, but many of them bring with them a nationalistic or religious point of view (i.e., excising mentions of the US from the article despite the fact that it's where she lived and worked for many years, or adding third-party claims of her religion) that raise BLP issues. I think it would be helpful to have some more attention from neutral editors as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Katy Tur

I intend to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive256#Katy_Tur.27s_Personal_Life so that I could reopen Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_152#Katy_Tur per @Yashovardhan Dhanania:'s suggestions. The BLP Notice Board is going nowhere and @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: and @Mirokado: tend to simply undo edits instead of discussing further on the original talk page. They could be Katy Tur's hired ghostwriters. There is nowhere in BLP consensus that says long-term dating with a former celebrity is only gossip and shouldn't be listed. @Knope7: agrees with me. Pls let us know what to do. Thanks @Robert McClenon: Supermann (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny that she is in the infobox of Keith Olbermann and no mention is allowed in the Katy Tur article. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

She probably shouldn't be. Generally the consensus has been ex-partners should not be listed unless there is a particular reason to. (Children, ongoing association in some manner etc). 'Person X once dated Y' is not really relevant or significant just in itself. Has anyone actually tried to remove her from the infobox? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm no fan of "Mr. Wolfowitz", but isn't Tur engaged to be married at this late date? There doesn't seem to be any good reason to include a person's past relationships in their BLP, no matter how famous the people they have been previously associated with are in real life. Guy1890 (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rick Hill, former Congressman from Montana.

Today, July 18, 2017, on a radio talk show Mr. Hill mentioned he is from Grand Rapids, MN not Grand Rapids, Michigan. He said how he has tried to have the incorrect information changed on his bio but has never had any luck doing so. I was able to edit the main information but was unable to edit the incorrect information under his picture. Does anyone know how to correct the error in that special bio box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieOakley (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@AnnieOakley: ~~Do we have a source other than the radio talk show about his state of origin? The issue becomes verifiability of the claims~~ .... —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Should've checked the article before opening my mouth. It's in his Congressional bio. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Traci Kochendorfer

this living person biography was requested for deletion and after reports and BBB to include wiki as such the attacks as such on the articles written about this known person's achievements was done in haste and informative naive uneducated hackers they call editors themselves. Which is a form of online identity theft and bullying. This profile still has not been restored as it was to be over 9 months ago. We expect it will asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.105.3 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My guess is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traci Kochendorfer, which resulted in a clear deletion decision in February 2014. A quick search suggests that there is a bit more on the subject since then. Not enough in my view, and any new article would struggle to survive AfD. Edwardx (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yehuda Yannay

The BLP article Yehuda Yannay includes a list of references but not a single inline citation. I would appreciate thoughts on what should be done here. The creator of the article doesn't seem willing or able to help (see the edit summary here) and if their username is their real name (the subject of the article), then I suspect that a lot of the material is written from personal experience rather than sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music verifies the basic biographical details and you can check to see if the other listed references are available online. Anything that seems to be personal research can be pruned. This person is notable, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did some searching and came to the same conclusion about notability. The question is more about how ruthless should I be with the pruning? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The article was created by Yehudayannay and almost all content added by that user; it is essentially self-published. In the circumstances, you can be as ruthless in pruning as you see fit. Edwardx (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Pinging Jerome Kohl, to make you aware of this discussion, since you have been trying to insist on sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, since I have not only been insisting on sources, but also have a long though intermittent editing history on this article. Mr. Yannay is indeed a notable composer, and it is unfortunate that this situation had to arise. As far as I can tell, the editor User:Yehudayannay is in fact the subject of the article, and I should declare a slight professional acquaintance with him, since I edited one of his articles for Perspectives of New Music several years ago. Until quite recently the present Wikipedia article did contain as many as eight inline citations, originally in Harvard (parenthetical) formatting but changed without discussion to SLN format in [this edit on 29 January 2014 (though five of these were used together merely to verify the claim that his name appears in "articles, textbooks and encyclopedias"). I was the editor who added these citations in the first place, in this edit and this one, both on 7 March 2008. All of these were removed at one blow and without explanation in this edit on 7 April 2016 by User:Jezelman, who evidently has a closer connection with Yannay than I do, since his edit summary read "updated information based on interviews with Yannay". This editor appears to have restricted his work on Wikipedia to just this article, and the related Compositions by Yehuda Yannay, which I see has been nominated for deletion because of doubts of notability. It seems to me that anyone with a biographical article in New Grove is notable on that evidence alone, but the way this article has ben edited up to now (insisting on Original Research over reliably sourced material) is the best way I can think of to undermine the subject's notability. I suggest as a start that the references to Burt Levy's brief New Grove article be restored, and also that this article be checked to see what other statements can be verified (it was formerly used only to verify his teachers in Israel and America).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

BBC pay

The BBC recently revealed how much their top presenters earn. Now the amounts have been added to the articles of all the named persons by @Hmcst1:. Is this information, which is likely to date quickly and has been reported as misleading due to the method used to calculate the figures, encyclopedic? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Good question. This has been raised at User talk:Hmcst1#BBC pay, although the editor concerned has not yet added that the numbers are for financial year 2016-17. Perhaps the best approach would be to include this in each infobox, where there is one. "Infobox_person" has a field for "salary", and we often add it for businesspeople where reliable sources exist. It would typically take the form of say "$1.2 million (2016)" or "$1.2 million (total compensation, 2016)" with an inline citation immediately after. Edwardx (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to digress slightly. Is there any style preference, via MoS, for e.g. "between £2.2m and £2.25m" or " £600,000 - £649,999" (I'm guessing that should be a non-breaking space +dash in there anyway)? For both article body and/or infobox? The former looks preferable to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern is whether the material belongs in the articles at all. All information in an article has to serve an encyclopedic purpose or support such a purpose. CEO pay is widely discussed in the media and voted on by shareholders. The pay of Chris Evans as the highest in the list seems notable, as does commentary about women's versus men's pay, but I am not so sure about people lower down, even if they are on £200K. We don't routinely report the pay of professors, lawyers, medics etc I think, even if paid indirectly by the public. The inclusion of the material to the lead also has overtones of outing or shaming IMHO. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Does the fact that the BBC is funded by the licence fee have any bearing on this question? It's (semi) public sector pay? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. could we really get that ~~obnoxious self-centred b**tard~~ Evans to resign, do you think?

No, as its not public sector pay in almost all cases (very senior management being the exception). While the BBC is publically funded (in part, it would be a mistake to think its pool of money available to use is sourced out of the license fee alone), most of its on-screen (and a lot of off-screen) staff are paid as contractors, and in some cases paid through their production companies for the shows they make *for* the BBC. There are notably absent people from the list for that reason. There is an argument that public sector wages are relevant for some biographies, but in this case they are not public sector employees. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, as I indicated, but are we going to start reporting the pay of every civil servant, MP, NHS employee? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we could, unless it was notable. The release of this information is in itself notable? And with the introduction of BBC Studios for the next financial year, it's likely to be a one-off anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It may be notable in the BBC article or in an article about gender equality in pay, but is it notable in any individual's case apart from Evans? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly are two of the top paid US news anchors. In Hannity, in "Personal life", we get "In 2015, Forbes estimated that Hannity's annual income was $29 million.". Nothing on salary or income in Kelly. Edwardx (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The public funding of the BBC might perhaps make a more reasonable public interest case for disclosure of top presenter salaries than for a private sector broadcaster such as ITV, but public/private-funded would seem to be irrelevant for our purposes. Edwardx (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't know the pay of professors, lawyers, medics etc. To answer your wider question how much someone earns is ,rightly or wrongly, one way of gauging how society at large values them and their work. That value is largely why I will argue these figures are relevant to the Wikipedia Project. I've put it in the lead largely for that reason also, though in one or two cases it's been moved to a more suitable part which I'm fine with. I completely reject your notion that there is public shaming in my motivation. Perhaps in some cynical commentaries in the media at large but I've done this without comment. In fact I would view it the other way and say the high value placed on these individual's work is positive.Hmcst1 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your motives, the question remains, is it encyclopedic? What purpose is served by knowing that a particular presenter in the middle of the table earned x thousands? Particularly when the figures relate only to one year, have no comparables, and will date quickly; in fact are already out of date? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The amounts disclosed have not been added to the articles of all the named persons, only a selection. Hmcst1 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

About 30 people I think? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think gender pay inequality might need to be added to Criticism of the BBC or possibly BBC controversies? But I agree that adding to individual articles is debatable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

On the radio this morning, it was mentioned that many of the figures released are only partial earnings, because some people are paid partly by the BBC directly and partly through independent production companies. Graham Norton was mentioned as an example. This is further explained here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to respond to the overall question, is it encyclopedic? There is no straight-forward answer, I'm sorry to say. In fact a number of variables are needed to be answered in order to answer that overall question, such as is it verifiable? Is the info reliable? Is it notable or significant? Is it in balance with the rest of the article? I think the real question you're looking to answer would be, is it relevant? In all of these cases, that is dependent upon the specific article, on a case-by-case basis. What is notable and relevant to one may not be for another. So the real, cop-out answer to your question, "is it encyclopedic," becomes, "it all depends." (Sorry, but ask a general question...) Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Tone about BLP in a deletion discussion ?

Is it okay to refer disparagingly about a WP:BLP in a deletion discussion, as was done here DIFF with verbiage "probably hates himself..." ??

Is that acceptable language to refer to a WP:BLP within WP:BLP policy on a Wikipedia page ?

Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say yes; BLP applies to all namespaces on WP, not just the mainspace. It's a disparing comment, one that it would be best the editor redact themselves and apologize, but nothing on its own to get into a huff, but if such behavior continues, that may require admin action. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Masem:Perhaps a warning would be appropriate at this time? Sagecandor (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I don't know Masem's opinions on the matter, but I have belatedly left an appropriate warning on the user's talk page, including a note that they have been warned for BLP-violating edits before. They do seem to have a talk-page-blanking thing going on, alongside a lot of edit-warring and BLP problems. MPS1992 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Masem and MPS1992:Thank you, I'll defer to your judgement. Sagecandor (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Don P

I created an article of a record label and a wiki user did not like it so they started to add a speedy deletion tag to all my past work even articles that were fine. I am being targeted for no good reason. The sources were relevant but were deleted anyway and now I do not have enough references. Please delete the people removing all the wiki content. Killing traffic for sure. Don P shared it to his 1.4 million followers on facebook just recently when the article went up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogultalk (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not even close. Both articles fail just about every policy we have. It's not enough to have sources; they must be reliable sources. They read not so much like advertisements but like website profiles or resumes. This is why they were nominated for deletion, because the articles themselves (your writing) doesn't demonstrate to me, the reader, just why I would want to bother reading it in the first place. (Not to mention your name indicates a likely conflict of interest.) Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Adam Forkner

Repeated defamatory, libelous and contentious edits being made without source, from multiple people over the course of the last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.36.162 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2017‎

Protection? Govindaharihari (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

After apparent WP:COI editing by Christine messersmith [16] I made some changes[17] to fix the story to more closely match the source. I'm not sure if this satisfies what the IP editor above or Christine messersmith (if that is her) wanted, or what precisely the alleged libel was, but I believe it is pretty authentic to the source. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection refused by User:Anarchyte - please add to your watchlists. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

willard carroll

I'm so confused! There is a section in my Wikipedia biography which is inaccurate and I know I've been told not to cut and paste but how else do I identify it? So, here goes:

The book I, Toto, published by Abrams Image, 2013, second edition, is fabricated to sell books. Carroll's whole premise of the book is that he found a scrapbook of Toto. Carroll writes that he found a tin box containing a scrapbook of the Wizard of Oz dog fame, Toto while walking on a construction site of the Ventura freeway in 1993. Carroll then used fiction to tell the story of Toto's life from Toto's perspective, apparently using the scrapbook as reference. The fact is, the Ventura freeway was built in 1958 and has had little change since then. The freeway is also 40feet above ground crossing over the LA river or wash, no place for a "bulldozer" to move dirt as Carroll describes in his book. The Spitz children have also reported that there was never such a scrapbook about Toto. In fact, Carroll apparently interviewed Mrs. Spitz, Carl Spitz' spouse in 1993, but failed to interview the Spitz children whom were in their 50s in the 1990s. Abrams and Carroll have never admitted to fabricating the facts.

This book is, of course, a work of fiction as a dog would not have been capable of keeping a scrapbook (I think I probably now have your attention) Anyway, this is not a viable entry in my bio. I did not enter it myself and, obviously, someone is being a pest. Could you please remove this section. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.98.243 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2017‎

It has been removed now by 142.0.98.243, simple vandalism by User:Jacksontruth it remained for 17 days, could the page Willard Carroll be protected? Govindaharihari (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Almost 3 years old in fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Omg, yes, I see now, it sat there for three years. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection refused by User:Anarchyte - please add to your watchlists. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan Shea (journalist)

A new user, Metryman3, has been violating Neutral Point Of View by adding material sourced to a competing and adversarial publication that provides unreliable information. The material has already been removed once, but was restored by the new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbnola (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless. I must ask: how on earth did this page survive "Speedy Deletion" with your affiliation with the Publisher and President of "The Advocate" - who is the subject of the article?! How could you possibly be bringing up Neutral Point of View objections here when you yourself are in clear violation of Conflict of Interests? This page shouldn't even exist in its current form Dan Shea History. Maineartists (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Material I cited was sourced from a respected local business publication that is neither a competitor nor adversary of the subject nor his employer. To the contrary, the business publication has interviewed subject on a number of occasions, including for some of the stories that I cited in my edits. Some of the other interviews with subject: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] There's nothing to indicate that the articles contain errors. Are new users prohibited from making edits? Metryman3 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In your edit, you cherrypicked negative statements while ignoring positive statements from the same sources, and also combined sources to make a claim that the individual sources do not make. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure what COI issues User:Wbnola has (if any), but it was a good revert. Woodroar (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Woodroar. In the meantime, the revert has been undone again and the material restored by Metryman3. Maineartists, if this page shouldn't exist in its current form, I yield to that judgment. I do not seek to violate Wikipedia standards. Wbnola

Have taken it to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Shea (journalist). Edwardx (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx. I have added COI information to my user page and I apologize for my rookie omission of not providing it sooner. I'm not sure how to add that information to the relevant pages. I welcome scrutiny as to the neutrality of my contributions, which are unpaid. Wbnola

References

^ "Pluses, but a minus, too". 2014-12-24.
^ "Take a look inside the new Baton Rouge headquarters for 'The Advocate'". 2016-03-02.
^ "'Advocate' launches marketing effort to brand itself as 'official newspaper' of LSU sports". 2013-09-06.

[1] ttp://ew.com/article/1992/09/18/laura-ingalls-wilder-goes-court/

[2] "Groups want Trump to close loophole allowing illegal immigrants to abuse tax credits". Fox News. 2017-02-08. Retrieved 9 February 2017.

[3] Trump's budget takes aim at illegal immigrants by limiting tax credits. "Trump's budget takes aim at illegal immigrants by limiting tax credits". MarketWatch. Retrieved 22 May 2017.

[time1-4] "The Bitter Family". Time. Time Magazine. 10 July 1964. Retrieved 19 February 2008.

[5] "Pluses, but a minus, too". 2014-12-24.

[6] "Take a look inside the new Baton Rouge headquarters for 'The Advocate'". 2016-03-02.

[7] "'Advocate' launches marketing effort to brand itself as 'official newspaper' of LSU sports". 2013-09-06.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]