Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive266

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

Grace Randolph OLD INCORRECT info suddenly turning up in search, PLEASE HELP

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

This is OLD version of my current Wikipedia page. And incorrect birthdate was entered here - I believe by someone who was harassing me online at that time - and again, because it was incorrect with no source to verify it, it was deleted.

However, it is now showing up on iPhones under "Siri Knowledge" when someone begins to search for name on a web browser, i.e. Safari, citing Wikipedia as the source.

Wikipedia is NOT the source though as that info is not on my page anymore because it was incorrect.

Can someone please help me permanently delete this page...? THANKS SO MUCH if you can!

Again, here is the OLD version of the page with the INCORRECT info: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

Bonnar212 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Doubt anyone here can fix this. Also, don't use allcaps in your text.★Trekker (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears the issue has been resolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove from "archive board"?

For some reason, this page with incorrect info is coming up for "Siri Knowledge" and giving out incorrect info.

Is there a way to remove this page from the "archive board" for my page?

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

Bonnar212 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bonnar212. As a matter of policy, we retain the complete edit history of every single article on Wikipedia, going back to the first few months of the project in 2001. Wikipedia is not responsible for any errors by Siri Knowledge, Google Knowledge Graph or any search engine or service unaffiliated with Wikipedia. You need to take your complaint to Siri. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears the issue has been resolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Giulio Meotti

Accusations of plagiarism against journalist based on WP:OR diff, as well as Marc Tracy (presently a college sports writer) writing in a Tablet (magazine)'s WP:NEWSBLOG The Scroll. In addition we have Max Blumenthal writing in 2 blogs/opinion pieces atributing part of his writing to Tracy, and a piece in iMediaEthics which is attributed in whole to Tracy in the Tablet, with the exception of a response by Meotti which they received themselves. No subsequent followup reporting since 2012.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The subject of the article is a fringe polemicist who was discovered plagiarizing other journalists in 2012 by two colleagues, Marc Tracy and Max Blumenthal. Two newspapers/magazines, Ynet and Commentary (magazine)Commentary then dropped him. Since then he appears to work for a minor Italian newspaper Il Foglio, a West Bank settler news organ and an American rightwing thinktank.

Somehow he got a wiki article, a piece of hype. When I noticed it, recalling his run-in with fellow journalists, I added the details of his plagiarism. It is all duly sourced to professional journalists: Marc Tracy wrote on Jewish issues for the Newe Republic, then the Tablet and now aspecializes in sports reportage for the New York Times. Max Blumenthal is famous. Both provided detailed textual evidence in their pieces, and quoted Meotti's responses. Meotti did not challenge the evidence which anyone can see is serial copy-and-paste journalistic hackwork. He merely said he had been careless, lost his notes, and was being persecuted because he is preo-Zionist. I,e, he was a victim of proxy antisemitism.

What Icewhiz is trying to do is to remove the very sources where Meotti himself appears, is cited, and asked to respond to the evidence. It is not a BLP issue because Meotti himself has never denied the dozen or so cases of him copying other authors verbatim. Read the evidence of the sources carefully, where he is said by Ynet to have 'admitted' to copying and much more, and the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Meotti has been employed by Il Foglio since 2003 [2]). It appears that in other outlets he was unpaid and/or regular contributing op-ed. As for "admitting" - his response has admitted only the following but did carelessly fail to attribute a few isolated sentences in my own articles. I will not do so in future. Many others journalists and writers... [3]. Max Blumenthal (who is a diametrically opposed polemicist) to Meotti's writing in opEdNews and in his blog in pro-Hezbollah Al Akhbar (Lebanon) - is not a RS. None of alleged people from whom isolated sentences and fragments are alleged to have been lifted from have commented.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote is an admission. Max Blumenthal is citable for his own views in whichever venue he chooses to publish them. The fact that a newspaper may be pro-Hezbollah means nothing: most of the Israeli sources we quote every day are pro-settler, ignore IDF terrorism etc., but not for that do we refrain from using them. People are not 'alleged'. They exist, and, as journalists, comment on the flaws of their peers, as did Tracy, Blumenthal and Smith. They quoted Meotti's responses and admissions, and the two newspapers/magazines who severed their connections with Meotti did so after examining the evidence provided by Trecy and Blumenthal, who are paid for their contributions and widely published, unlike Meotti. So far, you don't have a technical leg to stand on for exclusion, and the objections look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, regarding material introduced to balance a page which was sheer hype, with no mention of the criticism his peers made of his work. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The rather strong technical leg here is WP:BLPSOURCES - a single NEWSBLOG source + Max Blumenthal's opinion (which may be notable as such, may be not) - is not appropriate sourcing for such an accusation in Wikipedia's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read the policy you cited: it reads

These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

As to the second part, Tracy, and Blumenthal's evidence (that of acknowledged professional journalists) was clearly reviewed by the mainstream media that subsequently dropped their arrangements with Meotti. I.e. Ynet has a fact-checking process (In all of his fields Tracy is an evident tracker of how news gets to be news, i.e.this. He is not a sports blogger but has ranged widely on intellectual history, reviewing books such as Berman's which deal precisely with the same ground as Meotti's; or sexual assault on campuses and regional sociology, on Jewishness, which, in one aspect, is what Meotti, a goy, was attacking. The Tablet, the New Republic and the New York Times do not employ him as a blogger. And we recuse blogs if they are opinionizing esp. by minor figures, not when an accomplished mainstream journalist uses a magazine's scroll venue to lay out a carefully documented case for plagiarism by one of his peers, alerting the profession to a neglected problem. Precisely because he noticed with close analysis what Meotti's practice was, did Meotti's employers cancel their connections with him, accepting Tracy's evidence on the issue, in what is effectively an informal peer-review process. Therefore, you are skewing policy to defend Meotti's right to have his record untarnished by facts that have been accepted as true by Meotti, and the journalistic community.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It would seem Meotti continued at his regular day job at Il Foglio, and that he has been picked up by other organizations. A source for "accepted as true by Meotti, and the journalistic community" is lacking here. In fact - there seems to be a distinct lack of coverage of this - in particular lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This got little secondary coverage because Meotti is a very minor figure. He was caught out plagiarizing and since then has no mainstream employment, being acceptable only to extremist organs like Arutz Sheva and Gatestone Institute. The rest of the highly competitive world of serious journalism is too busy to take notice of him, which, contrary to your expectations above, does not translate out as meaning that nothing serious journalists noted about his copy-and-paste hackwork may be alluded to on his wikipage. As to Il Foglio, it has a circulation of 25,000 and is partially funded by a politician and business man undergoing 4 charges for corruption. Meotti was confronted with the evidence, and did not rebut it: he waffled on about being a tad careless, losing his research notes, being persecuted because of his views etc. If Meotti is to have a wiki page, it has to be accepted that exceptions will not be made to whitewash to a glowing positive the facts of his career, but all angles, adequately sourced, will inevitably have to be covered. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Bahar Mustafa

Interested editors may wish to participate in the RfC at Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations, which was relisted on 11 February 2018. This is a contentious, multi-part issue that sorely needs attention from cooler heads who are well-versed in BLP questions. Any input is welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Y&R ANZ

New editor now blocked for major edit warring over content they object to strenuously as, let's say, "misleading". I'm sometimes blind in these matters, but due diligence requires that I ask for a review of the now removed contentious material. dif is here. Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Living People Biographies with untrue and manipulative statements

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement GMG ^talk 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at ^[1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry ^[2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria ^[3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria ^[4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.

4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.

He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgelee78 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delyan_Peevski
^ https://public.brra.bg/checkups/default.ra?
^ http://mc.government.bg/index.php?l=2
^ http://mc.government.bg/page.php?p=58&s=429&sp=67&t=63&z=436

Haven't really read into this in detail, but I was wondering if Quickfingers could offer some insights into the situation. Alex Shih (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Alex Shih The complainant, Gorgelee78 is probably someone related to Peevski, or a paid editor. They should be investigated. Back in last December, the main editor of one of his medias, "Monitor" tried to cover up information about him. Check the related COI report for more information.

I note that the article has virtually no English-language sources. Given that inclusionists reject lack of English-language sources as a deletion rationale, we do have an interesting conundrum: how do we ensure BLP (and NPOV generally) when only a tiny proportion of the Wikipedia editor community can read the sources? Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Find an active editor and ask/bribe them to take a look at it. Per policy we dont exclude non-Eng sources, we *can* require a brief translation posted to the talkpage but short of someone with a good grasp of the language actually looking at it - it is a trust-based/agf that the source references the material. What would be helpful would be a list of unreliable tabloid sources for various countries so at least if we see biography with contentious info sourced to X tabloid, we know to get someone to take a much closer look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

though it does not provide direct support for the details, I give considerable weight to the Reporters without Borders source for the overall tone of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky

Two new accounts have added "innocence" material to the Jerry Sandusky article. As many know, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse. The material added by these two ~~new~~ accounts concerns a book and other stuff arguing for Sandusky's supposed possible innocence. Thoughts? I started a discussion section at Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Case for Innocence section. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction: Only one of the accounts is new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely need some opinions on this. Collect, any thoughts? I've argued WP:Undue weight. We have Aerkem going on about Mark Pendergrast and how he is "a well-known writer, and a specialist of repressed memory." And we have AmiLynch going on about an additional investigation and research. In my opinion, material on this is not much different than conspiracy theories on matters that are reported as fact. There are those who believe that Darlie Routier and Scott Peterson are innocent as well. When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There are way to many "maybes" in that addition, including phrases like "he maybe feared". When anyone starts speculating on what is going on in someone else' mind it makes me suspicious. First, as I interpret it (and others may disagree) BLPCRIME works both ways. We rely on the courts to determine guilt or innocence, we shouldn't be trying to make a case for it either way. (Sure, innocent people get convicted all the time, but this isn't a court room in which to fight those battles.) It's a little more difficult to argue this since the subject is very notable and the case high profile. However, all I see is rank speculation by someone who is apparently (at least as written in the article) a mind-reader. If this was a scientific article I'd classify this as fringe material, definitely, no matter who it is from, because every theory needs facts to back it up. In this we have none, and a theory without facts is just a hypothesis, and Wikipedia doesn't report hypotheses. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Biggest problem? The possibility that this is promotional material for a single book. Actually probability. Collect (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that hit's the nail square on the head. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, it is not. There are plenty of facts contained in the book, and in reviews in publications like "The Skeptic." The author is well-known in his field. He does not need to be promoted on Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't reviewing the book, only the addition to the article. (I might add that, as someone who is very familiar with neuroscience, especially in cognition and memory, I'm not a strong believer in repressed memories. Very few of us have total recall and even fewer eidetic memories. Most people don't even realize their memories are filtered and stored based on emotional salience (in computer-speak, compressed for easier storage), that memory involves as much imagination as it does cognition, and thus a memory is not a faithful recreation of actual events. However, as written, the addition would read as fringe even if written by Einstein.) Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that the book is also being pushed at the Penn State child sex abuse scandal article; see Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal#Where do I mention Pendergrast's book?. Permalink here. Jeff in CA is supporting mention of it there as well. Anyway, it should be clear that I agree with Zaereth on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also see this edit and other edits by Jeff in CA at that article. Goodness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: If by 'pushing the book' you mean 'mentioning a relevant and reasonably reliable source', yes I am pushing the book. You wrote that 'When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section': would that be appropriate in this case? As a newbie I would appreciate some feedback on my now deleted edit (before AmiLynch's further edit): was it problematic because written under 'Case for innocence' rather than 'Further reading'? or for other reasons? Aerkem (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your newbie status, I have my doubts about that, but that's a different matter. Did you read what Zaereth stated above? Such a section is not typical. It is like the other two editors in particular are trying to make a case for this man's innocence. We don't give WP:Undue weight to books in this way. In BLP cases, when books have gotten a lot of media attention, they are likely to get a section or simply a paragraph in the article, but I'm not aware that this book has gotten a lot of media attention. As for mentioning the book in the "Further reading" section, yes, in my opinion, listing the book there is better. Or a single sentence or two on this matter, but not a whole section for it. Previously, you added a single sentence for it. This can simply fit under the "Imprisonment" section. When you made that material into a section, it was expanded, as very small sections and sections in general often are. AmiLynch's additions were more concerning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t believe this book will get a lot of media attention, as it contradicts the narrative of every major media outlet. The media is so homogeneous now, should we really let its coverage determine weight on Wikipedia? AmiLynch (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for the advice, I have now created that Further reading section. I meant newbie in this corner of Wikipedia, and unused to having long debates about short edits. Aerkem (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A lone mention in Skeptic Magazine along with a lot of primary source links to the book. That is pretty much textbook promotional. Also, that table insertion at Penn State child sex abuse scandal is atrocious, an info dump of personal opinions and unsourced assertions about child rape victims. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree substantially with Valerian and Zaereth's comments. While repressed memories are a dubious source of information on past events at best, the replacement notion that Sandusky was railroaded by a conspiracy of law enforcement and therapists requires much better sourcing than one book, no matter how well-respected the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a little digging into the source. I didn't have time to read it all, but skimmed through some of it and looked at reviews. The author is definitely trying to make a point, not that the subject is innocent but that he was convicted on junk psychology. He may very well have a good point, but herein lies the problem. Anyone can create a theory to fit any facts; that's what lawyers are for. It's a common problem in science (and especially junk science), because if you go out trying to prove a theory, you can undoubtedly cherrypick the facts to make them "fit." Show a moon-landing denier all the evidence, the millions of people involved in over 70 countries (I mean, it was the Australians who first spotted them returning) and they can spin those facts all away. (A wise person once said, "A sufficiently paranoid conspiracy theory can never be disproven." --scot) Any good scientist is acutely aware of this human tendency, and is careful to gather all the facts before formulating a theory --especially the ones that don't fit. (Another wise person once said (something like) "There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." --Enrico Fermi)

The problem I see with this source is this author is someone who is trying to make a point, using the subject as the sole example (more like an attorney than a scientist). I think he has some good points, and had he taken a more scientific and neutral approach, using many examples, this could have very well turned into a great source and possibly a scholarly reference ... for the repressed memory article maybe. The subject was obviously chosen for his high-profile status (sells more books that way) but in my opinion the author is writing from the point of a personal agenda, that is, to prove a point. If this were a medical article we would require a source like this to be peer-reviewed, and I'm afraid The Skeptic doesn't qualify for that. Since his point is obviously one of psychology, to me that doesn't seem much different.

Then there is the problem of BLPCRIME. Should we set a precedent where a people convicted of a crime can fight for their innocence on Wikipedia? If we do that, then shouldn't we allow the other side to fight for their guilt, just to maintain the guise of neutrality? One of the key factors in deciding if a source is reliable is if it is neutral. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This book is about Jerry Sandusky. The author has already written books separately debunking repressed memory theory (and it is widely debunked, not just by this author, and repressed memories are supposed to be inadmissible in court). AmiLynch (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between being the subject of a book and the point it is driving at. Zaereth (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zaereth: The book in question may not be as objective as one would wish, but in this case, can we hope for much better? If I understand correctly, the case for Sandusky's guilt is based on testimonies which came years after the alleged facts, and which may well have been biased by financial incentives. In order to have a balanced approach, your 'good scientist' would have to account for the systematic bias that results from these incentives - although I am unsure whether a good Wikipedian should do so. Aerkem (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree the content can be modified in a few places to make it completely objective. I don’t see any factual errors though, as surprising as some of the facts may be. Given that primary sources are unacceptable, this book is one of the few sources we have available (some of you are dismissive of it, but it is extensively sourced and well-cited itself). Other useful sources may exist though. As I wrote on the Jerry Sandusky talk page: Special Agent John Snedden investigated the case for the FBI to evaluate whether former University President Spanier’s Top Secret security clearance should be renewed and found there was no sexual abuse at PSU in this case, nor a cover-up. John Ziegler, another author (he is also a documentary filmmaker and former broadcaster), also did years of research and came to believe Sandusky was innocent. AmiLynch (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like the fervent activism around Amanda Knox that overtook many discussion boards on the internet years ago. I do not mean that as a positive commentary. TheValeyard (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.

Everyone knows the majority opinion (and it is an overwhelming majority) about Jerry Sandusky, and it is represented at length on his Wikipedia page. And wikipedia guidelines seems to place undue weight on majority opinion (imho), so maybe it is too soon for this to happen, but I don’t see the harm in having one subsection summarizing the reasons that some somewhat prominent people who have taken a hard look at the case conclude that he is innocent. It would be informative and thought-provoking, yet still be far outweighed by the material on the rest of the page. AmiLynch (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A respected, well-regarded researcher digs into a legal case in which a person was tried and convicted. He reads the transcripts of the trial, pores through written and recorded police records, and interviews victims and other individuals that had a role in case. He is diligent in ascribing attribution. He writes about what he found. He quotes extensively from the transcripts and records. He ends up with a description of the facts in the case that is more comprehensive than what had been publicly described previously. He publishes this material in a book. In the book, he comes to a conclusion based on what he reported. When he is later interviewed in a web broadcast about the material in the book, he predicts that the book will be ignored by all of the media. He states his belief that the media is so heavily invested in its own reporting that no major outlet will ever mention it. What has he done wrong? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

He (the 'researcher') has done nothing wrong, but Wikipedia is not here to judge or assert or deny his guilt. In these circumstances, the Wikipedia article should mention his conclusions. But no more. And that's it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I dare say there are millions of words on Wikipedia from such sources; words that do not mention innocence or guilt, but rather mention facts reported in various books and publications. What is wrong with attributing facts to a source? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran

I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Zahran is a Jordanian-born Palestinian. He was criticized—in very harsh terms—by Caroline Glick, a prominent and influential editorial columnist (and deputy managing editor) for the Jerusalem Post. Under normal circumstances, we would cite her column, attribute her opinion, and call it a day.

The problem is that Glick didn't publish her views in the Jerusalem Post, but on Facebook. Her Facebook post was cited the next day by Elder of Ziyon, a blog. Two weeks later, an opinion columnist in Globes, an Israeli business newspaper, wrote about it. The Globes column was re-published the same day by Glick's paper, the Jerusalem Post.

Can Glick's views be included in Zahran's BLP? Clearly Elder of Ziyon, a blog, cannot be cited. Can Glick's Facebook post? What about the Globes opinion column? Does the fact that the paper where Glick is an editor republished the Globes column give it any added credibility?

If you think this question is better suited for WP:RS/N, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tal Schneider (in this case writing in Globes) is one of Israel's leading political commentators/reporters - possibly more than Glick - and in this case it is not an opinion column, the original Hebrew is [4] (which Jpost probably translated 5 days later, and then this got republished by Globes in English - Globes English being a reprint of a reprint in this case). Some additional news here [5].Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Globes itself (in Hebrew, the English version is very scaled down and lower frequency (weekly?) translation of a small portion of the daily Hebrew) has been Israel's leading business paper for many years. In terms of RSness it would be similar to Haaretz in Hebrew, with the advantage of not having a pronounced political slant. Schneider herself would probably be labelled as mainstream left (i.e. Zionist Union's vicinty) politically.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

David Newman (political geographer)

I came across these edit summaries in the article's history, apparently by the subject himself:

"It is my name which is being slandered here and I would exect you to publish a balanced and accurate account of the story. As I mentioned previously I am willing to let you, or any neutral adjudicator, to have all the official documents to read and reach a decision, on the condition that they would not be published as I do not intend to infringe university regulations of non publication."
"This is an extremely one sided version of events and does not reflect, in any way, the actual rulings of the disciplinary committee. A previous edit (not by me) gave a much more balanced account. The new references do not reflect what is written in the account and it is clearly published, systematically, with the intent of further damaging the reputation of Newman and , as such, I make no apologies for inserting the changes myself. This causing much personal damage. I am happy to let the adjudicator see official copies of the rulings (although it is prohibited from publishing them) for them to make their own decisions. You would then see how innaccurate the latest edit is and how one sided. I respect the right of the public to know but this is part of a personal campaign being waged against me and causing me a great deal of anguish. It distorts the entire entry and I would respectfully ask that it be removed, or an agreed balanced and accurate version be inserted."

Given the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look at the article. Judging by the editing history of Special:Contributions/Newmanthfc, this appears to be an auto-biography, so there's a concern there as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked two of the recent WP:MEAT accounts and semi-protected the page for three months (consistent with the previous protection; there appears to be history of socking at this article). I'll leave scrutinising of the content to somebody else. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman and Alex Shih. I have trimmed this article in 2009. Isn't user:יניב הורון yet another puppet of the same puppeteer? I see continued edit warring and similar summaries in several entries. Also extensive knowledge for an account opened a week ago. gidonb (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman and Alex Shih, just refreshing tags. Alex, thanks also for the recent DYK! gidonb (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gidonb: I agree, but I am not sure which account it is related to. I'll keep a close watch too, thank you for your work on this, and no problem! Alex Shih (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thank you for caring so much about WP! It looks to me as one of AndresHerutJaim's puppets. This would further show that the extensive and severe inclusion of BGU's disciplinary findings and related coverage is based on the political enmity of an actor in Israel's far right (whether living in Israel or not) to an author and speaker on Israel's moderate left. By punishing one's sock puppets and not all the others we are left with a BLP problem which is how K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) started the discussion. I believe that the disciplinary section needs major trimming and the rest of the text is too fluffy and far from current as there was lopsided interest by all recent editors. This is how content grows in all directions except towards a better Wikipedia article. BTW we see this at all Israel and Palestine articles. Topics get buried under well referenced and ever growing content from "right" and "left" to the extent that little else of the people, locations, and histories can be seen. Bottom line is that I could work on this 9 years later but do not look forward to the potential edit warring. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

David McGimpsey

The apparent subject of this article has been edit warring to remove information about about an alleged sexual misconduct that has been reported by the CBC. Given that he is a relatively unknown person, however, I think it is worth reviewing whether the considerations of WP:BLPCRIME come into play and whether mentioning it is giving it undue weight at this point. Bringing it here so uninvolved editors can review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

BLPCRIME doesn't come into it. What's being covered here is a university inquiry, and the administrative matter of his teaching assignments. There's no obstacle to including this material, given the quality of the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would BLPCRIME not apply here? He's not well-known, and these are currently just allegations. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that sexual misconduct is a potential criminal allegation, even if it is being handled administratively. BLPCRIME involves material that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. The CBC article is completely ambiguous as to what the actual allegations are: whether we are talking about making a hostile environment through dirty jokes or some form of sexual assault. Sexual misconduct opens the door for the later interpretation when we do not specify what it is, so I think BLPCRIME does come into play, as there is the suggestion that a crime may have been committed, especially when one considers that the sourcing doesn't specify the allegations. I'm not arguing one way or another for inclusion (I'm leaning against it currently, but not enough to strongly object if consensus is otherwise), but I do think we would need a consensus to include it, and consider if we should exclude it per the principles behind BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's being investigated as a crime and that's what an editor wants to write about, then we should consider BLPCRIME. If what reliable sources report is that it's being handled administratively (not as a crime), then BLPCRIME is irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No. It matters the substance of the material, which in this case is highly sensitive and could imply criminal wrongdoing, and that is covered under BLPCRIME. It is a complete perversion of the intent of the policy to say that it is fine to report on things that are potentially criminal if no charges have been brought, but it becomes not okay to do so when they are filed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Sexual assault" is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction involved. In short, it precisely fills the bill for falling under BLPCRIME. Suppose someone was "being investigated for mass-killing" - no rational person would hold that the claim did not fall under BLPCRIME. "Sexual assault" is a crime in Canada. No matter who is "doing the investigation." In fact, it is likely that the issue is more critical if the investigator is not specifically trained in investigative work. Collect (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hang Yin (scientist)

The IP address (14.141.50.250)based in Delhi, India has been repetitively inserting libelous, unsourced contents to this page since Nov, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.196.66.35 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

An admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours for vandalism. If they carry on in the same manner once the block expires, they can be blocked for a longer period. The IP never makes constructive edits anyway, so they'd be no loss to the project! Neiltonks (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Black Panther member Abu-Jamal was convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. As detailed in our article in sections Appeals and review and Popular support and opposition, Abu-Jamal's conviction, guilt, and status are all controversial.

On 19 February, CityOfSilver added this text to the first sentence of the lead:

Mumia Abu-Jamal is... a convicted murderer...

This was reverted by Bbb23. The edit has been edit-warred over continuously since, with current iterations making "convicted murderer" the very first description of the lead and article.

This edit was originally made by an IP 18 months ago [6], though I promptly reverted them [7] at that time. As far as I can tell, since the article's creation in 2001 it hasn't attempted either to label Abu-Jamal in this way, nor to declare that wikipedia has discovered the WP:TRUTH of his status as a "murderer."

I think it's clear that given the incredible controversy over Abu-Jamal's case, and his own insistence on his innocence, that we cannot describe him as "a convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:LABEL, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This would be wrong anywhere in the article, but in the lead, and in the first sentence, this editorial mistake is especially egregious.

More eyes on the article would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The article had been semi-protected by @CambridgeBayWeather: yesterday. Given that the same revert war returned with registerred accounts today, I have upped the protection to full-protection. Discussion should occur on the article talk page, and once a clear consensus emerges, we can remove the protection. --Jayron 32 19:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Mumia is a convicted murderer, he was convicted in court and the conviction was upheld every time. Therefore it is 100% acceptable to say that Mumia is a convicted murderer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to litigate this 1) Please use the article talk page to discuss article content issues 2) Repeating the same points over and over again is unlikely to helpful. Your position is clear from your comments on the article talk page. Let others weigh in. The weight of consensus lies not with the person who repeats themselves the most times. --Jayron 32 19:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm responding to a BLP/N comment. The claim was it's a violation of BLP to call him a convicted murderer. I am posting on the BLP/N page to state that it is not indeed a violation of BLP. We are not calling him a murderer, we are calling him a convicted murderer, which he is and therefore there is no BLP issue. (I also don't think your protection should have been put in place after his edit, the discussion is now whether to remove or keep, but the consensus as current is to include and thereofre if you are going to fully protect the page, it should be as it was yesterday, before his edit. ) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. The article is protected in the state it is in when it is protected. I will make no attempt to decide whose version is correct, I don't really care. There were additional reverts applied after the semi-protection was used (indeed, pretty much all edits after the initial semiprotection was applied have been reverts of the same nature, back and forth) and as such, the full protection was necessary. I will not be editing that article in any way. AFTER you have achieved clear consensus at the article talk page for any particular text, THEN we can talk about unprotecting it. Not before. --Jayron 32 19:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32 and CambridgeBayWeather: this article has been around for a long time — since 2001 — so with or without protection, and with or without the right/wrong version, I'd love for outside input from this board and other experienced editors (which is not to say those involved are not experienced, as they certainly are). -Darouet (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a wonderful idea. I will not be holding any opinions or giving any input, as I have protected the article and am acting solely in an administrative role in this capacity. WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:RFC are all good resources to attract interested editors. You can also ask for input at related Wikiprojects. --Jayron 32 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty experienced in murder-related BLPs and think "convicted murderer" is a fair label for someone convicted of murder, and does not suggest in Wikipedia's voice that he actually murdered someone or not, only that we believe he was convicted for such. I've a minor gripe with how it was inserted before the "American" part, but that's just style. No opinion on whether it goes first, second or third in the opening sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

ahmet sik

Related article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Şık The following link is not a valid websites and redirects to a porn web site. Please remove it from external sources section.

http://theopinions.info/thearmyoftheimam.htm

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekabeyler (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s been removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers sexuality RFC

There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Melania Trump

The article (infobox, specifically) contains a claim about her citizenship without citation. Should be provided or the claim removed. 75.172.227.168 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the issue? The infobox states she has duel citizenship. She was born in Slovenia and would have become an American citizen after marrying an American. Is the issue concerning whether she retained Slovenian citizenship? freshacconci (✉) 19:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the lead states she became a US citizen in 2006, with two sources. Is the issue concerning the status of her Slovenian citizenship? freshacconci (✉) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course that's issue. 174.19.229.79 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a BLP issue -- she was born in Slovenia so it wouldn't be controversial to claim she's a dual citizen. It's about sourcing. The two sources that are there say she became an American citizen in 2006. It could be just an issue of someone mixing up citizenship/nationality/ethnicity. We could just remove Slovenian citizenship until a source is found confirming it. freshacconci (✉) 15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

From what I found online, Slovenia does not revoke citizenship for those who become citizens elsewhere. As the US permits dual citizenships, she probably has dual US/Slovenian citizenship by default. Even is she "renounced" her Slovenia citizenship it would be merely symbolic as Slovenia would still consider her a citizen. However, there are no sources that directly state that she has duel citizenship. It may need to be removed even if common sense tells us that she would be (a dual citizen) because she can't not be. freshacconci (✉) 15:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree it is non-controversial, and as such, doesn't have to be removed. I would add a CN tag on the Slovenian part and see if someone can dig up a source. I just did a good-faith google search, and it's hard to find any definitive statement one way or another. --Jayron 32 16:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Anything that I found online that was a legitimate source was only about how she became a US citizen, which isn't of concern. According to one source, there is no question that she is now a US citizen; it's just a question of how. Anything I could find on dual citizenship was on sites like Quora and Reddit. freshacconci (✉) 16:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Claiming someone is a citizen of a country when he or she is not is extremely controversial and offensive. I will remove it by next week if left without sources. 174.19.229.79 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That's your call. I just don't see how this would be offensive. She was born in Slovenia. To claim she holds Slovenian citizenship is hardly libelous. If your concern is in regards to the controversy surrounding her emigration to the US and her pathway to citizenship, in this instance it's irrelevant as all legitimate sources state that she is a US citizen. As well, there are no rules regarding the citizenship of a First Lady, so her legitimacy as First Lady is not in question. I can't find any sources that help, so by all means remove it if you feel you need to. I would say a citation needed tag would suffice but it's not important either way. freshacconci (✉) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't find this offensive, but it is very obviously WP:OR to be analyzing Slovenian law, US law, and Meliana's life story to determine that she has dual citizenship. It might be difficult to find a more text book case of WP:OR. This should absolutely be removed and not restored without sourcing. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something could be found in Slovenian sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

We have citations to say she is Slovenian, she was born there (when it was part of Yugoslavia). We never need a source that says that someone who was born in a country is a citizen of that country. We have citation to show she was naturalized as an American citizen. IMO, at this point we would need a citation that says she renounced her citizenship to remove Slovenian. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Isabelle Nuru

None of the information on the wiki seems to be true and she's mentioned almost nowhere on the internet despite supposedly selling millions of records. It looks like Isabelle Nuru has been inputting fake information about herself and then citing this wiki elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.139.22 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The page has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabelle Nuru. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

And it’s been deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nucleya

The author is subjective in his account, no citations for claims, poor quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.241.54 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have cut this back and removed large sections which were hopelessly promotional. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Seth Meyers

Seth Meyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I recently removed some content from this BLP that I felt was not reliably sourced enough, and other content that did not seem to be reflected by the source. This revert was recently undone, and I wanted to know other editors' opinions regarding whether the content that I removed and which has now been restored complies with BLP. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the information for being WP:UNDUE and having poor sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ismail ibn Musa Menk

Name of Article Imail_ibn_Musa Menk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk

The references given for this person have been falsified in an attempt to defame a person and cause harm. It identifies the subject Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk which he has never self-proclaimed to be. This user profile GorgeCusterSabre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre) aims to put the subject in a negative light , the person writes bad things about people who don't belong to his sect of Islam. His views re not neutral in their tone. He repeatedly deletes any additions on the page even when they are referenced proeprley without explanation I want to know is this something Wiki pedia is encourages and allows ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually Kindmind, I merely want the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. What value will this article have unless it is neutral in tone, accurate and well supported by reliable third-party sources? I have no position on Mufti Menk (for or against), and you do not know my sect of Islam, if I even have one. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

John Draper

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

I noticed that a new user removed their post at this noticeboard. The post can be seen at the bottom of 09:09, 8 March 2018. The article has a lot of details concerning allegations of inappropriate behavior, with half of the lead devoted to the topic. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No big mystery here guys. I'm attempting to have libelous information removed from John T. Draper's page. I've followed Wikiepedia's instructions and am waiting for the info to be removed. If Wikipedia editors won't follow Wikipedia's policy, then further action will be taken. This is a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue of defamatory information being allowed by Wikipedia to remain published to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMP Bart (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:EMP_Bart you've identified yourself as his manager, that could violate Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. Second, in your original post you call this information libelous, and now you're calling it defamatory, uh, you could explain why it's showing up | over at this website that's not a blog, has editorial oversite and likely qualifies as a reliable source? It appears on others as well, Slashdot, dailydot, etc... and it's been an open secret for years. I'm personally old enough to remember him being mentioned in TAP magazine, and back when the original phrack was still being published, even then it was an open secret, the only difference today, is, now he's gotten him self banned from a very well known hacker con because of it. That being said, if you can cite reliable sources to the contrary, you may have a case, but as it stands, the information , as long as it's reliably sourced, should stay. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matter what my relationship to Mr. Draper is, the material is defamatory. Second, libel is a sub-species of defamation. It's a little concerning that you're being standoff-ish about that fact. Third, you sound bias yourself, so maybe that is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You could possibly be receiving money to keep this information up? I identified myself and relationship with Mr. Draper in order to be 100% transparent, so maybe you should do the same. And finally, it doesn't matter how many times and places the information has been repeated as it is defamatory. I'm making a request in good-faith for the editors to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and remove this libelous information. This is my fourth request and have even gone so far as to show how the information meets the legal standard for defamation (of which libel is a type).

Please remove the libelous information about John T. Draper.

Sincerely yours, [User:EMP_Bart] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, User:EMP_Bart/User:2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 Are you talking about me, in regards to getting paid? I sure hope not, you'll need to back that up with something called proof. To be sure, your relationship with Captain Crunch does matter, please take a look at WP:COI and you'll see what I mean. That being said, claiming material is "defamatory " or "libelous" can't be used as a trump card on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources that say that he doesn't do the things he's been accused of, post them, also , be careful of throwing around accusations about people. For the record, I don't personally know anyone associated with this post, nor am I getting paid or receiving any compensation in any form to keep the article in it's current state. Finally, please login with your regular user ID, not logging it, while not in and of itself a violation, might look like one . ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 14:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Draper before I just read the entry, through the link on this noticeboard. Content is well sourced, relevant. It is debatable whether it should be featured so prominently (right now it's several sentences in the lede) but there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed completely.Bangabandhu (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The WEIGHT given to each and every allegation approaches UNDUE in the body of the BLP, and the lead definitely exceeded that standard. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

nabil gholam

reads as a formal press release/paid advertisement with little to no verifiable sources.

Nabil Gholam has been tagged since 2012. Trimmed it right back and tagged it for notability. Could be expanded and he is probably notable enough to survive AfD, but I've no time/interest to expand it. Edwardx (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sole source is SPS from his firm in the first place. Not even close, unless we let every architect auto-qualify as notable. Collect (talk)

Poor sourcing is not a valid deletion rationale. WP:BEFORE applies, and quick searches of Google and Google Books (other search engines are available) suggest that there is enough out there. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Nabil Gholam to take a look at this. Agathoclea (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Brock Pierce

Brock Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just removed some WP:BLP content that appeared to me to be agenda-driven, and largely not about Pierce. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also !admin, can we get a rev del on BLP grounds as well as the fact that the content appears to be copied and pasted unattributed excerpts from the sources. GMG ^talk 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the worst section --- IMO it is intrinsically violative of a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and appears to be intended to attack a person rather than provide encyclopedic information of value to readers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman

Regarding the BLP for Peter Ruckman, apparently his son PS Ruckman Jr. committed suicide right after possibly shooting to death his own two sons in the family home the other day. You can see this information has been added to the Peter Ruckman biography at the tail end of the personal life section (first section in the article). Two questions: 1) Should we be concerned about having that statement before the authorities conclude their murder investigation, and 2) if confirmed, do we keep it permanently in the article? Just so we're clear, my guess is that it's true and he probably did kill his kids, but also keeping in mind that PS Ruckman Jr. is not the main subject of the Peter Ruckman BLP. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Acts of progeny are not generally of encyclopedic value for their parents. If the progeny are notable, their acts belong in their articles. Note that we do not, for example, list "drunk driving" cases of children of notable persons either. The article about the notable person is about that person not children and grandchildren. Collect (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And to elaborate on what was said above, if the child is not notable enough to have their own article, something about them needs to be significant to the parent, other than merely listing them. Bill Cosby's son was murdered and there was significant coverage and impact on Cosby to warrant an article on the murder (Murder of Ennis Cosby), although not for an article on the son himself. Another concern would be Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. This just happened and the impact is unknowable. Per BLP, there are too many questions that can't be answered for this to be mentioned at all in the article. freshacconci (✉) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I note that WP:BLP still applies to the son as the events are recent. The excision I made was instantly undone by an editor who has repeatedly added nugatory material. This biographical article appears, alas, to be basically in the nature of "Peter Ruckman was an evil religious bigot who managed to get his own son to be a murderer" sort of material. Even most of the cites have lengthy quotes about Ruckman which are an eensy bit less than charitable. Will someone please join in there? Collect (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For interested parties, please see Talk:Peter Ruckman/Archive 1#Death of Ruckman's Son. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Jane Golden

The first paragraph of Jane Golden's listing contains this completely unsourced statement: "She is the only hold out to keep up a wildly reviled mural of former Philadelphia Mayor and notorious homophobe and racist Frank Rizzo. Despite public outcry and several vandalisms, she is pushing for the mural to be kept up."

I don't believe this is accurate, but in any event there is no source for these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:700:171:41CC:3C7C:AE04:B5FC (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the obviously non-BLP-compliant statement recently added by another IP user warned them on their user page. Thank you for the notice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnny Antonelli bio

Your bio of Johnny Antonelli states that the Giants traded him along with Harvey Kuenn to the Cleveland Indians in 1960. This is not correct regarding Harvey Keunn. Keunn was in fact traded to the Indians by the Detroit Tigers for Rocky Colavito. Keunn was the 1959 A.L. batting champ and Colavito may have been the 1959 A.L. home run champ. This trade was very unpopular with the Cleveland fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.59.202 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yuka Kuramochi

This article needs a LOT of help. I happened upon it and it's nearly nothing but trivia about her and non notable appearances. Her appearances list is longer than some A-list celebrities. Also a lot of it is in broken English. "Sentences" like "Because her hip size is large, some swimwear and the swimsuit wearing with the passage of time into the butt flesh quickly into nature and always going to "T-back state", so the charm point is called "fully automatic T-back" and has a distinctive commitment such as "T-back never wears"." I don't even know where to begin to fix this, so I'm asking for some help by folks more knowledgeable. That or nuke the thing. As it stands now it's a mockery of Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually nearly every article created by User:CrisBalboa is a mess. Taking this up with ANI here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CrisBalboa --Tarage (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This page is certainly a mess. I'm going to go through and remove most of the unencyclopedic content. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Proper for Japanese Wiki - maybe. Not notable for Wikipedia AFAICT at all. Collect (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're gonna have to look at all of his articles. There are many just like this one. --Tarage (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at small handful, and you are correct. Everything I've seen is very similar to this article. The user has created well over 700 of these articles, of people who are mostly unknown outside of Japan.

I would suggest refining your request at ANI to include more examples, especially since Meatsgains has done some clean-up to this one. At ANI, though, you'll want to be very clear that this is more than just some bad grammar, but we have a lot of BLPs without any sourcing, some are just lists without any real info whatsoever, and where there are sources almost none are in English. I have to agree with Collect, that most of these people are not notable outside of Japan. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I'm not super familiar with BLP stuff so it's hard for me to find examples. I'm going to copy what you said here though at ANI and hope that I can get some more eyes on this. If you wanna stop by and echo my statements that'd be helpful. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is simply post some of the various articles there, so people can easily look them up. (You'll get far more replies that way than by simply saying, go look for yourself.) Zaereth (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

- have started cleaning them up, as they are notable in Japan they should be included in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for your help with this Atlantic306. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick Jr.

Was wondering if some others might take a look at content that IP 96.10.12.142 has been continuously trying to add to the article. The content has to do with an incident between McKissick and his former wife. A source is cited, but it seems quite WP:UNDUE and might be a case of someone trying to WP:RGW. If this incident is inded something meriting a mention in the article, then I think much stronger sourcing (at least more than the brief mentionin the indyweek source) should be provided. It would help though, to know what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that the content that the IP (and others before them) is attempting to add consistently lacks the information that the subject was acquitted of both of the criminal charges that the IP is trying to introduce to the article, despite the fact that their own sources report the acquittals. The IP is clearly interested primarily in damaging the subject's reputation by incompletely reporting the facts surrounding the claims. This has been going on since May 2017. General Ization ^Talk 22:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is that the cited source seems to be (indirectly) quoting McKissick with respect to both the incudent(s) and the claim(s) of acquittal. It does not seem to me to be a factual reporting of the incident, but McKissick’s explanation of it and the reporter does not seem to have tried to confirm what was said (at least, that’s how it kind of reads to me). Now, if someone feels making such a distinction in the actual article content would fix things, then maybe including it could be agreed upon; however, that still seems a bit UNDUE to me and citing secondary sources which better discuss the incident(s) and basing the article content on such sources would be much better In my opinion. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be reading a bit much into the source that may not be there. I only interpret the first sentence of that paragraph as being in the subject's voice. The remainder of the paragraph seems to be in the voice of the reporter, whom we have no reason to suspect failed to verify the material they wrote. (E.g., does not say that McKissick pointed out he's "been cleared of other accusations"; it states that as fact). Likewise the unambiguous "He was acquitted in both cases". In the absence of information to the contrary, I think we have to assume that was verified by the reporter. We agree it should stay out, but not because the source is questionable. General Ization ^Talk 01:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I might be misreading it, but I think the "And" at the beginning of the second sentence is what's causing me concern because it does seems to connect the two sentences. Regardless of whether it's a case of misinterpretation or poor writing, I don't think the source is automatically bad for that reason; I just think it has to be used a little more carefully and that corroborating sources should be also cited. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor appears to now appears to be engaging in WP:SOCK to re-add the content after being formally warned about WP:EW. A WP:RPP has been made for the article (I was in the process of doing it) but General Ization was a bit faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cynthia Ross Friedman

There is a message at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"My" Wikipage., that may require attention in terms of BLP policy. I am simply providing this information, and I do not know anything about the merits of the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Debatably non-self-published straight translations of a blog?

Our article on Hayao Miyazaki currently cites a translation of his son's personal blog in three locations. WP:BLPSPS allows for self-published sources only under very particular circumstances and only sources by the subject himself (not a member of his family), but if "nausicaa.net" (which apparently has an editorial team) publishes what appears to be a straight translation of his son's (presumably self-published) blog, does that satisfy? As for content, two instances could probably be cited to reliable sources (if only in Japanese), but the quote in the "personal life" section (which I will not repeat) seems concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ugh. I just found tracked down the original "blog" here -- does being on the company's official website mean BLPSPS doesn't apply? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A "translation" of a blog can not become more reliable than the original blog. This seems a tad self-evident. Collect (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but with BLPSPS, isn't reliability technically irrelevant? It's a primary source attributed as such inline, which normally would be acceptable except that the policy doesn't allow us to cite self-published sources, reliable or no, and in this case it isn't technically self- published. (I'm playing devil's advocate here; I personally would prefer not to cite it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

James Allsup

I don't want to get sucked in to this myself, but there are BLP violations going on at James Allsup. Some editors want to call him a white supremacist, and have put this in the lead with seven citations to crap sources like Mashable and The Verge. And no context in the article; I suspect he probably rejects that label himself, and that should be noted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the sourcing could be improved, and better sources indeed are available. For example, here is an article in the moderate-conservative Seattle Times (with an AP byline). Here is an analysis from the SPLC. Like you, I'd rather not get sucked into this vortex myself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Manitoba

My edit reporting Dick Manitoba's arrest was reverted yesterday as a BLP violation, stating that we can only add reports of convictions, not arrests.

This is not supported by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.

According to the "People Accused of Crimes" section: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

Dick Manitoba is a public figure - in fact, arguments to suggest he wasn't notable enough to warrant his own article outside of the Dictators were defeated on the Talk page. Rolling Stone ran an article about his arrest, citing the NY Daily News story. You'd have a hard time arguing he's not a public figure.

As far as I can tell, there are two primary sources - Variety and NY Daily News, who both independently confirmed the story. So it meets the multiple sources test.

Also, the sentence in Wikipedia that I added did nothing but report the arrest.

Worst of all, the final paragraph in the Wiki article appears that Dick wrote it himself, as it ends with "We hope to have it in the marketplace soon". I removed this yesterday, and it was reverted - this is not encyclopedic at all. The rest of the paragraph was fine, but that sentence doesn't belong there.

Talk page has not received any response. Looking for this debate to be settled as this has been a fairly negative start to my Wikipedia experience - I read and followed the rules. TravellerInStygian (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I would oppose inclusion at this time, although he has a wikipedia biography, he is relatively unknown BLP says, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If convicted and reported in multiple wp:rs it definitely could be reported here. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers There is contentious source material referring to Christina Hoff Sommers as an anti-feminist, and as a feminist. Past talk discussions have been unable to agree on what to put in the page. Users are attempting to shoehorn in anti-feminist comments, even though discussions going back a year have not been able to agree. The subject in question disagrees greatly with the labeling of anti-feminist. S806 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a IDLI issue to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this going back years. No consensus was ever reached. This is extremely contentious, and Christian Hoff Sommers herself has expressed great disagreement with the labeling. This is especially relevant because there are legitimate sources calling her both, yet only one is allowed in. It's clearly defamatory. S806 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I know enough about Sommers from the issues around GamerGate that we shouldn't ignore the criticism directed towards her as anti-feminist, though that should come after the article explains her views on feminism and why she calls herself on. The article presently does identify that there different realms of thinking around what "feminism" means, so starting with what she says she stands for, then what her critics say, is fully reasonable per BLP and NPOV. --Masem (t) 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why sources labeling her as a feminist are not being allowed? This has all been discussed in the talk archive, and there are sources for both sides (feminist/anti-feminist), but only one side is allowed in. That's the whole point. S806 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing something on the current page that her views aren't being allowed. I do agree both her view on why she considers herself a feminist and those that say she's not need to be presented, but I'm not seeing much of the latter in the article in its current state. --Masem (t) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Christina Hoff Sommers page has been protected four days by User:NeilN. The filer of this report, User:S806, has been blocked as a sock per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist. In case of further trouble the page is covered by WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBGG. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Biss

Daniel Biss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a concern about a statement in the page for Daniel Biss . I don't know him and have no connection with him, but as he is a candidate for political office (contentious Democratic primary for IL governor), he is probably under extra scrutiny right now.

Under "Personal life, education, and mathematical career", there is the following statement: "Nikolai Mnëv, a mathematician at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St. Petersburg in Russia, found that the proof written by Biss in his article was "seriously flawed". When Mnëv found the flaw, Biss did not immediately retract it; it took nearly four years." Reference # [15] is given for the second sentence. Reference [15] is from the personal blog of another mathematician named Doron Zeilberger.

In the blog post, Dr. Zeilberger states "It took the Annals of Mathematics many years to finally accept, very reluctantly, Tom Hales' seminal, computer-assisted, article proving Kepler's 300-year-old conjecture, because they didn't trust computer proofs. It took them only a couple of months to accept a human-generated proof, by Daniel Biss, that was later found, by Nikolai Mnev, to be seriously flawed (and even though the error was pointed out more than five years ago, it took them about four years to publish a retraction)."

Dr. Zeilberger's words are ambiguous as to whether it was the journal, Annals of Mathematics, that failed to publish Biss's retraction, or whether it was due to Biss failing to submit his retraction until four years later. It could have been a combination of delays on the part of both Biss and the journal. However, at least just going by this single source, what is stated in the Wikipedia article - that "Biss did not immediately retract it" i.e. putting the blame solely on Biss - is not correct.

Furthermore, Dr. Zeilberger specifically names his blog "Dr. Z's opinions" - he clearly does not intend for his blog to be used as an academic or journalistic source. (See http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html )

I think this statement, cited only with Dr. Zeilberger's blog post, might violate the policy of Verifiability. The statement makes Biss look bad, and is poorly sourced. Sources should be added to back up the fact that it was actually Biss's fault that the retraction was not published for four years. If no other sources for that statement exist, the statement could be more accurately edited to something like "After Mnëv found the flaw, the retraction did not appear in the journal for nearly four years." - this would be (1) more neutral as it reflects on Biss and (2) correct according to information in the citation.

Ideally, though, there would be another source to even back up the statement that it took four years at all. A mathematician or librarian (which I am neither) could easily look up Biss's original article and its retraction in the Annals of Mathematics and verify that the interval was four years. If it isn't, the statement should be removed.

I'm happy to make the edit if others agree; I'm just brand-new to Wikipedia editing so I wanted to see what more experienced folks thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpunk23 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to that. That paragraph relied heavily on sources that are not acceptable as reliable sources for a biography of a living person, including both the opinion blog and the stackexchange site. Additionally, the claims therein didn't even quite match the sources that were used (i.e., the faulting of the author for not publishing a retraction is, in the source, the faulting of the publication.) For those reasons, I have removed that paragraph. If someone wants to rebuild, they are free to work toward better sourcing, if further information on his retractions is needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, if we could have some more eyes at Daniel Biss, it would be appreciated, as we have an editor who is trying to edit-war in the material without concern for BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You might be referring to a recent edit by User:Mhym, so I've left them a notice of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Response posted on Talk:Daniel_Biss#BLP_matters. Mhym (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

George Groves (boxer)

A Properly Referenced - https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/george-groves-vs-callum-smith-12165929 Update to: George Grove's World Boxing Super Series Schedule Update; is being repeatedly deleted for no specified reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.119.24 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because you're copying and pasting the information from the newspaper into the article. This is a copyright violation. Also, it'd be better to find a more reliable source than the Mirror. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Terry Hall (singer).

I tried to edit the page to reflect the current situation in Terry Hall's life and was rejected because it was not sourced, but a point that I believe is false and is basically Lindy Heymann telling a journalist she is his partner is being upheld. This woman is harassing me constantly and I am his current legal wife. I reported the matter to police because I don't have proof that is of a type you will accept. Sincerely, Heidi Ann Murphy/Lancia Roselya, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.16 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of this claim, the article text regarding Heymann did not accurately reflect the source, and I have therefore removed it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Agnes Kagure Kariuki

This one is alternating between an attack page and a puff piece (it looks like the original author has some COI). I could G10 this right now and probably get it deleted... can an admin take a look and make a decision? --Izno (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Al Giordano

Al Giordano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Al Giordano has been targeted for silly vandalism in the past, but there is a new SPA Botman34[8], aided by an IP with very similar goals and linking style [9] trying to add defamatory material based on rumors reported in Twitter and Facebook and (so far) one clickbait blog, which merely reports in detail the same Twitter and Facebook comments.

Botman34 was warned a few days ago about edit-warring, after which he became more subtle, making a few "improving" edits. These SPAs don't seem interested in wiki policy, what they want is to get defamatory material into the article, even if only briefly. Why? See for example this tweet from around the same time that Botman34 showed up: "What happens when you google your good buddy Al Giordano?" [10]'

If harassment claims show up in RS, then we can discuss adding them to the bio, although the MeToo claims against Giordano seem minor: that he made some inappropriate remarks, that others at his journalism school harassed people, plus several complaints that he asked women students to do things for no pay, which seems an odd complaint about somebody who runs a nonprofit group that needs volunteer help from many participants.

I don't know if it is the same person or not, but around March 4 we had a different SPA DonLemonparty,[11] again somebody who structures newslinks in a very similar way, trying to add the same material.

Semi-protecting the article might do more than continuing to debate policy with these SPAs, but what do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your concern about the sourcing of the harassment claims is a legitimate one. However, the claims themselves are decidedly not "minor." They include allegations that Giordano offered "roofies" to a male student at the School of Authentic Journalism[12], that he sexually harassed and degraded female students[13][14], and that he tried to silence and intimidate his victims[15]. Perhaps you should take the time to review the full allegations before making any more contributions to this page. ~BotMan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botman34 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not follow these allegations on Twitter or Facebook as avidly as you do. Some of these claims suggest serious crimes, for which official complaints to police should be found. If they happened. But until claims are vetted by some reliable source (not just repeated by some random blog), I remain skeptical. The AG bio, which has been on my watchlist for about a year, attracts many people who dislike AG. Until his haters hit the jackpot with MeToo accusations, their recourse (after AfDs failed) ran to "His baggy eyed tired look shows that he jacks off to much" (June 11, 2016[hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Giordano&diff=prev&oldid=725545322]) or "He is a homosexual and a cuckold" (October 8, 2017[16].) The article has been semi-protected several times and set to "Autoconfirmed" in June 2016[17].

Until RS reports on these claims, they do not belong in a Wikipedia BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your preoccupation with Giordano's "haters" suggests a serious lack of neutrality here. It would be helpful if you could limit discussion to the edits in question. As far as your idea that "some of these claims suggest serious crimes, for which official complaints to police should be found. If they happened," I'm frankly baffled. You do realize that many crimes are never reported to the police, correct? That this is especially true in cases of workplace harassment, where victims fear retribution from their abusers? Furthermore, there are many reasons why women choose to come forward with stories of misconduct. Not all women wish to file criminal complaints. Botman34 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)BotMan34

I doubt that we would ever accept a Facebook post as a reliable source for negative BLP content. It is not so clear what to do about a web site like https://lawandcrime.com but you could ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The article on Law&Crime by Colin Kalmbacher does not seem to contain any completed interviews, though Kalmbacher says he tried to contact two of the women who complained. The article content is based on one Facebook post by the person who says she was harassed and a series of tweets from other women reporting their own experiences. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The roofies claim (if true) would be a serious crime. I have several BLPs of people I follow on Twitter on my watchlist, and SPAs trying to add malicious gossip to these articles are a frequent problem for many besides AG. The Internet magnifies many gossip circles, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that do some fact-checking before we include such items in BLPs.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sean Gabb

I nominated the Sean Gabb article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Gabb) on the grounds that the article, as originally configured, failed WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Another user has since argued that Gabb meets the notability criteria due to his role in managing a website prior to the 2001 UK General Election, which did receive notable media coverage (and has included additional references). I'm not sure whether this establishes notability. It would be useful to have some more experienced users comment. Thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the case could be made more for Candidlist than for Gabb (although it would be useful to have a bridging article between Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance - but it could be flypaper for BLP violations or self promotion. JASpencer (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally misgendering people?

I've been doing some MOS fixes on our Japanese bamboo weaving article, and noticed something potentially more serious. This person is definitely male, but someone on Wikipedia seems to have misread his name in an English source that used the simplified romanization "Suiko", which looks like a Japanese woman's name. It is of course OR to talk about some prominent female artisans in a predominantly male industry when you don't even know whether the people in question are female, but is this also a BLP issue? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Screw it. It's unsourced, and obviously inaccurate, so I might as well just remove it. If anyone thinks name-dropping him in the article is important enough, they can do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delyan Peevski

Hello, I noticed a very disturbing behavior on the page of Delyan Peevski. I am a new member of the Wikipedia family and according to Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons must be right. Viewing the history of the page everybody can see that there is a problem. [[18]]. The article is full with attempts to edit. I saw that people tried to add information with source but one user User:Quickfingers continues to delete it. I saw that a lot of users tried to delete information and add GOVERNMENT sources to prove their point but their attempts were blocked. I know that Mr. Peevski is a politician and it is very easy to add and control an article of Wikipedia but he is also a living person and a human being. I saw that in The References category there are archived references /No 1,3/, a template for [citation needed] , just main pages of popular cites /No 4,15/, with no relation to him No /5,6,20/, proven fake news /9,10/ and etc. There is a Germen version for him and the germen article is without any active sources or with the source for a different site /You see the title of the source but the web site is different and not related to this post/ or a blog with personal opinion. The articles make suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damage a living person. They create a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggest that he is a part of criminal activities. This is very serious. Defamation is a crime, saying somebody is part of criminal activities without prove is a crime. Trying to block everybody and undoing their edits from the articles without any reason or reliable source of information is against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don’t think that Wikipedia is the place for political battles. Just a thought in mind: the information of publicly listed companies and its owners is very easy to check. I checked it out in the Bulgarian Commercial Registry http://www.brra.bg/ and it turns out that the statements in the article are fare from the truth. What to do in case like this? Is there an active editor who can see what is happening? Can somebody notify Wikipedia about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaderp6 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jaderp6 I don't see any contributions by you on that page, however, I see contributions by User:Lee-ann-25 who is in a | bit of hot water for reporting a COI on this very individual, and also appears to be gaming WP:3RR by reverting only twice, then coming back to insert the same material the next day or a day or two later. That said, I see nothing improper about the post that was removed, but I can't see the source from my computer, so I don't know if it satisfies Wikipedia's policy as a reliable source. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ R.I.P Trip Halstead 13:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Annex Press

Note simultaneous drive to remove both this person's bio and the publishing company which he directs, Annex Press. Given the simultaneous delete requests it would appear that there is an harassment issue. I found that the article on the Annex Press was vandalized, i.e. most of the links and much of the important information relating to authors published had been removed by a physician, who it appears has multiple issues with multiple wiki contributors. I fail to see any for profit aspect to the articles and lacking proof of this contention suggest that the user / editor 'doc' should desist from further removal of information, or comment upon, unless proof is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideveon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's User:Doc James that Ideveon (talk · contribs) is referring to, and the AfDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Kabza and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annex Press. There seems to be some, possibly quite a bit, of COI editing, eg by Anpresses (talk · contribs). I'm also wondering who Idevon348 (talk · contribs) was who only edited the two articles. The accusation of harassment seems completely unfounded. @Ideveon:, do you have any relationship with the either Kabza or the press? Doug Weller talk 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

hi doug thanks, i don't but his films were shown in my classes art history and film too i have a 2 page c.v. bio. i am not highly skilled wiki user i don't need to conflict but does this guy and his work need to be removed based on your web findings i don't get it. there seem like adequate reasons to allow. you big dudes decide. i've enjoyed contributing and may again if i see new info that's relevant if the page makes it past your standards. enjoy.

Jacksepticeye

Tim Armstrong (executive)

In March 2018, Oath, Inc., of which Armstrong is CEO, fired four sisters working for the platform after it was highlighted that they were daughters of right-wing agitator Pamela Geller.^[1] Oath said in a statement that "The Morning Breath, an Oath social-media show, is being canceled immediately and we have launched an internal investigation and will take other appropriate steps based on the results of the investigation."^[2]

References

^ "Instagram sisters sacked from Oath after being outed as Pamela Gellers daughters". News Ltd. 3 March 2018. Retrieved 3 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)}
^ Maxwell, Tani; Lorenz, Taylor (1 March 2018). "Oath Cancels Show Starring Muslim-Hater Pamela Geller's Instagram-Star Daughters". The Daily Beast.

There are a few problems with this.

First, I believe this detail should be removed from Mr. Armstrong's personal biography, as neither the sourcing included nor any other coverage attributes the show's cancellation specifically to Mr. Armstrong. If it belongs at all on Wikipedia, it belongs on Oath Inc.
Second, it's more accurate to say that Oath cancelled a show that featured two of the sisters. Source: People.
Third, while there is some conflict among the headlines about the reason for the cancellation, People magazine in both its headline and the body of the article make clear that the show was cancelled due to offensive posts by one of the sisters on Twitter, not the mother's identity. By comparison, the Daily Beast article currently cited never offers any textual support past the headline for the claim that the mother's identity was the reason. As it is phrased now, the offensive tweets are not even mentioned.

Can an editor, or editors, review the paragraph and determine if it is appropriate for the article on Tim Armstrong based on available sourcing? My suggestion is that it be removed, or corrected and moved to Oath Inc. Disclosure: I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to make edits to Verizon-related articles on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We had a similar thing elsewhere recently. My person opinion is that business decisions should not be on the biographies like this unless its of direct relevance to the individual. I cant see from the sources there is anything that indicates Armstrong was personally responsible, so if it belongs anywhere its on the Oath article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Cathy Newman

Cathy Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Our article on Cathy Newman, a British journalist, has been the subject of several protracted disputes for about a month and a half now. Following a viral interview with Jordan Peterson, Newman was heavily criticized on social media. She received death threats and a torrent of social media abuse, according to The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Varsity, The Times, etc. Editors disagree on whether we can say that Newman received threats, whether we should include opinion pieces critical of Newman, and whether the depth of coverage we give controversy in the article is appropriate for a BLP. How should we present this material? —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for information, the first part "whether we can say that Newman received threats" was already discussed as well had a 3rd opinion about it, with more-or-less agreement to keep it with attribution. The second part "opinion pieces/non-opinion pieces critical of Newman" is still under discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the talk page, third opinions are not binding. The dispute has since expanded to include multiple editors; there is no clear "agreement" to keep it with attribution. Miki Filigranski has previously used the third opinion to avoid addressing policy-based arguments attribution misrepresents the sources: "doesn't matter...discussion was finished". They have also accused others of conflicts of interest without evidence, and argued a defamatory blog post from The Conservative Woman discredits the threats, despite every existing RS treating them credibly. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 19:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not multiple editors for each of these points, there was an agreement i.e. majority of editors was for the attribution. You should avoid commenting other editors and instead stick to the content. I did not accuse anyone specifically, only warned that pushing of specific perspective could be COI. The article by TCW was used in discussion over a month ago (and not anymore), even 0xF8E8 respected its information until another editor recently questioned the reliability of primary/opinion RS for use in BLP. Not all RS treat the threats credible and without criticism, for example The Varsity, Irish Independent, or other opinion sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of these points are already discussed on the talk page, but I'll provide a summary here. BLPSTYLE guides us to be conservative and source criticism to secondary RS. Book reviews (labeled Indo Review here) are separate from the Independent's reporting. The Varsity says, directly, that there were threats: Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts. I did not respect TCW, but chose to focus on the more general BLPSTYLE/NEWSORG objections already outlined. The diffs concern Filigranski's actions, reasoning and proposals, not their person or character; it doesn't seem accurate to say I'm "commenting on the contributor" as outlined at WP:NPA. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Leila de Lima

An IP editor at WP:ANI says:

I am not a admin or editor. Just some random noob who came across an article and was astonished about the unverifiable claims made without the appropriate sources and written with a lack of neutral viewpoint.
It seems these issues were brought to the attention since 2016 and the article has continued to sit for years.
Things like De Lima finds her son 'inspirational' How is that encyclopedic content? And then this section Justice and extra-judicial killings (EJK) "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences[sic]"
First of all, the section and the underlying content have nothing to do with one another. Two, trumped-up charges is loaded language and no concrete evidence is not a legal standard. Nor does the one article source prove or even indicate her opposition to Duetre is what led to her imprisonment
This is only the most noticeable examples as the article is riddled with similar problems throughout. I hope a neutral admin/editor examines the article and makes the appropriate corrections. Thanks. 72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A few egregious problems have been fixed, but some still remain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

James Milliken

I'm posting this on behalf of Cunydigital , who is now blocked. It probably would have been better if they'd raised their concerns here first.

Hi - This is being requested by Frank Sobrino, Media Relations Director at CUNY. Our office poses a conflict of interest to editing James B. Milliken's page.

CHALLENGED MATERIAL #1 “Upon accepting the appointment to the position of Chancellor of CUNY, Milliken's first controversial 'move' was into a luxury, penthouse apartment located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with a monthly rent bill of $18,000," according to the New York Observer, paid for by the public university system.^[12] Rudin Management reportedly leased Milliken's apartment to the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, a university affiliated nonprofit with the stated purpose of funding research and acquiring university facilities.^[13] Milliken himself no stranger to the perks of higher education administration, according to a 2013 The Wall Street Journal report of his annual financial disclosure statements, showed he had received numerous "personal gifts from donors, alumni and business executives" while at the University of Nebraska, including a pheasant-hunting trip, four Elton John concert tickets, and flights via corporate jets.^[14]^”

OUR COMMENTS: We urge removal of this paragraph on grounds of fairness and context. It smacks of editorializing by someone with an axe to grind and distorts Milliken’s tenure. It leaves the false impression that Milliken has been controversial and been accused of financial impropriety from the moment of his arrival and has accomplished nothing in his four years.

Specific points:

1. The footnoted attribution for the first sentence does not back up the statement that Milliken's move into an $18,000 apartment was “controversial.” The first link is to an article about CUNY faculty protesting outside Milliken’s apartment because they had been working without a contract (for several years before his arrival). There is no mention of the cost of his apartment.

2. Though an article about the apartment is footnoted after a later sentence, there is no support for the suggestion that the cost of Milliken’s apartment was improper. It's a mischaracterization to suggest it was or is regarded as unusually lavish or that it has been an issue during his tenure.

3. The information about perks at the University of Nebraska similarly has an editorializing tone and lacks context -- i.e. are/were these perks unusual, illegal or improper for presidents of major state universities? Further, gratuitously including this Nebraska information in the section about Milliken’s tenure at CUNY appears to be an attempt to advance the dubious claim that exploiting his public positions is a part of his record and reputation. There’s no support for that assertion. ''--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made some small adjustments. The sources are really good (especially the WSJ). I'm not worried about the implications the PR guy is reading; we don't say that anything is "improper" or that it suggests that he "hasn't accomplished anything". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why this was proxyed here. The PR guy is soft blocked. All he has to do is get a new username to advocate his (or is it "our") position himself. There were no libel issues raised. Why are we shilling for a PR hack? I frankly could care less if the university doesn't like the spin. They can learn how to use Wikipedia, work to fix it themselves or they can suck it up. We've got to stop making it easy for PR hacks to get a BOGOF deal on Wikipedia. None of us are here to help the public relations industry earn a living on our volunteer labor. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But we are here to try to ensure that articles on living persons aren't a mess of unencyclopedic trivia-strewn news snippets, parts of which don't even accurately represent the sources cited. MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear -- using sources to make contentious claims which are not clearly so stated in the sources is contrary to policy in the first place. "Libel issues" are absolutely irrelevant, as everyone should know by now. Nor is it improper to avoid "spin" in any BLP -- simply saying We can promote spin, therefore we ought to promote spin or the like is absolutely contrary to common sense and common decency. Collect (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Anna Graceman

The database of the US Copyright Office is being used to support the birth year of this musician, as well as her actual name, as shown in this diff (highlighted, readded text under Early life section ... originally added with this edit, though with modifications made by me regarding the web site source itself). An editor is challenging whether the source is reliable (diff), and since this involves a BLP, I'm looking for justification whether this source can be used to back this kind of information. Even with that, I'm not exactly sure whether to restore the content, given the nature of the information, as the challenging editor has now removed it twice. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to add my point of view here right from the start.

To call the copyright catalog of an official government office a dubious information source is incomprehensible. For copyright entries you need proof of (real) name and birthdate, otherwise you don't get an entry. There can be a lot of money involved with copyrigt claime. If there is one thing for sure, it is that they got the name and the birthdate right. Even though they are not disclosing the month and day for privacy reasons, at least the year has to be 100% accurate.
The entries in the database for (Redacted) include all songs she released until 2016. Compare with the article itself. It is statistically impossible that there is another singer called Anna Graceman who wrote exactly the same songs in the same time frame as the one this article is about.
In the copyright database there is first a contact address in Alaska in the entries. In the later ones an address from TN. The article itself states that AG moved from Alaska to Nashville, TN, making it even more unlikely to be a coincidence. The point the editor is making, that there might be other singers by that name, makes no sense, since he is just assuming without giving a single evidence. The burden of proof is with him, not the other way around.

The question for me is, why he is obviously trying to keep her name and her birthdate a secret, even though there is a reliable source. And this sourse is public, therefore no private information is disclosed that is not available publicly anyway. Even if the birthdate (Redacted) would be right, there is nothing on the official website to support this claim. The name of a link is no proof of any kind. An official government database entry always beats that any time. On top the link provided as a reference is a private link that is not publicly available. A google search reveals that this link is unknown to the web. It looks like as if the link was just created and it would be interesting to know how he got hold of that link out of the bliue, if it is not public and was unknown so far. Especially since he didn't correct the birth year information right away when he reverted the entries two times in a row shortly before.

It is not clear what his motivation is to keep the name and year of birth a secret and maybe he is even connected to Anna Graceman or the family in general, as the link he provided might suggest. In earlier entries he replaced two pictures in the article provided by another editor by two other pictures that he claims as his own work and of which at least one looks like an official press photo.

As much as I am for keeping really private information private, I can not see any harm done by adding her real name to the article, especially since she is over 18 now and no minor anymore, no matter if the birthday is in (Redacted).

After all Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a personal advertising platform where you can add and delete information to your like in order to fit your peronal agenda, even if the article is about yourself. This also applies to the deleted part about the AGT participation. The main reason why this might have happened is, because most references in that part do not exist anymore. The managers of Anna Graceman's social media accounts cleaned out everything lately that is older than 2 or 3 years, as if they want to erase her past in some way. And now the whole part about AGT in the Wikipedia article gets deleted by the same editor who added the two new pictures and deleted the USCO birthday reference without any justification. It almost looks as if the birthday and name dispute was used as a distraction to get rid of that part without raising bigger attention.

I think it is a general question how situations like this should be handled, if some evidence points to unjustified manipulation by an editor who has very likely a connection to the person the article is about. NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What NewWorldOrder2017 is alluding to on the (Redacted) birthday is this edit by Nightshade387 pointing to content in a post from her official website (which all I can see there is a link to a video for her song "Superstar" and nothing else). I'm not so sure we can call this reliable because even in the insertion of the content by Nightshade, after the source, it reads "There is debate about Anna Graceman's actual birthdate". If there is debate about this kind of thing, then the birthday shouldn't even be in the article in the first place, for that reason among others. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Tumblr source that was provided menawhile is a tricky thing. Tumblr entries can be edited at any time again and I am more and more sure that the person the article is about still does neither want to have her real name revealed, nor her birthday and that people around her play catch now with other editors. The latest revert was made almost instantly by an IP from Franklin, which is close to Nashville. Too many coincidences in my book. There is no question at all in my opinion that the USCO is a 100% reliable source. Otherwise we would also have to question if birth certificates are reliable sources. Very strange behaviour by these editors. I am out of this erticle. Like this it is just no fun. As expected her name and the whole part about AGT fell from the truck. Queestion is if Wikipedia should allow to be forced like this to alter the infomration on a page as it happened in this case? NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is applicable here - Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. The US Copyright Office is not an appropriate or acceptable source for personally identifiable information - including birth names or birth dates. WP:BLPPRIVACY is also relevant - we include full names or dates of birth only where they have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Inferring information from URLs is not a reliable source. Unless there is something better, and policy compliant, the information should be removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would go further and say the material should be removed full stop. The argument for using the copyright office is correct in one aspect - they require accurate information. Likewise anyone who has dealt with media personalities knows they lie about their age all the time - with some good justifcation given the rampant age bias in the media. So primary sources are unreliable for age and DOB where there is conflicting information. This does lead to an interesting question in cases like these (which I have not seen answered satisfactorily) if the copyright office has work A registered to person B, can we in biography C say they wrote A when we refuse to acknowledge the registered creator is the same person? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. First problem is, that the term "public record" is not properly defined anywhere. Is it dependent on if a databsse like at the USCO which is accessible for anybody to do ressearch is providing "public records" on the same level as e.g. birth and marriage certificatse? Is it necessary that a pubic record is provided by a government or can it be any other organization? The next thing is that the USCO provides only birth years, not full birth dates, excatly because of privacy reasons. So is just the year already too much? Or is it too little? And last the address argument. The record only gives P.O. boxes and business phone numbers. A P.O. box is practically not usuable to locate a person, since it doesn't let you make any connection to a physical office or private address. The same actually applies to phone numbers.

When I check articles about actors like e.g. Jeff Goldblum, birthdates are never referenced to a reliable source, but they are never disputed. Yet in this case we have a huge discussion if even the birth year is supposed to be in the article (based on a source that is 100% reliable). You find me puzzled over all this. With the same chain of arguments you would have to remove the birthdate of all biographies of living people in Wkipedia.

In the end it is OK to use an article in a newspaper as a reference whose soures are not verifiable at all, but it is not OK to use sources that are 100% reliable by their nature? This makes no sense at all. And when soembody decides to go into show biz, that person wants to be a public figure, otherwiese (s)he would become a cab driver. Being public is what they want, it is what they earn money with. I don't think that a real name and birthdate fall under a strict privacy policy in these cases. The public interest who this person really is, especially in a biography, counts more than being fed lies, even maybe if they are coming form the person the biography is about. Biographies about living people shouldn't be allowed at all then.NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What you really need to do is propose such changes at the WP:RS and WP:BLP policies pages as would allow use of official records being allowed. Absent that, we are stuck using what those policies state. Collect (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Peftiev

Controversial contribution of user:Czalex introduces WP:BLP problems, specifically:

Poorly sourced exceptional claims (accusations and allegations of human rights violations and backing a dictator are linked to Russian-language web publications with no significant weight or not sourced at all).
False balance of information attempting to equalize media allegations that support critical accusations with decision of General Court (European Union) that dismisses those accusations.
Due to false balance and poor sourcing, possible violation of WP:NPV.
Due to previous points, a problem of potentially libelous and defamatory article.

Discussion is still in progress with no obvious consensus, assessment from BLP perspective is required. More info on article's talk page. 93.84.44.122 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users with no prior Wikipedia contribution are trying to delete well-sourced information about an oligarch - while leaving the obviously self-promoting glorifying unsourced parts of the article, telling about Peftiev's charity and hobbies.

The information the anonymous users are trying to delete refers sources such as:

Official EU documents accusing Peftiev of being a sponsor of the Lukashenka regime (doesn't matter if the accusations were lifted later)
Malta Today stating that Peftiev may have Maltese citizenship
Wikileaks
France24, one of France's top media
Ogonyok, one of Russia's top magazines, the detailed article about Peftiev was written by Pavel Sheremet, one of the best-known post-Soviet journalists
Charter97, Narodnaja Vola, major independent Belarusian publications

These are reliable sources, removing information citing them is a direct violation of Wikipedia principles.--Czalex 20:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Judith Hallett

(Setting out my involvement, for transparency.) A controversies section was added to the Judith Hallett page, which in itself falls foul of BLP guidance, and also uses weasel words. As the page is one that our project edits (the controversies section addition was not made by one of our project eds), on 18 March we put a note on our project discussion board asking one of our eds to integrate or remove when time allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Women%27s_Classical_Committee#Judith_Hallett_page

Since then, the section was removed, probably by a newbie. This has been reverted by other eds several times now and is an edit war. The addition of the controversies section does seem to me to have problems, but given that it's a page that our project is involved with, I think it's better if more neutral editors could look at this please. I don't have access to the sources cited so can't fix the weasel words problem either.Claire 75 (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not simply change the section heading, at least for a start? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The section appears to be non-notable - not even hitting the importance of "he said / she said" for a BLP. "Controversy" sections are almost invariably a "bad idea" and where they are written as badly as this, ought be excised. Collect (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree in principle RE Controversies, Hallett's conflict with Heath/Hanson was well covered. There are plenty of sources out there that went into detail about it - albeit mostly book reviews related to it. here and here for example. There are quite a few more. But its about classics, so its hardly going to be mainstream. Of course when you start linking people who have savaged your work with the unabomber it tends to get a bit more press. If anything the Wikipedia coverage could have been written more strongly and still not been a BLP violation. If there was an article dedicated to the classics conflict (rather than the people involved in it) the content would certainly be easily reliably sourced. Adler's 'Classics, the culture wars and beyond' (which was used as a source for the WCC content) on Hallett's biography is specifically about the inter-classics conflicts and goes into extended detail - including Hallett's involvement in it (WCC) and her conflict with Hanson/Heath. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The controversies section at permalink is a shocker. The content is pretty bland—the shock is that such silly stuff should be in a biography (a 1987 protest "accomplished little"; someone claims Hallett was wrong in her comments in a 1999 spat in a webforum). Beam me up. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen J. Yates

This article lacks substantive background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isp561 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Isp561:, it would be helpful if you specified in some way what substantive background information you believe is missing. Some links to reliable sources that substantiate the missing information would also be useful. Your request kind of expects a group of volunteer editors to guess what you think should be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Smith (cricketer)

"Steve Smith admitted to Ball Tampering" has been added in the very first line in his wiki page. This incident just broke out, and should be analyzed further before adding it on to his wiki page. Moreover, Steven Smith did not tamper the ball himself. He apologized on behalf of his team's leadership group for his teammate's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.192.8 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it, it doesn’t belong in the lede. It might warrant a mention in the body of the article but that can be worked out on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I took out the new section that was added to the body as an unsourced BLP violation, as well. Page protection has been requested by Daiyusha Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Jan Grabowski (historian)

Non-involved editors needed at Jan Grabowski (historian) and Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Grabowski (historian).

Grabowski is an award winning,^[1]^[2] Canadian historian who has received positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals,^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] described an "eminent Canadian historian" by CBC,^[8] coverage is generally favorable (as well as pretty wide) in mainstream English language media (as may be seen with a simple google-news check). Grabowski however has faced criticism from Polish nationalists which has even led to death threats,^[9]^[10] possible per the BBC part of "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media".^[11]

Our article at present has been tagged with a POV tag (without a clear rationale), and is filled with quite a bit of negative criticism from WP:FRINGE/WP:BIASED sources (mostly non-English sources). The article at present contains approximately 2120 words of prose. 261 words describe 5 positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals. 639 words (or 30%!!!) describe 4 negative comments namely 110 words for Polish historian Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed response in Haaretz to an article in Haaretz,^[12] 37 words for Historian Piotr Gontarczyk speaking on Polish Radio 24 reported via the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl,^[13], 201 for words Łukasz Męczykowski (per [19] a PhD in humanities that is a fan of tanks and the British Home Guard and who is a school teacher) on the website/blog histmag.org,^[14] and 291 words for Bogdan Musial in a Polish publication.^[15] The latter two are of particular concern - inclusion of Męczykowski on histmag.org does not seem DUE under any reasonable standard. Bogdan Musiał on the other hand is known, however he is quoted without context, he is described in RS as belonging to an "ethno-nationalist school",^[16]^[17] as treating Żydokomuna (Judeo-Communism) not as an antisemitic canard but as historical reality,^[18] and has made widely repeated comments on Jewish religious beliefs.^[19]^[20]^[21]Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "Hunt for the Jews snags Yad Vashem book prize", Times of Israel (JTA), 8 December 2014.
^ "Professor Jan Grabowski wins the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize", Yad Vashem, 4 December 2014.
^ Himka, John-Paul. "Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland.", East European Jewish Affairs, (2014): 271-273.
^ Redlich, Shimon, "Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland, by Grabowski, Jan, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2013", Slavic Review, 73.3 (2014), pp. 652-53.
^ Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland, by Jan Grabowski (review), Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Journal of Modern History, vol. 88, no. 1, March 2016.
^ JAN GRABOWSKI. Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (review), Rosa Lehmann, The American Historical Review, vol. 121, issue 4 (1 October 2016), pp. 1382–83.
^ [Jan Grabowski, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (review)], Michael Fleming, European History Quarterly, pp. 357-9, April 11, 2016.
^ U of O Holocaust scholar says he's a target of Polish 'hate' campaign, CBC, 20 June 2017
^ International historians defend Ottawa scholar who studies Poland and Holocaust, Vanessa Gera, The Associated Press, 20 June 2017
^ Canadian historian joins uproar in Israel over Polish Holocaust law, CBC, 20 Feb. 2018.
^ Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past, BBC, 3 Feb 2018
^ The Polish People Weren't Tacit Collaborators With Nazi Extermination of Jews (opinion) Grzegorz Berendt, Haaretz, 24 Feb. 2017.
^ W polityce.pl Ważna refleksja dr. Gontarczyka: "Nie ma wątpliwości, że zbrodnia w Jedwabnem była przede wszystkim skutkiem nawiedzenia tych ziem przez dwa totalitaryzmy"
^ "Jan Grabowski – Judenjagd. Polowanie na Żydów 1942-1945" – recenzja [review by] Łukasz Męczykowski [1]
^ "Judenjagd – 'umiejętne działanie' czy zbrodnicza perfidia?", Dzieje Najnowsze: kwartalnik poświęcony historii XX wieku, published by the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences, vol. 43, no. 2, 2011.
^ Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe, edited by John-Paul Himka, Joanna Beata Michlic, page 433
^ Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, edited by Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, Kai Struve, page 87
^ Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, edited by Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, Kai Struve, page 69
^ The Dark Return of Polish Anti-Semitism, Commentary magazine, Ben Cohen, 16 Feb 2018
^ The Holocaust as a "substitute religion". Bogdan Musiał in "Sieci": It is not about historical facts, but about faith. So it's hard to be surprised by Israel's reaction, wpolityce, 2018
^ "Holocaust a substitute religion for Judaism." Professor Bogdan Musiał about the hysteria of the Israelis, Pch24, 9 Feb 2018

Icewhiz's description of the issue is blatantly false. The criticisms are mostly from reputable historians who specialize in the topic and who've published far more on it than Grabowski has. For example Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute. Hence, Icewhiz is simply not telling the truth when he claims that these are "FRINGE" sources (indeed, it's sort of the other way around - while there has been some praise for Grabowski's book his finding stand in complete contrast to existing research and literature and as such are fringe themselves). In fact, when it comes to his comments about Bogdan Musial, Icewhiz is pretty much violating BLP himself. Musial is a very reputable historian and a specialist in the area of Polish-Jewish relations during WW2. He is also NOT a "nationalist" (he is in fact regularly attacked by Polish nationalists for not being pro-Polish enough). Icewhiz went and found a throwaway line in one source which lumps Musial in with some others, but that is clearly not enough to label someone as a "ethnonationalist". At the end of the day, it's true that Grabowski has been criticized by some "nationalists", but he's also been criticized by non-nationalists, and the former in no way invalidates the latter.

I should add that Icewhiz has been relentless in pushing a particular POV in this and related articles. Particularly disruptive and concerning are his constant references to other editor's ethnicities and especially his demands that we use ethnicity as a criteria on which to judge the sources (basically he appears to think that articles about Polish history should not use Polish sources - funny how nobody ever shows up to French history articles and demands that all French sources are removed, or British history, or Italian history, etc. - unless he personally approves them). The WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of his edits makes me think that a topic ban from Polish-Jewish relations might be appropriate although I'm not sure if it's risen to that level yet (and it's also true that there's a few disruptive IP accounts on these articles which are busy pushing an opposite POV).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to how "has a PhD in humanities" is suppose to be a point against a scholar. History as a discipline IS part of the Humanities!!! Basically, Icewhiz appears to be complaining that a particular source actually studied what is being discussed! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have referenced every single assertion regarding Musial above to a RS. Nothing wrong with being a PhD in humanities filling teaching roles (per his histmag.org profile) posting on a website/blog - this does not make a notable opinion for inclusion. I have not commented on editor ethnicities, and I believe we should use diverse sources (and have commented on this subject when we have not - on locations that are not part of Poland today one should note).Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Gagnon

This article reads like self-promotion, or at least puffery. I'm also not sure it meets the notability requirements.

I have trimmed the worst excesses. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Trim some more. There appears to be no noticeable actual news coverage of this pastor. Press releases in a local paper and an SPS fail, as far as I can tell, to establish genuine notability. Heck, AfD is in order I fear. Collect (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've spent as much effort as I think the subject justifies. I certainly wouldn't contest an AfD. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

After further removal of off-topic discussion and puffery, I reduced the article to two sentences, and submitted it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gagnon. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Douglas V. Mastriano

This article, Douglas V. Mastriano, is filled with laudatory, poorly sourced promotional material about a congressional candidate in central Pennsylvania. Mastriano -- one of seven candidates for the seat -- is a retired Army colonel and author, but his actual portfolio is far too thin to warrant this sort of gushing coverage.

It includes a segment on education that lists four unverifiable master's degrees, helpfully noting that "Mastriano was awarded the 2009 Eastern University Alumnus of the year in 2009 in St. Davids, Pennsylvania."[3]

The "Strategist" section is vastly overlong, consisting mostly of reprinted material from his academic thesis. The "Congressional Candidate" section fails to note the most notable aspect of his candidacy -- his willingness to campaign in uniform -- and includes largely fluffed-up assertions such as "Mastriano is considered an expert on Russia and the NATO security situation in Eastern and Northern Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristine2 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pristine2:, this definitely has every appearance of being put together either by the subject or some-one close to him. Half the edits and 60% of the text were contributed by Majorbuxton, a single-purpose account who has edited on almost exclusively about Mastriano. A large portion of the text about the subject's accomplishments is cited either to either a participant's biography for a symposium at Norwich University or to an article in a very small, extremely local newspaper from the same town in Vermont where the symposium took place. I am certain that the bulk of this was contributed to those outlets by the subject. Many of the other cites fail verification since they do not demonstrate what they are claimed to. For example, the statement about him being a "...much sought after [sic] public speaker..." can at best be considered sourced to a video of a one-time C-SPAN Book TV appearance. Large sections are completely unreferenced and can only have been added by an editor that knows the subject personally. For these reasons, I will be editing large sections out as failing the Biographies of Living Persons and Promotion policies. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There may have been some good material deleted in some of those puffery reduction edits – e.g., that he is an Eagle Scout and served in the first Gulf War and Afghanistan – although there was a lot of junk there that really needed deletion. I added a list of other publications. The section about his military honors is completely unsourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh Smith,

I am new to Wikipedia (Oliverdue)but a huge fan of Tricia Walsh Smith, so my first edit was her page as some of the information was incorrect. Unfortunately I have had my edit repeatedly undone by an editor called Oakshade. He has somehow stopped me revertng the page back to my version. As I am new I don't know how to get around this so I'm making an official complaint. I feel Walsh-Smith's page isn't non partisan and has a spiteful slant. It should simply state facts, not be detrimental to her reputation. I edited out "Dancing around London in bondage gear," a throwaway line regarding her Bonkers video. The song "Bonkers", is the theme song of the first play "Bonkers" that she wrote. She does not dance around London in bondage gear, she dances around London in jeans and tee shirt. The tone of "Dancing around London in bondage gear," is derogatory. I also removed material regarding her divorce as once again the tone was mean spirited and parroted peoples opinions. The wiki policy quite clearly states, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if it is potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue." I hope this can be sorted and Tricia Walsh Smith gets a page that is fair and no longer mean spirited. Thank you, Oliverdue Oliverdue (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"User called Oakshade" here. First of all the above user has refused to participate in any talk discussion of this issue already started on the talk page and has chosen just to edit war.

There are so many things wrong with this user's contention, I don't know where to begin.

Firstly the above user removed the sourced by The Times sentence, "Its video featured her in bondage gear and dancing around London" - not "Dancing around London in bondage gear" as Oliverdue claims (see straw man).

Secondly, and most importantly, they also removed over 7,000 bytes, mostly from the extremely heavily sourced "Divorce from Philip Smith" section [20][21] which not only is a very basic statement of facts and reporting on the analysis and influence of this case on the legal community, plus it's sourced by The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times, New York (magazine), CNN, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and MSNBC in which none are tabloids as Overdue claims and are some of the most respected news sources in history.

I should also point out regarding that sentence on the video, the (terrible) actual video itself shows her in bondage and dancing around London.[22]--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Kirsty Gallacher

Two queries.

Firstly, is this an acceptable paragraph? Note the quality of sources and see also: Sky's Kirsty Gallacher sues The Sun over 'embarrassing' story headlined: 'Thirsty Kirsty TV collapse' Press Gazette

In December 2016, Kirsty Gallacher suffered an attack live on air which included the slurring of speech^[1] and her collapse. She was rushed to hospital for tests and found to have been suffering from "extreme exhaustion and a viral infection".^[2]

References

^ Gallacher, Kirsty, possible virus attack. ""Slurgate" madness". Birmingham Mail. Retrieved 24 December 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Kirsty, Gallacher, alcohol denial. "Kirsty Gallacher denies being drunk on Sky Sports news". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 24 December 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Secondly, is this paragraph undue?

On 12 August 2017, Gallacher was stopped by police in Eton near Windsor Castle, breathalysed at the roadside and arrested. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out.^[1] On 4 September 2017, Gallacher was banned from driving for two years, ordered to serve 100 hours of community service, pay £85 prosecution costs and an £85 victim surcharge.^[2]^[3]

References

^ "Kirsty Gallacher admits drink-driving in Eton". BBC News. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
^ "Kirsty Gallacher claims she was suffering from divorce stress when she was caught three times the drink-drive limit". Telegraph. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
^ Kirk, Tristan (4 September 2017). "Kirsty Gallacher handed two year driving ban after being caught three times over drink drive limit". Evening Standard. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

Pinging editors that have reinstated this material: Dream Focus, Newroderick895, Arjayay, Davey2010. --94.117.77.132 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

An IP address, I assume this same guy, was reverted three times on most of the articles he edited on so far. So I figure just vandalism, he removing a lot of reference text. This is the only time I reverted him anywhere, and I said why in the edit summary [23] (It reads :She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out.). So part of the large amount he removed should've been left there. I didn't bother reading all of it since the person just seems like a vandal. If you wish to discuss and remove one section at a time with a valid reason given, so be it, but don't go rampaging around cutting out large amounts at once. Dream Focus 17:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Only I didn't start "cutting out large amounts at once", rampagingly or otherwise. There were four separate edits: [24][25][26][27] It was all restored in one edit by user:Davey2010. --94.118.53.218 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So you admit you are the same guy who just got blocked yet again? Someone block this IP address as well please. Dream Focus 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, how is this vandalism exactly? --94.118.53.218 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, but most importantly, notwithstanding the quality of the references, is the IP arguing that any of the statements are incorrect? If so, which, and on what grounds?
As for the first section, people may remember the slurring, or the Sun article about the slurring, without knowing that she subsequently sued the Sun. If they read the article, and there is nothing about it, they may assume the worst; whereas to cover the event, citing medical reasons, protects her reputation. Maybe we should add suing the Sun?
As for the second, if it was just an accusation, it clearly would be undue, and would fail WP:BLPCRIME but to be found guilty of a criminal offence only 6 months ago, and for which she is still serving a ban, seems reasonable to include. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So every arrest, no matter how minor, is recorded on every BLP? You say It is "reasonable to include" because it only happened 6 months ago? Would it therefore be unreasonble to include if it happened earlier in her career? How much earlier? Arrests are fairly common; I don't know if celebrities are more prone to them, but we do know the media likes reporting them. It would get more than a little unwieldy up in here if every biography utilized all the info out there. Unless they are particularly unusual, or can be shown to have had an impact on the subject's career via secondary sources, arrests should be left out. --94.118.53.218 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

My main reason for reverting was that I didn't really see any valid reason for its removal at that time, The incident was heavily reported and as such I felt it should be reported, That being said a few celebs don't have drink-driving incidents on their article yet they too were heavily reported on, Ofcourse every celeb makes a mistake and in this case there was no job lost and no consequence in terms of her job and so I do agree with the IP in that we don't need to report on every little cock up a celeb makes .... but then again this could all simply be a case of the BLP wanting to removing "negative" content from the article .... In some ways I feel as if the content is there to simply "shame" the BLP and nothing more (On a side note Ant McPartlin also drank & drove however the stark different between these 2 blps is that one is in rehab and been axed from the television show they host for now as well as being axed from a TV advert deal (ie there's been consequences for one) where as the other has been banned from driving and had to pay a fine .... See what I mean ?). –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Note the IP is Hillbillyholiday evading their block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll start with, I know about how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias because it changes daily (like a newspaper in a way). However, we don't want to be a newspaper and report newpaperish things. I think we should strive to report things that are themselves notable yet significant in the scope of the subject's overall life and career. To help decide, I'd ask myself, is this information that --as written now-- will be significant to this person's article say ... 5, 10, 100 years from now? If not, then it seems to fall in the category of trivia; perhaps newspaper-worthy, but likely not encyclopedia worthy. I'd try to keep in mind that we should strive to be better than many of the sources we use. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

N.B. : Contentious material should not be reinserted until after consensus is reached. And often large amounts must be removed, by the way. Wikipedia is here to be fair to the victims or subjects of BLPs, not here to make sure that they are properly punished. Is the person notable for the crime? And is the amount of space taken up for the crime proportional to its importance? That is what the editors on that page must weigh. Collect (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus from editors not evading their blocks, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Violations of Wiki BOLP guidelines in Tom Fitton page

In violation of Wiki policies on the biographies of living persons, this page does not have a neutral point of view and is negatively biased. In fact, the page focuses almost exclusively on alleged controversies and criticisms to the exclusion of a neutral discussion of other work related to involvement in a national, non-profit organization.

[[28]]

Thank you, TF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.118.42 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy sections are generally to be avoided, and we don't consider opinion pieces as good sources for facts about living people and their views or behavior -- especially with words like "lunatic ravings". So I have re-organized the article, re-worded some content, and removed one opinion piece. Others may wish to have a look over what's left. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans has now edit-warred this all back into the article -- not the first time they have been re-inserting this and similar content in the same article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You complained about a "controversy" section and an op-ed by a WaPo columnist referring to Fitton's ridiculous attacks on the FBI as the "ravings of a lunatic". The controversy section has been removed and the op-ed has also been removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Andre Birleanu

The personal section of this article has been subject to repeated attempts by IPs to delete it, which have been reflexively reverted by established users. Looking at the section more closely, despite some sourcing I think I tend to agree with the IP, especially the comments about the mother of the subject's child. I declined a request to protect this page, and brought this here to see if others agree. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed some material which was inadequately sourced by far. It needs further work, some is undue and some is inadequately sourced still, and some is nearly incoherent. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've also condensed the page by removing WP:UNDUE, promotional, and unsourced content. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Gary Null

Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor claiming to represent the subject of this article has posted at its talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See a new entry at ANI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_Legal_Threat_at_Talk:Gary_Null

Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A Google search does show him as Null's lawyer. He should try to work with us on the talk page, one point of contention at a time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

His contention is that the article correctly describes Null as a quack and having that information easily available makes it harder for him to con the desperate.

His individual points are just the same overwhelming flood of bad-faith nitpicking that we usually see in such cases. ApLundell (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Rebekah Mercer

Resolved

– a citation that verifies the claim has now been added

Rebekah Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Copied from Talk:Rebekah Mercer#Citation needed for politico claims page:

I've tried twice to add a citation needed in the Donald Trump section, for a claim I am unable to find a source for. Each time it was removed, the first time I assumed by mistake. The claim is:

Some said[who?] she had not favored Corey Lewandowski as possible Republican National Committee chair and that Lewandowski had reportedly resisted paying for services from data firm Cambridge Analytica–a company funded by the Mercers–early in the campaign, though a close associate of Mercer's denied the stories.

Where is the source for that? The editor reverting my tag included the comment "see footnote 13 - footnotes aren't needed for every sentence", and footnote 13 is https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-rebekah-mercer-227799

I cannot find "Corey" nor "Lewandowski" in that article. What am I missing? There are mentions in https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-tech-data-fundraising-224865 and https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-campaign-corey-lewandowski-manager-224536, are they the sources? Please understand I am trying to verify claims made to meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -84user (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC) -84user (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe this dispute (actually a misunderstanding) was readily resolved at article talk. There was no reason to take it here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson

Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Khaled Malas

I believe the artist/architect/art historian Khaled Malas is notable. I also believe that his article has been written from a neutral point of view. i do not support the placement of tags by an albeit more experienced wikipedian than I.~~Articgoddess02~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articgoddess02 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that lots of iffy material removed as not being of specific relevance has been reinserted. This BLP has problems, and, since I am officially banned from acting, I am asking others to examine this. Collect (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (TV producer)

This probably needs more oversighting, e.g.[29] MaxBrowne (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's some on the talk page as well, where an editor requesting removal of the material has innocently copy-pasted it. MPS1992 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Felix Sater, again

Protection on Felix Sater has expired (applied by CambridgeBayWeather, 29 August 2017 [30]). We have some problems and I don't want to cross 3RR myself.

[31] - first introduction of blog as source for controversial information
Special:diff/832620526 reintroduced
Special:diff/832735853 reintroduced again (apparently logged out)
Special:diff/832891133 reintroduced again (apparently logged out)

See my request for non-use of this oddball source on the article talkpage and warnings on the editor's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Restore those edits. They're based on a court filing in the subject's lost appeals case, and are entirely factual as the article states using this public record [Source redacted] and the original source video from MSNBC where subject lied about his violent felony conviction. "Oddball"? What has that got to do with factual sources. Attacking the messenger is the province of those who cannot attack the message, nor the facts. Whomever reversed those edits should be banned from Wikipedia. Facts matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Take it up on the article talk page. Having a source is necessary, but how and whether to use it needs to be discussed and agreed upon. --Jayron 32 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Where facts come from also matter, and it is a clear violation of BLP to use court documents. See: WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a month. I'll let others sort out the particulars of the content issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Don Marion Davies 1917-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Marion_Davis[[32]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.170.120 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ip user, did you have a question or suggestion to make about this article? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Steven Christopher Parker

Steven Christopher Parker Hello, my name is Steven Christopher Parker and I am the subject of the wikipedia page. A business owner who is trying to harass me recently made a request to delete this wiki page in an attempt to hurt me professionally. Please ignore this attempt, as it is without cause or meaningful reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scparker888 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

While both the WP:PROD and WP:A7 deletion attempts have been ended for technical reasons, this does look like a page that might not survive a proper Article for Deletion attempt for notability. I will not be starting it myself, but others may want to take a look. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And the user who was seeking deletion is blocked for the nonce. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Carroll (Lottery winner)

Hey look at that. Somebody made a mistake and were perfectly willing to admit they were wrong when it was pointed out to them. Next time consider raising the issue on the user's talk page, where things can generally be handled more quickly and with less fuss. Thanks everybody for their input. GMG ^talk 20:22, 30 March 2018 (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.

With this edit/blind revert, Oshwah has added unreferenced material to a Biography of a Living Person. Including details of where their bank accounts are/were held.

[33]

Is this acceptable behaviour for an administrator? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Being an admin has nothing to do with it. This appears to be a content dispute. Oshwah asked you to take it to the article's talk page in his edit summary and I've done the same thing in mine. Please do not re-do your edits to the page a third time. Please, instead, start a talk page thread on the article's talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. And BLP policy trumps a "content dispute". Why have the both of you added unreferenced and probably undue material? Why don't *you* start the discussion rather than blindly reverting? Isn't it better to be cautious when it comes to BLPs? And why should I ask at a barely watched talkpage? Surely this is the correct venue for BLP problems? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct - BLP requirements must always be complied with, and the burden of reason always lies on the person whose adding or restoring the content. Content in dispute on a BLP is typically kept removed until any consensus is established stating that it should be added. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like while I was posting here, you were re-inserting your preferred edit a third time. Please self-revert and start a talk page thread. David in DC (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite rightly, too. There are a number of issues with the version that Oshwah and David in DC are inserting. "Carroll had a bank account set up with St. James's Place Bank (Division of Halifax at the time)" is unsourced. It removes a cite and adds the unsourced "a phrase that he emblazoned on his black Mercedes van". The section about him being banned from driving has a source that is a dead link. The IP is correct, please don't revert them again. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm...@Oshwah: since no one appears to have actually notified him of this discussion. GMG ^talk 19:36, 30 March 20

Everyone above is correct; the version I restored was problematic and the content in question is unreferenced and should not be live on the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with the IP on this - his preferred version removes uncited or questionably cited tabloid trash, so nobody should sanction him for anything per WP:3RRNO. I have been concerned that Oshwah wades into situations without assessing them (eg: Tony1) and causes all manner of mayhem as a result. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Me three. The I.P editor is on target. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 19:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's either take Oshwah to arbitration or forget he exists, dropping in on any Oshwah themed conversations just to whine on and on and on about Oshwah is making you look like a petulant child who is upset that they aren't getting that ice cream cone with a 99 Flake. Nick (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2018 (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.

J. Roberto Trujillo

Self published, does not conform to standards of verifiability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.81.183 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Main page on April 1

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Quick straw poll on faux politician trio. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Help needed at Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark

Please see this thread about adding personal information unrelated to the article topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is already a section above called Shooting of Stephon Clark. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delyan_Peevski

[2] ttps://public.brra.bg/checkups/default.ra?

[3] ttp://mc.government.bg/index.php?l=2

[4] ttp://mc.government.bg/page.php?p=58&s=429&sp=67&t=63&z=436

[5] "Instagram sisters sacked from Oath after being outed as Pamela Gellers daughters". News Ltd. 3 March 2018. Retrieved 3 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)}

[6] Maxwell, Tani; Lorenz, Taylor (1 March 2018). "Oath Cancels Show Starring Muslim-Hater Pamela Geller's Instagram-Star Daughters". The Daily Beast.

[7] "Hunt for the Jews snags Yad Vashem book prize", Times of Israel (JTA), 8 December 2014.

[8] "Professor Jan Grabowski wins the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize", Yad Vashem, 4 December 2014.

[9] Himka, John-Paul. "Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland.", East European Jewish Affairs, (2014): 271-273.

[10] Redlich, Shimon, "Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland, by Grabowski, Jan, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2013", Slavic Review, 73.3 (2014), pp. 652-53.

[11] Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland, by Jan Grabowski (review), Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Journal of Modern History, vol. 88, no. 1, March 2016.

[12] JAN GRABOWSKI. Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (review), Rosa Lehmann, The American Historical Review, vol. 121, issue 4 (1 October 2016), pp. 1382–83.

[13] [Jan Grabowski, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (review)], Michael Fleming, European History Quarterly, pp. 357-9, April 11, 2016.

[14] U of O Holocaust scholar says he's a target of Polish 'hate' campaign, CBC, 20 June 2017

[15] International historians defend Ottawa scholar who studies Poland and Holocaust, Vanessa Gera, The Associated Press, 20 June 2017

[CbcUproar-16] Canadian historian joins uproar in Israel over Polish Holocaust law, CBC, 20 Feb. 2018.

[BBC201802-17] Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past, BBC, 3 Feb 2018

[18] The Polish People Weren't Tacit Collaborators With Nazi Extermination of Jews (opinion) Grzegorz Berendt, Haaretz, 24 Feb. 2017.

[19] W polityce.pl Ważna refleksja dr. Gontarczyka: "Nie ma wątpliwości, że zbrodnia w Jedwabnem była przede wszystkim skutkiem nawiedzenia tych ziem przez dwa totalitaryzmy"

[20] "Jan Grabowski – Judenjagd. Polowanie na Żydów 1942-1945" – recenzja [review by] Łukasz Męczykowski [1]

[21] "Judenjagd – 'umiejętne działanie' czy zbrodnicza perfidia?", Dzieje Najnowsze: kwartalnik poświęcony historii XX wieku, published by the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences, vol. 43, no. 2, 2011.

[22] Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe, edited by John-Paul Himka, Joanna Beata Michlic, page 433

[23] Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, edited by Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, Kai Struve, page 87

[24] Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, edited by Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, Kai Struve, page 69

[25] The Dark Return of Polish Anti-Semitism, Commentary magazine, Ben Cohen, 16 Feb 2018

[26] The Holocaust as a "substitute religion". Bogdan Musiał in "Sieci": It is not about historical facts, but about faith. So it's hard to be surprised by Israel's reaction, wpolityce, 2018

[27] "Holocaust a substitute religion for Judaism." Professor Bogdan Musiał about the hysteria of the Israelis, Pch24, 9 Feb 2018

[28] Gallacher, Kirsty, possible virus attack. ""Slurgate" madness". Birmingham Mail. Retrieved 24 December 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[29] Kirsty, Gallacher, alcohol denial. "Kirsty Gallacher denies being drunk on Sky Sports news". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 24 December 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[BBCgallacher-30] "Kirsty Gallacher admits drink-driving in Eton". BBC News. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[Telegraph3xlimit-31] "Kirsty Gallacher claims she was suffering from divorce stress when she was caught three times the drink-drive limit". Telegraph. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[Standard2yrban-32] Kirk, Tristan (4 September 2017). "Kirsty Gallacher handed two year driving ban after being caught three times over drink drive limit". Evening Standard. Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]