Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive272

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

Brock Pierce

Needs eyes. The use of "Fled" and "claims" seems problematic at best, but the tenor of the "scandal" material in the BLP strikes me as a tad iffy as well.

Within three years, DEN, never having made a profit and having exhausted its venture capital, collapsed and Pierce fled the U.S. with his two co-founders when a number of former underage DEN employees made sexual misconduct allegations against them.[5][6] The three were arrested by Spanish police before being returned to the US. Though Pierce was not ultimately charged, his partner Collins-Rector was convicted on multiple counts of child enticement involving boys.[6][7]

Pierce claims that for two years he had no idea that he was being sued over his conduct towards the DEN employees, and that the default judgement issued against him was dismissed.[8]

Opinions? Collect (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion given on article talk. In short, remove as guilt-by-association. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark Wnek

User Anaclysma has added summaries of court material to the biography and argues on the help pages that this fulfills 'Neutral Point of View', and 'not research' WP guidelines. I think it's contentious material. The entire article very is poorly sourced and not very neutral, I will try and make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frakkler (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Frakkler: you don't get to write a hagiography like that on Wikipedia. Fix it, or someone else here will. We do not need all this nonsense, but nor do we need the current material. MPS1992 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: I would appreciate the help in cleaning the article up, now that I have added sources and removed some of the ost obvious non neutral phrasing. Not sure how long the article has been like that. Thank you. Frakkler (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Frakkler: I found a lot of non-neutral phrasing still there, and I have culled the worst of it. I suggest you restrict yourself to adding wikilinks (see WP:WIKILINK) in what is left. There are several missing. Someone might visit your user talk page shortly to say many angry things about possible WP:COI. MPS1992 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you for doing that, the entire page needed an overhaul so I started with adding the missing references which were easy to find. To be clear, I wrote exactly zero of the current page. I guess trying to fix a page is enough to be accused of WP:COI? I have added obviously missing wikilinks to the page now, which in turn lead me to more messy biogrphy pages I will clean up. This is a neglegted area. Frakkler (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have mis-read your earlier involvement in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Bradd

Jacob Bradd has attracted news coverage in Australia recently, having just turned 18 and graduated with Honours in Mathematics and is moving to the US to start a PhD at Penn State. He was doing algebra at age 5 and calculus in year 3. Coverage in the last few days from ABC News with photo and video content, and from the Illawarra Mercury, covers his achievements. He was the University of Wollongong's youngest undergraduate and received news coverage from the Sydney Morning Herald in 2014/2015. He was also covered in articles in 2012 on Pedestrian TV and again in the Herald. He's been discussed in the light of supporting highly gifted children and made comments on the differences in education at schools and uni (quoted in SMH).

From this quick search, there are multiple reliable sources independent of him that focus on him, over several years, and so he meets guidelines for inclusion. On the other hand, he's only recently turned 18 and apart from his age, his achievements aren't remarkable. I'm asking for some feedback on (a) whether he qualifies for a bio and (b) if he does, whether one should be created. I note that Mangoe has mentioned AfDs in this area above but without examples, and so specifically invite comment from that perspective. Any and all opinions / comment invited. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you with regard to, in particular, the achievements. He has an undergraduate degree in what, for some systems, would be two or three years early. That's it. All sorts of good or bad or amazing things could be in his future, let's discuss the good or amazing ones when they happen. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally AFD's in this area are about minors rather than adults. While the press coverage is there, it needs to be assessed in context - Australia is still a relatively sparsely populated country compared to most, so achievements (albeit justified) tend to get exaggerated in local news. Finishing a degree 3 years early is impressive, but its not that rare. While it technically would pass GNG, a biography would pretty much be of the 'quite clever, graduated early' kind at this point. And if they never do anything else of note, would you want a biography on wikipedia stating you were a semi-prodigy? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Macuja-Elizalde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Macuja-Elizalde

Who named Lisa Macuja-Elizalde as prima ballerina? Source and name of the person who named her as a prima should be noted. One can only become a prima if named by another prima ballerina, or a prima ballerina assoluta. For example, Maniya Barredo was named a prima ballerina by prima ballerina assoluta Margot Fonteyn.Qwerty dvorak (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS for your claim that "prima ballerina" is a title awarded only by other prima ballerinas. According to Wikipedia it can denote someone who has been a company's principal dancer. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Its both a term of art as well as literal rank within a company. Its also used differently in different countries depending on the context. Ballet dancer has sort of a description of it. I think Querty is correct for some countries (it wouldnt surprise me if Russia was more formal about the rank being conveyed) it would require something of the sort. But I dont think its universal. But the only sources in the article just state she is one, but not when she became one. Which is sufficient for our purposes but not fantastic. She was the principal dancer of the Kirov from 84 - 86, so in terms of skill and prestige, she would certainly be prima ballerina level. Its also trivial to find sources that refer to her as a prima ballerina. But they do tend to be used in context as an accolade. When they refer to her career they tend to use the more specific principal dancer. This may not necessarily be true in other language references. But again for our purposes, her description as a prima ballerina is easily sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Majid Adibzadeh

It appears that user:Pareparvaz has created 7 Wikipedia pages (in 7 languages, including Arabic, Azerbaijani, English, French, German, Persian, and Spanish) about himself, Majid Adibzadeh.
By the same token, this user took the same approach on Wikimedia and Wikidata, and there were other attempts to expand the number of languages covered (in Hebrew, Russian, and Turkish), but apparently, the pages were removed (or abandoned). See user:Pareparvaz global account information. Although failure to disclose the conflict of interests is important; however, that is not the main issue here.
The true issue is the systemic manipulation of the system for including the biographical information of someone, who certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria for a living person.
As an academician in Iran, I can confirm that Majid Adibzadeh he does not meet the notability criteria per se. He does not have any academic affiliation, does not have a history of employment in a higher education institution as a member of the faculty or research, and does not have an ISCED level 8 degree.
In addition, after looking him up in both Iranian and international research repository and indexing services, it can be confirmed, he does not have publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, likewise doesn’t meet the highly cited scholar criteria.
It appears that he is credited as the author of 6 books; none of the titles were published by an academic or scholarly publisher. Being relatively familiar with the concept of writing book synopsis, review and criticism in Iran, the coverage of his publications is not truly independent, and most importantly they do not cover the author. It is also worth noting that many academic journals, media outlets, and forums publish book synopses, reviews or criticisms; that does not essentially guarantee the book’s significance.
Finally, I checked all the authority records related to Majid Adibzadeh, and these records do not imply the adequate notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. It should be noted that both predatory and on-demand publishers can also deposit the bibliographic metadata. For instance, Amazon’s CreateSpace, although not predatory, technically publishes almost any content and the metadata would be deposited to the relevant authority records databases and libraries.
I believe this issue should concern all the inter-related pages, otherwise, the removal of the English page and the survival of the article in other languages remains problematic. Rahiminejad (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For the English Wikipedia you could suggest a speedy deletion under WP:A7 but I am not sure that would be uncontroversial: see WP:SIGNIFICANCE for the criteria. Alternatively take a look at proposed deletion via WP:PROD. None of this would or could solve the problem of other languages as each Wiki has its own processes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability..Pareparvaz (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

and see: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareparvaz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that Majid Adibzadeh has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" or that he meets these other criteria. That's the point. And given your pattern of editing you should declare the nature of your links to him. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

He is a writer. look at this reviews: [1] [2] and other resources in farsi:[3] [4] and more resources in farsi [5]Pareparvaz (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Merely being a writer does not make him notable. He doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:AUTHOR or at WP:ACADEMIC or at WP:BASIC. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A significant number of articles and reviews (secondary sources) of his works have been covered.Pareparvaz (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Passing mentions by sources like Iran Book News Agency don't count. And given your pattern of editing you should declare the nature of your links to him. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Iran Book News Agency is notability. Or Sehepunkte is so notability. Plus so many independent articles and reviews (independent secondary sources) in Persian (Including deep resources and reliable sources). In Wikipedia:Notability Said: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and in any language." Pareparvaz (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Pick the two or three sources which you think most clearly demonstrate that this person is notable. These should be sources which meets the criteria at WP:IRS, such as "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." and "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.". Then explain how this contributes towards demonstrating notability: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Provide a quotation of the precise passages from each source which you think demonstrate notability. If these passages are not in English then provide translations as well as the original text. Note that sources which merely establish that an author exists or that certain books were published do not establish notability: you have to provide evidence of significant discussion of the topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:AUTHOR: 3. "The person has created ... such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Like these:

Hossein Farasatkhah, "knowledge and the political: Refers to the idea of democracy knowledge" Etemad newspaper, number 2070, Persian date 14 mehr 1388 (6 October 2009).

Zohreh Khorsandi, "Majid Adibzadeh: Fertile Modernity and Unproductive Thinking", sehepunkte magazine 14 (2014), Nr. 5 (15. 05. 2014)

Iran Book News Agency, "Adibzadeh surveys humanities and modern enlightenment institutions in Iran" Thursday 15 November 2012, Story Code: 154520.

M. Dehbandi, "The Humanities in the challenge", Ketabe Mah Tarikh va Joghrafia magazine, Persian date Shahrivar 1391 (August 2012), No. 172, pages 51 to 55.

M. Hoseinzadeh, "The Genealogy of scientific thinking in Iran", Ketabe Mah Tarikh va Joghrafia magazine, Persian date Ordibehesht 1393 (April 2014), No. 192, pages 63 to 65.

Iran Book News Agency, "Modern rationalism in Iran", Sunday 29 November 2009, Story Code: 56069.

Etemad newspaper, "The history of modern rationality in Iran", Persian date 20 esfand 1392 (March 11, 2014), No. 2919, page 7.

Shargh newspaper, "Iran's new order" year 11, No. 1960, Persian date Sunday 4 esfand 1392 (February 23, 2014), page 8.

Farooq Maghsudi, "on the sidelines of the release of the book The uprisings of the rationalization at the dawn of modern Iran", farhikhtegan newspaper, Persian date 29 bahman 1392 (18 February 2014), No. 1317. p 12.

Or:

[6] and [7] and [8] and [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and [17] and [18] and [19] and [20] and [21] and [22]

He is a writer and significant independent secondary sources covering his works and his thoughts. deep and reliable sources.Pareparvaz (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just repeating the style of the article, spamming a pile of links in the hope that one of them might work. Pick out two or three of these sources which you think most clearly demonstrate that this person is notable. Explain how these sources meets the criteria at WP:IRS. Then explain how this constitutes "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Provide a quotation of the precise passages from each source which you think demonstrate notability. If these passages are not in English then provide translations as well as the original text. Note that sources which merely establish that an author exists or that certain books were published do not establish notability: you have to provide evidence of significant discussion. And, of course, the right place to do this is at the article itself, or on the associated talk page, not here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think deep covering his thoughts And deep covering his works is enough in Notability for writers. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Category:Iranian writers. Pareparvaz (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And see notable libraries in the world: Harvard University and Princeton University and Princeton University and Princeton University and University of Chicago and University of Chicago and University of Chicago and www.idref.fr and National Library of Sweden and WorldCat and Library of Congress and Sudoc and Open Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareparvaz (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Application of BLPSPS to YouTube videos that aren't technically self-published?

I made this edit before I was fully aware of WP:BLPSPS. I don't think it technically applies, since the statement is attributed to Martin but was published by Yale Divinity School, but I'd kinda like a second opinion anyway, especially given this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the same issue, Hijiri 88, which has recently recurred for me in the situation I described above (permanent link). Statements by the subject (especially verbally in video-recorded lectures and speeches) seem to be the strongest possible primary source, including for information about the subject. Regarding whether the source qualifies as simply a self-published biographic source, I think that has more to do with whether the source is considered reliable. WP:BLPSPS is just a stricter form of WP:SPS, which is about prohibiting a type of unreliable source. Given that Yale Divinity School is a reliable source, I don't see why the source you used should be avoided on those grounds. The only relevance then is whether the source is officially from the school.

In situations like these (but probably not this situation), it seems the most compelling consideration would be whether it violates the subject's privacy, since the speech or lecture may be recorded without their consent or knowledge and thus an otherwise private symposium in which private details are shared is treated as public information. That is, for example, the crux of concern for the issue I'm facing, whose source is also a video speech published on YouTube (though mine was published by an obscure independent video producer that covers local community events).

Ultimately, I would not exclude the source you provided on verifiability or WP:BLP grounds. It's basically a biographic primary source. If the subject were to publish it, the source would arguably be considered an uncontroversial self-published autobiographic source (unless a friendship claim is a "claim[] about third parties"). For your edit, I think the determining considerations are whether it is noteworthy enough to mention, whether it is sufficiently non-private information which is not so obscurely published that it may not respect either subject's privacy, and whether it is adhering to WP:BLP policy as applied to the other subject (in this case, Dale Martin). So long as it is, what policy or guideline basis is left for justifying exclusion? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC); revised 01:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (the 'Off-Guardian letter')

I would counter that the quoting of the Dr Stephen Davies letter directly [23] constitutes an abuse of primary sources contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY (as seen on the pro-Russian propaganda site 'Off-Guardian' [24] [25] [26] [27]), not to mention of course copyright violation as it was quoted "in full"! The letter was also (informally) confirmed by a Salisbury-based named Blogger (Rob Slane) [28] (with Dr Davies himself, personally) as having been subsequently edited by the Times, rather than Dr Davies's original letter published in full. [29] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

It was an open letter, which means copyright is a red herring. Also as he is a recognized professional in the area so it is not a violation of Primary, as his is an expert opinion. So the only issue is BLP, how does it violate it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Except it was NOT a quote "open letter" unquote (which is usually unedited and is usually reproduced in full), but a "letter to the editor" (which is usually edited primarily for the reason of space and is usually NOT reproduced in full), that's the whole point! Do you even know the difference between the two?! (Here in the UK, medical and patient confidentiality means actual 'treating' (front-line) doctors are not allowed and would not be allowed to issue any such so-called quote 'open letters' unquote anyway!)

Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice

Under normal circumstances there is no basis for disclosure of confidential and identifiable information to the media. There will be occasions however when NHS organisations and staff are asked for information about individual patients. Examples include:
• Requests for updates on the condition of particular patients, e.g. celebrities;
• In distressing circumstances, e.g. following a fire or road traffic accident;
• In circumstances where a patient or a patient’s relatives are complaining publicly about the treatment and care provided.
Where practicable, the explicit consent of the individual patient(s) concerned should be sought prior to disclosing any information about their care and treatment, including their presence in a hospital or other institution. Where consent cannot be obtained or is withheld, disclosure may still be justified in the “exceptional” public interest. In distressing circumstances, care should be taken to avoid breaching the confidentiality of patients whilst dealing sympathetically with requests for information. Where a patient is not competent to make a decision about disclosure, the views of family members should be sought and decisions made in the patient’s best interests.
Where information is already in the public domain, placed there by individuals or by other agencies such as the police, consent is not required for confirmation or a simple statement that the information is incorrect. Where additional information is to be disclosed, e.g. to correct statements made to the media, patient consent should be sought but where it is withheld or cannot be obtained disclosure without consent may still be justified in the public interest. The patients concerned and/or their representatives should be advised of any forthcoming statement and the reasons for it. There is a strong public interest in sustaining the reputation of the NHS as a secure and confidential service but there is a competing interest in ensuring that the reputations of NHS staff and organisations are not unfairly and publicly maligned. Disclosures need to be justified on a case by case basis and must be limited to the minimum necessary in the circumstances. In some circumstances a “dignified silence” in the face of media enquiry, may be the best approach for the NHS to take, depending on the nature of the case involved.

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Where does this claim of "propaganda" fit in? Doesn't that letter just contain some useful facts? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that ONE SINGLE letter (which was 'compressed' (edited) by the Times BTW rather than the actual letter) has been given vastly disproportionate prominence... there is no particular need or reason for it, unless, you are following what 'OffGuardian' https://off-guardian.org/ (aka the Russian Embassy, London) been telling you and have been following their narrative, 'rather what 'the Establishment' wants you to know' and all that guff... The fact also is that even Deborah Haynes, one of the two original authors of the Times article reporting the (supposed) 'open letter', has since openly attacked on Twitter the Russian Embassy (and letting it be known to them) for repeating twisting her and her paper's work. Just for the record, do you personally consider RT and RT Ruptly as no more and no less reliable as say the BBC or Sky News?!

Wrong. Mr Wallace was referring to PA article about several suspects having been identified. Not our article about GRU. Another distortion (by you).

[31]

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you've over-reacting. Yes, source may be primary, but it's basically just facts. Whatever Deborah Haynes has done or said since, on Twitter, is really of no consequence here. This seems to be now turning into WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed the forum to decide on the veracity of a particular quote in relation to BLPs, I think you got that right there! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"PLEASE SHARE TO HELP COMBAT SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP"... [32] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not shout ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I was merely repeating what those pro-Russia trolls on Off-Guardian have been saying. Why are you twisting my words here?! And see also [33] (Page 2 of about 25,270,000,000 results (1.47 seconds)) and also https://www.stopfake.org/en/putinatwar-trolls-on-twitter-battles-on-twitter-over-the-skripal-poisoning-case/. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I just wanna tell you that shouting is no good. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

So just exactly what do you have to say about that letter, and the fact that it had been deliberately and maliciously circulated 25 BILLION times on the Internet in order to push a particular narrative?! Well?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your "25,270,000,000 results" equates to "maliciously circulated 25 million times" (or even 25 billion). You're starting to rant now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A reference was given for The Times, a secondary source. "Blogger (Rob Slane)" is not a WP:RS. Reproduction of the letter is allowed under fair use for quotation, critique or review; it has no financial impact on the copyright owner; and we have given acknowledgement to Dr Davies. Firebrace (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying Rob Slane should be quoted on the article (again, twisting my words again here!) ... WP:RS does NOT prevent the use of supporting material, outside of the main article space, in order to challenge the veracity and reliability of sources cited in the main article space ... WP:WikiLawyering ... Do you at the very least concede and accept the fact that that was in fact an edited 'letter to the editor', rather than an unedited 'open letter'?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference you think it makes (if the letter has been edited). All the relevant facts are in the published letter. Firebrace (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also do with have an RS (or the person concerned) saying this letter was altered in a substantive way?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

All this talk of propaganda and stuff is incredibly confusing. Frankly I had no idea what you were complaining about after reading this whole discussion and our article. Only reading the blogmire link above made me appreciate what I think you are complaining about. As I understand it, your concern is that the specific part of the letter that is quoted in our article has been misread by some to mean that the 3 people i.e. Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the police officer were also not affected by the nerve agent. If this is true, that's unfortunate but I don't think there's anything we can do about it, especially if the only sources we have for it are the blog and any wacky conspiracy sites that make the claim. Our article is abundantly clear that those 3 people were affected. Frankly I don't think excluding the quote is going to affected what people who believe such nonsense believe. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The original source is from The Times, but it is behind a pay wall. So, the conspiracist's website is used simply to give the reader free access to the quote. I'm not sure what the IP editor's exact concern is either. The letter to the editor is an official statement from that emergency department to clarify the degree of public risk/exposure. I'm also not sure the IP editor understands that a letter to a newspaper for publication is not private, and furthermore that since specific identities of the 40 other people was not revealed, that confidential information was not released. MartinezMD (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

McCafferty (band)

McCafferty_(band)

This article violates the policies regarding the biographies of living persons, as one user continuously has been inserting defamation-related comments and gossip about a living persons in the article and using broken Twitter links as their source. After numerous attempts of trying to revert the edits, the user continues to edit the false information into the article. This article should be protected to prevent this false controversy and any other edits to the page from being made. The issue is that a registered user is the one making the defamatory comments, so a full protected was requested from the living person themself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1127:1B6:9423:14B3:C147:A073 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article has been page protected by Black Kite Jim1138 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II)

This article to large extent is only based on primary sources and doesn't offer much of secondary sources I invite any of you to have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum_(II) , which is strongly connected to the Herve Jaubert article. This article is beyond poorly sourced and over-quotes what is essentially the same source via proxy sources countless times. More or less all information in this article is only dependent on a (!)youtube(!) video of the person in question and posts made on the website "detained in dubai" - as far as I can see all other sources are derivatives of these. That is almost every "secondary" source quoted has as its only source said youtube video and a website of the company "detained in dubai" that is strongly involved in this case, too, and therefore a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:F1AB:EEE7:6B05:1757 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above account seems only to be used to draw attention to this issue, the article does indeed seem to be a hotchpotch of allegations derived from primary sources and based on a single media report and its proxies. It could really do with being looked at by an experienced editor? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC) @Alexandermcnabb: the article borders on incoherency -- very unclear sometimes as to what it is saying or implying. Until quite recently it was WP:OWNed by a pair of editors, one of whom is now indefinitely blocked due to perhaps unrelated issues. I had earlier given up on making sense of it, as pretty much every edit I made was reverted by one or other of this tag team. (Not to mention the mess on the talk page). Other editors seem reluctant to get involved. Perhaps the experienced editor who can improve this article is you -- with help from others here? MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe we are still having this conversation, not too helpful to delete it! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This page got damaged some edits back, and then incorrectly restored, so some edits may have been lost. If any of your edits have been lost then probably best just to restore them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we're good - my last comment above was from the period of the great deletion, when I was trying to work out quite what was happening and why someone would want to delete so much of the page! However, the request for someone experienced to look at the Latifa Maktoum page stands - I don't think it's me, I don't have the BOLP experience to unravel it, IMHO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Entirely agree that it's a mess. I tidied up the early parts of the linked Hervé Jaubert article, but when his story gets to this point I just gave up in despair at trying to work out what actually happened. Clearly something major did happen, but nobody authoritative is prepared to say much on the record. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Bastiaan

Can we please have some more eyes on this article? It has been attracting one or two determined political opponents of his throwing in poorly sourced stuff ranging from trivia to outright defamatory, and they're endlessly reverting several people from WT:AUSPOL. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have now learned Australians use "Victorian" or "(Victoria)" a tad inconsistently. Interesting, in a way. Collect (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I know we're heading off-topic, but as a Victorian, I'm interested. Care to elaborate a little? (Go to my Talk page if you think it more appropriate.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the stuff that seemed irrelevant, promotional or intrusive. I reordered some of the text in the section about his political career. I'm not actually certain this person is notable, they haven't held significant public office and I'm not certain the coverage firmly establishes it either. Sometimes the best way of dealing with BLP issues is to remove the article completely... Shritwod (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shritwod: I've nominated the page for WP:AfD here. Feel free to discuss. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, we can test the notability question then.. Shritwod (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

James Gunn Tweet Controversy: Two Paragraphs in Question.

I do not think that of all websites, Wikipedia should "shoot the messenger" by noticing in two paragraphs, one at the beginning of the James Gunn page and one at the very end, that a person who was Right Wing found these tweets which centered on Gunn being a child molester, and not even notifying anywhere that he's joking, which is part of dark humor, writing bad things as if they are true. Gunn also knocked Transgender people and homosexuals, two groups not usually linked to Trump or anyone who is in cahoots with him or his administration. Here are the two paragraphs, the first:

In July 2018, social media personality Mike Cernovich retrieved a number of tweets that Gunn had written between 2008 and 2009, mainly jokes relating to rape and pedophilia. These tweets were met with substantial criticism, and led to Walt Disney Studios severing ties with Gunn and firing him from the upcoming third Guardians of the Galaxy film.[3]

It really shouldn't matter who uncovered these tweets. It's amazing to most that Twitter would even allow such content in the first place. The real news here is that he wrote those tweets, and he apologized.

This paragraph is the biggest problem.

Disney's decision received criticism; actors Dave Bautista, Selma Blair, and David Dastmalchian, comedian Patton Oswalt, director Joe Carnahan, musician Rhett Miller, and Rick and Morty creator Justin Roiland, among others, all defended Gunn.[42][43][44][45] A fan petition urging Disney to re-hire Gunn gathered over 210,000 signatures.[46] Several media outlets noted the strong support Gunn received, due to the tweets being a decade old, the apologies he had made both before and during the controversy, and the controversy being caused by an alt-right activist in response to Gunn making critical comments about Donald Trump, with We Got This Covered stating "Of course, that’s not to say the studio will reverse their decision, but it’s clear that there’s an overwhelming amount of support for James Gunn right now."[41][42][47][43][48]

It goes right into backing up all those in support of Gunn, which is just opinion. Even using quotes, this has little to do with the problem at hand where a celebrity writes about being a child molester and knocks homosexuals.

You guys need to really check about putting political bias on articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefearmakers (talk • contribs) 10:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We are not at liberty to judge what the original tweets meant or implied, that violates OR. So we can't assume he was serious or not. We're to document the controversy which means 1) identifying the notable figure that brought them up, the reaction by Disney to kick him off GotG 3 for them, his response and apology, and those that supported him. None of the text in the two paragraphs suggest a biased view of how this has been documented, and simply stating events that have happened without issuing any judgement. The only thing I see really missing is talking about the side of the story that compares the situation to someone like Rosanne, but that's a NPOV-ish issue, not a BLP issue. --Masem (t) 16:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue it isn't that we have too much material on his defenders (as Masem says, that would be a NPOV issue), it's that the controversy ballooned in the article to occupy about a third of the lead and a section so big it was about the same size as the section about his 20-year high-profile film career. I've substantially cut it down, but I suspect we'll see a lot more activity from both sides working to expand it in a particular direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

True, there's potentially a weight issue, but part of that is lack of coverage of the 20-yr career, and just a tad bit of recentism on the controversy. But it's not so far off to call the article broken or is desperate need of BLP intervention. --Masem (t) 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Cassandra_Clare

A controversy section has been added once again, with weak justification, by an account that has no other edits in the past three years and a blanked talk page. Would be good to review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.65.123 (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pakistani propagandists category

Now that there is a highly controversial election campaign underway in Pakistan, a new Category:Pakistani propagandists has been created. Thus far two television hosts have been added to it. Shahid Masood in particular doesn't seem to have any sourced mention of his being a propagandist in the existing article about him.

I'm not sure that being a controversial television host commenting on political matters, or even having worked for the government in media roles, makes one a propagandist. To draw a comparison, the corresponding category Category:British propagandists has justifiable inclusions like George Orwell (who worked as a propagandist), but it doesn't include people like Philip Gould, Baron Gould of Brookwood, Peter Mandelson or George Galloway.

Is the inclusion of television hosts in this way, compatible with WP:BLP ? MPS1992 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The name of the category seems very POV and inappropriate to WP:BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I've emptied the category which could be nominated for deletion. Jonathunder (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

mutter* Creating categories should be an advanced user-right... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

David Zingler

I created this page for myself back in 2005 under the username Dlz28 (I have forgotten the password and can't access that account). I do a moderate amount of free lance work in the Twin Cities area, but the money is minimal and it is not my full time job. When I created this page, it was kind of a joke between a friend and I. I am not a journalist and believe the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlz75 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You apparently weren't logged in at the time. It's somehow managed to dodge WP:A7 all this time. I've gone ahead and deleted it on those grounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Justin Rowlatt

There's been another minor "controversy". At first I tried to amend the article Justin Rowlatt to reach NPOV. Then I realised it was all kicked up by the Daily Mail. Would someone else be able to have a look, and if need be, strike out the section? There is a very bad-tempered comment on the talk page too. Thanks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo seems to have removed the section. I looked a bit, and can't find coverage beyond the Daily Mail, so per WP:DAILYMAIL we leave it out until other sources are found. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim has been re-added, sourced this time to a paragraph in an opinion column in the Shropshire Star, just after the expression of the desire to rip the head off an irritating character in an advertisement.[34] It seems to be a re-telling of the Daily Mail piece. Is this appropriate for a BLP? "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ramesh Balwani

Ramesh Balwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Team:

The page, Ramesh Balwani, does not adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. I believe it is a personal attack.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Balwani

The entire article is negative, focusing on one aspect of this person's life. It is slanderous and reveals personal information regarding the person's date of birth.

Please remove it immediately. Thank you for your expeditious resolution of this matter.

Kind Regards,

Danielle Gaines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaines2000 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dgaines2000: I've removed the year of birth, because there was no reliable source cited for this information. The rest of the article appears to be based on a book about Balwani or articles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other similar newspapers. Accordingly, I don't see the BLP issue. It is also not written anywhere near the tone of a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the following statements from the biographies of living persons policy, kindly remove the page 'Ramesh Balwani': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Balwani

This page has clearly been created to disparage the subject and reads like a sensational, news article -- clearly in conflict with the BLP policy. It is not a true, living biography. It is unfair and unbalanced. The tone is completely negative and some of the writing is framed to put a negative bent on all subject matter. For example,

1. "Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani is the former president and chief operating officer of Theranos, a privately held health technology company founded by his girlfriend Elizabeth Holmes." She is no longer his girlfriend. This is a false statement.

2. Also, "He cashed out his shares in Commerce One, pocketing nearly $40 million shortly before the company went out of business..." The wording paints a negative and inaccurate picture of what actually occurred and over what period of time.

3. And, "...Balwani's reported behavior. He was described by former Theranos employees as overbearing, uncompromising, demanding and so secretive and worried about industrial espionage that he verged on paranoia." This statement is purely conjecture, based on subjective viewpoints.

4. Etc. -- The page is strewn with this type of inaccurate and negatively framed writing.

I repeat myself, this page has clearly been created to disparage the subject and reads like a sensational, news article -- clearly in conflict with the BLP policy. It is not a true, living biography.

Per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy:

"Attack pages Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see #Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaines2000 (talk • contribs)

The author of the book, which is used for the source about the description of Balwani's behaviour at Theranos, has written for the Wall Street Journal. I am thus inclined to assume that his interviewing techniques comply with responsible journalism, and that his book is reliable, unless you can provide specific evidence to the contrary. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Luke Nash-Jones

Smartin Mellner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a vandal, who deleted almost this entire article, with many references to credible third party news pieces and other articles, and leaving in place a few inaccurate lines.

The name Smartin Mellner is a reference to Martin Sellner, who leads a white supremacist outfit Generation Identity that failed to launch in the UK and is known for aggression towards Nash-Jones. Clearly, "Smartin Mellner" has taken offence to this accurate sentence, and seeks to censor the truth:

"However, he is despised by the actual far-right, for his objection to their calls for an 'ethnostate' white homeland." [35] [36] [37]

Sunni Dawah is a real person - he's a prominent UK advocate of Sharia law, as can be seen in the referenced video.

That window cleaner doesn't look like Luke Nash-Jones - spurious claim. No evidence he has the name Benjamin. He has been referred to in the article as "Luke Anthony Nash-Jones". [38] However, his actual name is Luke Menasheh ben Jochanan. He is a Jew, and hence the anti-Semitic hate towards him here on this Wikipedia page. [39] Grandparents Polish which he speaks. Often waves Israeli flag at rallies in London. Videos of him cheering for Israel at US embassy protest. He shortens "MeNASHeh" to Nash. The Hebrew word "Nasi" means for Prince, hence he claims to be the "Prince of Kekistan". [40] He works with popular Jewish activist Avi Yemeni [41]

Nash-Jones stood for election [42]

The tweets posted above don't refute that Nash-Jones is the nephew of the UKIP NEC member Elizabeth Jones that he is often seen with, speaks at his events, and who often features in his YouTube broadcasts. There is much to suggest they are releated: [43]

Nash-Jones is a Zimbabwean if he is the "son of a Rhodesian". He has clearly stated more than once that he is "African", for example this video at 1 minute 15 seconds. [44]

Auric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see above, regards Smartin Mellner - both are anti-Semitic trolls.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibossmaninit (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Before I look into anything else, as an immediate solution you can develop the article in your userspace. Simply create a page like User:Wikibossmaninit/Draft. Short of WP:BLP violations, you generally get to decide who can edit there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Response

The name Luke Benjamin Jones

This is a snapshot of Luke "Nash-" Jones's LinkedIn profile. It's clearly him, look at the picture and the history at Birkbeck, University of London. Note, too, that he states he works at Tamesis Data Ltd. Here's a snapshot of Tamesis Data Ltd's website, containing two pictures of Jones. Here's the Companies House entry for Tamesis Data Ltd, showing that the sole director of the company is a Luke Benjamin Jones, born April 1985. No "Anthony", no "Nash".

Window Cleaning

Here's another picture of Jones from the window cleaning website. Taken a few years ago, but a striking resemblance to Luke "Nash-" Jones.

2018 local elections

Here are the results for the May 2018 local elections in Basingstoke and Deane. Nobody named Luke ran as a candidate; the only Jones was a Doris Jones who ran for the Liberal Democrats in Brookvale and Kings Furlong. Of the two Brighton Hill wards, Brighton Hill North had no UKIP candidate and Brighton Hill South was contested for UKIP by Michael Phillip Thompson.

Relation to Elizabeth Jones

Jones the second most-common surname in England and Wales. There are no reliable sources that Luke Jones and Elizabeth Jones are related, and Luke Jones's Twitter account has ridiculed the claim on three occasions. Burden of proof is with the claimant, etc.

Zimbabwe

The claim removed from the draft article was that Jones was born in Zimbabwe, not that he was of Zimbabwean descent. One of Luke's Gab accounts has stated that "Both sides of Luke's family lived in Wales for centuries".

Ad-hominem attacks and accusations of anti-Semitism toward me and another user

Baseless. Smartin Mellner (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Emma Husar

I am having difficulty including well sourced and policy compliant material to an article. As a fairly new editor I am being constantly belittled by a couple of editors one in particular User:HiLo48 who think they know best and have for some reason taken a personal dislike to me. I have read policy a few times now and cannot see why the edit was reverted. Admittedly I have made some mistakes while learning, but I have genuinely tried not to edit war and when I've been wrong quickly admit it. I'd appreciate if some very experienced Wikipedia editors could decide if this sentence is able to be included. It is this diff that was reverted. [45] I simply added this sentence with 3 reliable sources. "It has also been alleged by former staff that Husar used the taxpayer-funded limousine service inappropriately" I thought it was a decent edit as this story is headline news around the country. I didn't think you needed consensus for every edit before making it. It was a new edit. I had never made it before. I Spent quite a while sourcing it. I risk being further belittled by a couple of editors here which makes me nervous and I risk them focusing on me rather than content but it's a good edit and I'm hoping there are some experienced editors here that can determine based on policy if the edit should go into the article.Merphee (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

At the least, WP:NOTNEWS. Will it still be in the media in a year or two when discussing her? We don't know and it doesn't necessarily seem likely (which isn't our place to guess at anyway). This is an encyclopedia not a summary of news stories. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

First off, its only an allegation. Even if proven to be true, it still does not seem notable enough worth including. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we remove allegations of workplace bullying as well then? The story has been running in Australia as headlines news for ab a week now. The limo allegations are being covered almost as much as the bullying allegations.Merphee (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that Merphee took the idea of adding this content to the article's talk page. Nobody there agreed with adding it. (Not just me.) Yet Merphee added it anyway. I have no personal dislike for Merphee, but I will revert edits made when there is a complete absence of consensus to do so. In bringing this here Merphee is simply WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Can somebody else please tell this user how things work here. He ignores me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please User:HiLo48 just focus on content. You are incorrect and once again come straight on here and start attacking me personally with falsehoods and assuming bad faith without providing policy. Other editors have supported the limo allegations inclusion. The Drover's Wife's supported the inclusion of the limo allegations here with this comment. [46] I take offence to your belittling, aggression and sarcasm, as well as focus on editors personally as if it is somehow funny to do so, that's all. As I said The Drover's Wife has agreed with the limo allegations being included and we are just trying to get the wording right on Talk:Emma Husar in a civil way. Merphee (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You can just fuck off with your "focus on content" bullshit. You have found one comment out of many that partly supported your goal of adding more negative content to the article on a politician you despise. My apologies for missing it, but it was just earlier today. That is NOT consensus. You have repeatedly abused me and other editors because we have tried to apply policy to your application of political hatred. I cannot forever ignore being insulted by you, as in the opening comment in this thread. Was THAT a focus on content? No fucking way. Now grow up, and be honest. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously pushed it too far User:HiLo48 with your lack of civility. You should be reported. The only person who disagrees with including the limo allegations is you. The Drover's Wife just commented on Talk:Emma Husar with this edit [47] and appears to be in support of the limo allegations being included. I do not appreciate being told to fuck off and think you need to be reported. I admit to a few comments back, but 9 out of 10 times I have tried to ignore you and focus on content. However you appear to be a law unto yourself on here.Merphee (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

In the past 48 hours you have worked on one topic on Wikipedia. I have worked on around 60. Can I seriously suggest you give Emma Husar a rest, and get out and see how the rest of Wikipedia works - how consensus really works, how patient editors are about adding the latest news. You are new here. That's fine, but be willing to learn. An obsession with one politician will never allow that to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said User:HiLo48, I do not appreciate being told to FUCK OFF. You should be reported. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse or language toward other editors.Merphee (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What's your excuse for your typical behaviour of attacking me in the first post of this thread, then moving on to your "focus on content" bullshit? You have shown this hypocrisy repeatedly. Please think about it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee Please take conduct issues to WP:ANI, this is not the place to discuss them. I agree that maybe all the news story info should be removed from a BLP if it is allegations and it just came to media attention this week. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably will take it there no editor should be told to FUCK OFF. Thanks for your opinion too to remove from the Emma Husar article the entire story about her bullying and misuse of entitlements allegations. Interested in what others think about that. Are you sure none of it is WP:NOTNEWS though and should be removed from the article entirely? It seems to be covered very widely for about a week now? Have you read the sources before giving that opinion?Merphee (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee - You're talking about me again, and I am not the topic! HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course you are the topic are you kidding. DIYeditor just told me where to report you after telling me on this exact page to FUCK OFF. Obviously any human reaction would be to tell you to fuck off back, but I would prefer to keep civil and report it to the appropriate noticeboard. If we got into a go fuck yourself discussion where do you think that would lead or how would that be helpful. There is no excuse for telling other editors to fuck off. And by using appropriate noticeboards to help resolve disputes and misconduct is valid.Merphee (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually people are not so clueless. If you want to add muck about Husar stick to that topic and forget about telling experienced stuff they learned (from listening to other users) years ago. If you want to seek retribution against HiLo for calling you out, do so elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Already said I was going to do that. Now Johnuniq and even though I'm tempted to abuse you back for your "clueless" comment I won't because I'm sure you want me toi directly abuse you back like you just did. My experience with Wikipedia is that it really doesn't matter how long a editor has been here but how they stick to content editing and policy. Now have you got any comments on content on this question I've raised here or on the emma husar talk page?Merphee (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So I checked the policies/guidelines again to see where I think this should fall. Husar passes WP:POLITICIAN as being elected to national office but barely has any coverage in the article beyond that. These allegations seem to (marginally) pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE - "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article ..." The other question is WP:NOTNEWS which says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." So I guess the question is whether this will be significant years from now when discussing the person. Would there be any harm in waiting a week, two or a month to see developments and how it plays out? If the limousine allegation turns out to be unfounded, or totally falls from coverage, then the mere fact it occurred would probably not be notable. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond and it is great to see actual discussion on content. The problem is the allegations about her misuse of entitlements are being reported on now as much as her bullying claims. And I don't think that the bullying claims should be removed nor should they remain in isolation from the misuse of her allowance allegations. On the talk page we've agreed the allowances should be included as well and are just trying to work out wording. You're welcome to comment there.Merphee (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go there but I'm not sure I have much more to add or a very strong opinion. What I will say is that the urgency to cover current events is often a sign of bad editing in my fairly limited experience. There is no race to update articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. I have wondered about that.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Another clue arises when a significant portion of a short article is devoted to negativity. The 15:53, 25 July 2018 version was almost half bad stuff. If someone is convicted of a crime, almost all of their article might be bad stuff, but when the subject is a politician such an imbalance is a certain sign of POV pushing. If the subject is convicted or suffers some other real-world setback, the information should be added regardless of the bad-stuff scale. However, until then it is just another case of a politician getting muck which should not be unduly recorded in Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.Merphee (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Niall O'Dowd biography

Niall O'Dowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

> Dear Sirs/Madams > My name is Niall O'Dowd. I have a biography on Wikipedia It . has been . turned into an attack article by three hostile persons to me using source which is the person doing the attacking's blog. The most > dreadful charges, that I am .a racist, that I am a spokesman for the IRA > based on utterly manufactured evidence from blogs and written by three arch > haters of me has been allowed to stand Since July 7th. I plead with you to > set the record straight and remove these hideous and utterly false > calumnies.I also want to ask where are the editorial standards for the > original allowing of such dangerous charges to be made with apparently, no > evidence other than the blog of an arch-enemy of mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurles22 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A first glance shows some highly POV editing to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fergananim: please could you explain why you're adding massive walls-of-text quotes from critics or opponents of the subject of the article? To conform with WP:BLP we would need to just remove these sections entirely, unless someone is capable of re-writing them neutrally. MPS1992 (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992:I removed three sections of the bio that were mainly abuse of the bio subject. It is unclear how relevant any of the three sections are to an understanding of the life and contributions of the bio subject, but if any are relevant they need a substantial, balanced rewrite. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC

@HouseOfChange: thank you. It seems there was something similar going on here on an article about a book written by some other BLP author, last year. MPS1992 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the unwarranted attack material. Much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurles22 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, its quite the sanitised article now, isn't it? First, who was this person? We have no proof it was Niall O'Dowd. Second, so what? Nothing I put up was false. It was all sourced and true. Quite happy to see it edited , yet it was as factual as I could make it, and based on O'Dowd's own source material and actions. As it now stands its just a PR page. Fergananim (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

First, I don't care if the above person is O'Dowd, a representative of O'Dowd, or someone completely unrelated. Article subjects should not have to come asking for the articles to be fixed so they don't look like attack pages with walls of text quotes from their opponents. Wikipedia editors should be responsible enough not to do that in the first place. Second, if we need to establish whether someone editing here is who they say they are, there is a process for doing that. Third, the article is not going to stay either as a PR page nor as an attack page. Controversies need reliable independent sources that cover them in detail as controversies, not immense cherry-picked primary source quotes. The article must treat relevant aspects of the subject's biography with due weight. I have removed your added and re-added material, please do not add it again. MPS1992 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

But changes are been made to the article purely because of someone purporting to be O'Dowd objected to the material, not because of any editorial issues. I am happy to see that material edited to conform to Wikipedia practise, but not because the so-called subject of the article takes issue with it. O'Dowd's role in these other affairs are part and parcel of his public life, so should be included. If editors can find a way to do that, fine, but removing it entirely is bowing entirely to this person's intervention, not Wikipedia guidelines. That's bowing to censorship. So, can we find a way to include them, please? Fergananim (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed most of the ugly, biased, attack material from the bio. I did so based on reading the article, reading the references being cited by these sections, and determining that these sections were inappropriate for a BLP, being very POV and in many cases misrepresenting the sources cited. I do a lot of cleanup on BLPs. I have no connection to O'Dowd and had never heard of him until this article showed up at BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Even as several editors are working together to remove the unencyclopedic vitriol from O'Dowd's BLP, Fergananim is working to add similar PAs to other articles. [48][49] I think a topic ban would save us all some work. HouseOfChange (talk)
- Accidently placed this on the other article first, but here is where I meant. Anyway. Folks as I said from the outset I was happy to see the input of any other editors. That remains the case. Plainly other editors hold I contravened rules concerning bios of living people. That was NOT my intention - but I accept that it was seen as such, and though not intentional, actually so. My reasons were as I said, that these issues are part and parcel of O'Dowd's public life and deserve to be a part of the article. Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill and remorse towards other editors, I will not do any further edits on this article for the forseeable, and will abide by any topic ban imposed on me. Sorry. Fergananim (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

James Morhard

There appears to have been a COI (wp:COIPOLITICAL likely) edit at the "James Morhard" article. IP editor 156.33.241.35 appears to be a United States Senate address. This is after a similar style edit by another IP. Any thing more to be done than revert/restore RS edit? Is there a different place to go with this? X1\ (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

David S. Cassetti

The information being placed on this wikipedia page may be considered libelous and slanderous. In addition, the y are referencing an individual d Musante who has a learning disability and using him as a subject matter to support their politically motivated efforts to defeat Mayor Cassetti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heehee1313 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like you keep removing properly sourced information. It perhaps needs some re-writing, and one might wonder about the score-settling involved -- but if you keep reverting multiple editors you'll likely end up blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked them as a sock with no comment on the content dispute (and original account remains unblocked - for now...) Giant Snowman 13:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of sock or not, I do find it troubling that more than half of a stubby article is related to controversies of the person. The content may be legit, but at the current size, it definitely is a problem in the spirit of BLP/NPOV. But that's probably an issue at policy to consider, not this specific example. --Masem (t) 14:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've literally just removed it, having read it properly and seen that it was added by different sock with a clear agenda. Giant Snowman 14:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Who Is America?

I've removed potentially libellous material from the article Who Is America? three times, each time with further explanation, so I'm now asking for further help in resolving the issue. Here is my latest diff. Further details also on the talk page. Cimbalom (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether that's problematic or not, it's sourced to the WP:DAILYMAIL, so it has to go anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Cody Nickson

Please take a look at this bio. I've already deleted large chunks of it for being unsourced and just plain unimportant fluff. I'm sure that more could be removed, but I'd rather have a few more opinions on it rather than me solely removing it all. And, if I've removed something that could stay or be salvaged with a source, please feel free to add it back. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Daniel (album)

Eyes are needed at The Book of Daniel (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IP edit warring, using words like "alleged," despite what WP:ALLEGED states, and going on about bad writing and neutrality. Article has been semi-protected as a result of the edit warring. But the IP is likely to continue editing the article in problematic ways, whether as an IP or or registered account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Carla Ortiz Wikipedia page, section headed "Syria" is propaganda and defamation

The section of the Carla Ortiz Wikipedia page headed "Syria" is propaganda designed to discredit and defame Carla Ortiz regarding her documentary film and video work in Syria, and her interviews about Syria. It is not a neutral and fair account of her work in Syria and of the interviews and talks she have given about Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonofToronto (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Section removed as it was non-neutral. Giant Snowman 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems notable though. I have proposed a more encyclopedic version on the talk page. What do people think? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean are you even checking what the sources are?! Two questionable reliability, one definitely not... Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#The_intersection_of_BLPSPS_and_PSCI Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Theres a report saying that Jeff Fager of CBS News is named in a Harassment allegation

https://deadline.com/2018/07/ronan-farrow-expose-jeff-fager-harassment-60-minutes-cbs-news-1202435522/

There are news outlets reporting concurrently to the Les Moonves Scandal that Jeff Fager engaged in Sexual Harassment as of July 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina

Hello. I have a problem with a user who insists on proselytizing against a former manager of an organization. The same has no relation to the encyclopedic article, and insists placement of a photograph does not abolute an encyclopedic purpose. I need an administrator to review the situation. Regards. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Last December, an administrator protected the article for "persistent disruptive editing". The same situation now. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

BD Wong / Name Misspelled in Article Headline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._D._Wong

BD Wong's name is misspelled in the headline of his Wikipedia Article. There are no periods or spaces in his first name. I work with him professionally and the incorrect spelling on his Wikipedia has caused many issues in his professional life, including billing. When googling his name, the incorrect spelling appears as a result of this article. Many people look to Wikipedia and Google for confirmation, and in this circumstance as receiving incorrect information. As you can see on his IMDB page, link below, his name is spelled in the correct manner. I would appreciate your help in resolving this matter.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000703/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.200.251 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP, and welcome to Wikipedia. The "rule" (WP:COMMONNAME) in this case is that WP wants to call BD Wong what he is generally called in reliable sources. We don't think highly of imdb in this respect, but it is something. ibdb also agree, but some other sources in the article don't. Not sure of the best solution here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Add The New York Times to team BD [50]. That's good enough for me, I'm in favor of a change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favour too. There are sources, and the guy calls himself BD Wong on all his social media as far as I can tell. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The article started as "B. D. Wong", was then moved to "BD Wong" on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME and then moved back citing MOS:INITIALS, but failing to note WP:SPNC. So it should go back to BD Wong (currently a redirect). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone and made the move, in the interests of avoiding pointless bureaucracy. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Robertson, Canadian Poet, Teacher

I am not authorized, nor do I know how to edit. I wanted to alert someone that the photo under Wikipedia when you google "Lisa Robertson" is not the photo of Lisa Robertson, the Canadian poet and teacher. The photo shown is that of former QVC host, designer, blogger, and merchant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.167.236 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell that is on googles end. Our article Lisa Robertson does not have a picture. But you are right, when you google the name it shows someone else on the right with some text information from Wikipedia.[51] I think this is the correct person? PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this happens a lot. Google actually generates its results from various sources but the way it's presented often makes it look as though it all comes from Wikipedia even when parts of it (usually the picture) have been sourced from somewhere else. There's nothing we can do about this, sadly. Neiltonks (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing that people who live in France could do, would be to take a photograph of Lisa Robertson and then freely license it so that it could be used on the English Wikipedia article about Lisa Robertson. That might push Google in a sensible direction. MPS1992 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Scrofano

I'd appreciate it if others could take a look at Talk:Melanie Scrofano#Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018. The issue is whether the subject has 1 children or 2. To my eye, getting to 2 involves WP:SYNTHing, as there doesn't seem to be an unambiguous source on the question, but maybe I'm over-reading it... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Luis Miguel

Luis Miguel was born in Puerto Rico but IS NOT Puerto Rican. His father was Spanish and his mother, Italian. He was raised in Mexico and has always considered himself Mexican which is why he is called El Sol de Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.122.52.68 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Elaine May : wikidata - Internet Broadway Database interface problem

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q454156#P1220

Her iBdb are (May and Berlin, and identical) :

https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/5330 {{IBDB name|5330}} Elaine May
https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/69390 {{IBDB name|69390}} Elaine Berlin

Relying on : {{IBDB name}} old Elaine_May
Shows:

69390 Elaine May at the Internet Broadway Database *

with a broken URL of :

https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/5330,

note the comma

69.181.23.220 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. The links on the page have been fixed.--Auric talk 12:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

delyan peevski

Hello dear fellows, I would like you to take a look at the article about Delyan Peevski [[52]] - a Bulgarian politician who seems to be a target of a libeling campaign here in Wikipedia. He is being repeatedly labeled as an oligarch, although he doesn't cover any of the described here features. He doesn't hold any monopoly, he is Member of Parliament from an opposition Parliamentary group and he does not own multiple businesses. Please review the case. i am pretty sure that this definition violates the BLP principles.Antihatred (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Antihatred

That particular factoid is sourced. Can you provide sources that state the opposite?--Auric talk 12:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ireland on Sunday

Can somebody please revdel the edit that I have reverted here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/852562595 (sorry for the mobile link). The subject in question is a senator in the upper house of the Irish Parliament. I don’t think we need this vicious libel in the article’s history. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have hidden the revision that included the offending material. You should have reported this to wikipedia-en-revdel, as stated above, rather than posting it. Unfortunately, the offending material has been there since May. - Donald Albury 22:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have IRC (I don't even quite know what that is!) but thank you for hiding the original edit. ◦ Trey Maturin 13:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Spencer Proffer

Hello,

I recently deleted two sections from Spencer Proffer's page. I have done this now 3 times but the sections somehow come back. The sections that were recently added do not give voice to the entire story. The additions made are "admits to making false claims" and "Settles for fraud." My questions are: A. How come these sections keep coming back after I delete them? B. How can we ensure the proper removal of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.36.97 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The section on making false claims is sourced to the LA Times and a story from the UPI wire. On the surface, these sources appear valid; you'd need to explain at the talk page why these sources are incorrect and provide other reliable sources to support your claim for the section to be removed.

The section on settling for fraud is a little shakier from the sourcing standpoint. It's pretty clear that he was sued, per a source called Courthouse News Service. The statement about the settlement appears to be sourced to a court filing, so there is an issue with that. I'm not sure, though, whether to just remove the section about the settlement and leave the suit, or to remove the paragraph entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the article itself also suffers a bit from WP:RESUME. jps (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy

Toronto mayoral election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Faith Goldy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the past few days a number of IPs and new or long inactive accounts have materialized on these two articles editing well-sourced information about Ms. Goldy's controversial extreme right political views, for example replacing this neutrally-sourced but controversial description with this sanitized description cited to a right-wing free-speech website. Several other accounts are trying to unduly promote Goldy's three-day-old campaign for mayor of Toronto, which has received no coverage at all except for a few publications noting that she registered at the last minute (in articles describing how there were many candidates registering at the last minute, which was last Friday), by adding her picture alongside two major candidates in the election article's infobox (e.g. [53]) and unduly expanding details about her candidacy (e.g. [54], [55]). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Martina Big

There has been recent edit warring between several new single-purpose accounts and multiple IPs at Martina Big and some of the edits may have BLP issues. The sources seem low quality and tabloid-ish to me. The subject of the biography also may not meet notability requirements. Can someone with BLP experience please have a look? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any revision of that article that is even vaguely sensible. WP:TNT? Or can someone re-write it sensibly? Or can we find someone that would be willing to re-write it sensibly? MPS1992 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking it over, I only see three sources which may possibly be reliable, but I'm not familiar with them (Metro, Axar.az, and AllAfrica.com). I don't know if they are reliable or not but they look like they may be a bit tabloidish. Daily Mail is not a good source, neither is the subject's own website, nor a consulting firm (for some reason it's thrown in there). I don't see anything that really establishes notability ... except for the one thing, and I'm not sure that in itself is enough to warrant an article. I'm not sure if this is one of those "15 minutes of fame" things or a lasting phenomenon, but current sourcing seems to indicate the former. (By far nothing vaulting her to the level of the Kardashians.) I say unless some real sources can be found to demonstrate notability this article should be deleted, or at the very least gutted down to that which is found in the reliable sources (if any exist). Zaereth (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oscar González Loyo

The user Jackallc and some others in the past have repeatedly added libel and biased information attacking the subject of the article Oscar González Loyo. I request some action is taken to safeguard the veracity of the information of the article. Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I added it to my watchlist, there is not enought vandalism to get the article protected yet imo, keep your eye on it and will also. You could ask for pending changes protection Wikipedia:Protection_policy#pc1 to be added at the wp:rfpp board.Govindaharihari (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Chris Garcia

Quite a lot of warring here over content. Is this a well-sourced bio or a press release with COI fingerprints? More eyes and thoughts appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

See similar promotional editing at Minority Business Development Agency. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Agnes Kagure Kariuki

Theres an editor who put up the article on the above names person, who is a live and a mother of two children, the author has been continuously editing the post putting court cases which have yet to be decided on the page, no ruling has been made whatsoever on one of the cases and the other article on Other reported financial improprieties was thrown out by the government tax collection agencies recently, the article is meant to tarnish the name of a good person. please pull it down or let him remove those sections which are outright malice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Cloud (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the more obvious violations from the article but I think the forgery accusations can stay as they are sourced as being the result of a government investigation into the status of this estate. This section might still be a WP:BLP violation and requires cleanup, but is different than the other two section I deleted which were ongoing legal disputes. SWL36 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk

Background:

In the midst of discussing whether we should have this in the article (I think that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. Others have a good-faith disagreement with me on this, and we are seeking consensus) an IP started implying that the diver actually is a pedophile. See [56] (There is zero evidence that anyone else called him that) and [57] (even worse).

So, delete the comments as BLP violations, report at ANI, or just leave them? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, range block the IPs, rev-del the posts, and alert OVERSIGHT. I doubt the attention from posting to ANI is a good idea. EdChem (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Just to mention, I'd given the IP that made the comment Guy links above, a BLP warning nearly seven hours before they made the above-linked comment, so it's not like they were unaware of WP:BLP. Also linked it in a related discussion in which they were participating. MPS1992 (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, MPS1992, the second diff from Guy is from a different IP address, which is why I said range block. Given the posts, they seem to me to be the same person, but of course that is only my impression. EdChem (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's two ranges involved, see the later parts of Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Musk submarine for the other one. Which may of course just be a meatpuppet. MPS1992 (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'm just glad that both problematic IPs are noted. :) EdChem (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is good. But what about the talk page section where the IP was posting (link above)? The section heading is the name of a person and the gratuitous mentions of that person's name in the section and the article associate them with pedophilia. I don't think Musk ever said "pedophile" so the article incorrectly asserts that Musk "made an unsubstantiated claim that the diver was a pedophile". Of course "pedo guy" is sufficiently damaging but the article should not go one step further IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There is little doubt that the two IPs (both broadband connections through Fibernetics Corporation in the same small area of Canada) are the same person.[58][59] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the section as a BLP violation (BLPNAME, BLPCRIME etc) - the diver's name is only widely spread because of the ridiculous accusations. If all that was required for a non-public figure to be smeared was their name appearing in the news because an extremely famous celebrity decides to throw their weight around, the policy would be useless. The policy does not allow us to name someone and associate them with (what is in most jurisdictions a serious crime) simply because of who said it. I have also removed the last IP talkpage message, even without the name its a direct accusation. The other IP comments, while mindbendingly stupid, do not require an immediate removal. An admin will need to rev-del the revisions with their name however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I have also re-headed the talkpage subject and removed the diver's name there as well. I will see even if people are in disagreement, the reason why removing BLP or potential BLP violations is exempt from edit-warring is precisely to prevent damaging material staying visible while people argue about it. BLPTALK allows for discussion about a BLP issue, but the *minimum* required. The diver's name certainly doesnt need to be included to discuss the subject. Remove it first, talk afterwards. Even by implication, including unfounded accusations that a non-notable person is a paedophile should have set alarm bells ringing. Remove first. Talk afterwards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the entire section about the Musk mini-submarine at the cave rescue article will soon be reduced or culled entirely. But until it is, does it matter that one of the sources used there has a headline that links the diver with the p-word: [60]? I would imagine there are many alternative sources which employ a more bland headline. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. We have no control over what sources name their article titles - its unavoidable that we will have to occasionally use as references material that includes names we wouldnt use in the article itself. Generally its best practice however to replace these with an equivelent source that can be used to reference the same claims but without the problematic header. We couldnt include in the references however an article that was titled something like '<Diver> is a pedo' because it would still fall foul of the BLP policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I suggest leaving it for now and assuming it will disappear as part of the pruning. It's not the only source there in any case. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: take it out and leave it six months. See if the mentions go up significantly. If not, we can ignore it. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, and there is no deadline. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett

The BLP of Eva Bartlett looks, to me, like it's bordering on WP:ATTACK. I've raised it on the Talk Page but before I touch the article, I'd be interested in the opinion of other editors. Does the article, in its current state, look like a neutral biography to anyone? Thanks --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty wild and I'd wonder if she even qualifies under notability - or if the single-minded determination of the page to slate her obfuscates her notability. It certainly, IMHO, needs to be drastically toned down. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me who can see the problem! :) The editor who created the article and went on the add further critical opinion, despite me raising it on the Talk Page, has now been blocked as a sock of a blocked account. I'll have a crack at it anyway. Thanks for your comments. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the article to make it more encyclopedic and less attacky. The coverage is still largely negative as reliable sources are almost universal in their characterization of her as being cozy with the Syrian Government. SWL36 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The "Work and controversies" section needs to include details of what work she has actually done. There is almost no information about what she has written. Given that her writings are what makes her notable this seems like a strange and unacceptable omission. Criticism of her work should follow an outline of her work. The Work and controversies" section should also include any responses she has made to the criticism. I don't think the page currently includes any of her responses.

Burrobert 18:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this article shows obvious signs of activist editing. It was started by a sockpuppeteer. I suspect it should be nuked. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted G5 per WP:DENY. Giant Snowman 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Menna

Repeated vandalism of [Menna] article over the past year, insertion of lizard/gekko/iguana into the first sentance describing the artist. Recommend page be frozen to edits and offending IP researched and blocked.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm not sure what all the reptilian references are about, but the vandalism is very infrequent (five times in ten months or so) and not really enough to justify protecting the article. An effective approach to this kind of slow vandalism is for editors to add the page to their watchlist so that any new vandalism is noticed and reverted immediately and doesn't stay in the article for ages (as has been the case on a couple of occasions here). I've done this, and will revert any future vandalism as soon as I become aware of it, and will ask for protection of the article if the vandalism ever becomes frequent enough. One other thing - when you post to message boards like this, please sign the message by ending it with four tilde ('~') characters, so we know who you are. Neiltonks (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I just put it on my watchlist as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist)

This article is fine except for a contested section under Political Career. Sandwiched between well sourced information on her membership of various legislative committees and an upcoming election is a section which details the political views of her family on abortion without mentioning the political views of the subject. This seems like a clear violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP as the views or her relatives are not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Her position on the abortion issue does not seem to be public and trying to use guilt (I doubt those reverting the removal of this section see her relative's views as a positive) by association does not belong in an otherwise sound biography. Attempts to remove this section have been unsuccessful and those re-adding it are accusing users of "suppressing relevant info" and have continued reverting without responding seriously on the talk page after I requested they defend the challenged section. SWL36 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim that she has "family links" is SYNTH as the cited sources do not make that claim about her "family", and the coatrack exercise absent any source at all on her own position violates the aim of WP:BLP Collect (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll assume it was an error on your part, Collect, when you missed the direct quote in the referenced source: "The senator, who founded suicide crisis centre Pieta House, has strong family links with the anti-abortion movement."? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It certainly says that verbatim, but now that you are here could you explain why this information should be in a neutral encyclopedia article? Should I fill Barack Obama with information about the political views of his brother? SWL36 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SWL36 and Collect - the source is trying to make personal aspirations against Freeman by bringing up what her family's political stance is. Should be removed per BLP. --Masem (t) 16:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Now that I'm here" is because I just happened to notice you (an apparently new editor with only tens of edits) had put a BLP noticeboard tag at the top of the talk page without bothering to notify anyone in the appropriate section of the page, where discussion was taking place. Other editors should be aware there's a strong whiff of socks and SPA's off that bio. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Collect, you might comment again on inclusion, given your earlier comments but also given the quote in the reference supplied - I think you genuinely missed that. Spleodrach also favours inclusion, given their edits. So on that basis, at least for the moment, there is no consensus that a breach of BLP has occurred and therefore no basis for removal - SWL36, please therefore stop edit warring until the discussion has concluded. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The result is that the issue has been raised and the absolute minimum needed to restore the questioned material is a clear consensus at an RfC. It does not require a clear consensus that WP:BLP has been breached. And views "of a family member" are not particularly germane in any BLP. Collect (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

So we have several new editors User:SWL36, User:Applebyfour and User:ElleToTheTea, all with one goal, to remove any mention of Freeman's views on abortion from her page. Bastun had added Freeman's own (pro-life) views to the article so that can't be removed. If two people are famous enough to each have a wikipedia article, like Freeman and Maria Steen, then it is standard practice to mention if they are related to each other. Spleodrach (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed but didn't care to mention that when I removed the sections about her relatives views from the page that I kept her own views, as they are public and obviously belong in that section of the article. Again Spleodrach, Malik Obama has an entry in Wikipedia and is somewhat known in the US due to his political views, would it be appropriate to mention his views in Barack Obama? The man was a guest of Donald Trump at a debate, so you could certainly argue that Barack Obama had "family links" to the Trump campaign.

The lack of assumption of good faith also astounds me, as I have been accused of being a sock and a SPA in addition to receiving a warning from you for canvassing on an AfD I made for Assim al-Hakeem. I notified the main editors of that article, including the one who did the bulk of the recent work on it and that editor is involved in the AfD page and is having a civil discussion there defending its existence. I would just like to ask one last time, why should we mention the VIEWS of a relative in an article? You can mention in her bio that she is related to someone else but you have yet to explain to anyone why the information about this relative's political views is critical. SWL36 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll forgive our suspicions if a "new" editor with less than 60 edits is able to quote policy, prove adept with templates (including in their very first edit), correctly nominate articles at AfD, etc. Have you previously/do you edit under another name?

Please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Barack Obama's family is irrelevant to this article. "You can mention in her bio that she is related to someone else" - yes, and we've added that she's related to two people notable enough to have their own articles, and you've removed that, several times. The information about her several relatives' prominence in the No campaign is both referenced and relevant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a WP:DUCK is pretty ridiculous. Editing Wikipedia is not rocket science, I read up on guidelines and policies before creating an account and followed instructions that specify how templates are used, such as: "Place the BLP noticeboard template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved." While I'm flattered at the praise for my quick learning, invoking WP:DUCK has to be one of the basest insults on Wikipedia. This BLPN is going nowhere fast, at this point we need an admin to resolve this dispute or a RfC to put it to bed; I think I might draw one up (even though the impetus should be on those including a section contested as a WP:BLP vio to make it) if a solution is not found soon. SWL36 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spleodrach, just to highlight that none of my edits (or those of User:Applebyfour or User:SWL36) involved the removal of "any mention of Freeman's views on abortion". The info that was removed was regarding the views of her relatives on abortion. I personally removed this information as I don't think that the views of Freeman's relatives are relevant to Freeman's bio. I think including the views of her relatives is an attempt to associate her with the No Campaign in which she was not (to my knowledge) involved. If you have a source that indicates otherwise, please add it. Also, if you want to state that Freeman is related to Steen, why not just state that? What add the "strong family links to pro-life movement" bit? Surely a reader can conclude for themselves whether having a relative involved in the No campaign constitutes as such. I think it is extremely important that the information regarding how Freeman herself voted in the referendum remains in the article as, not only is this relevant to her bio, but it is particularly relevant as she is currently seeking presidential nomination at a time where abortion legislation is due to be signed into law. To me, knowing whether Freeman voted Yes or No, and how she would potentially handle the signing of the legislation is relevant to her bio, knowing how her relatives voted and campaigned is not. I certainly do NOT want to hide this information about Freeman. I just think the article should be about Freeman and her views, not her relative's views. I think that adding the information about her relatives is an attempt to associate Freeman with the No Campaign based on the actions of others, rather than her own actions. I think if you were to reflect on why you want this information to be in the article, you will find that it is due to your own personal views on the referendum. I don't think the info you have added is neutral. But that's my view, and (I'm not sure how this whole thing works) but if it has been decided by the Wikipedia Gods that this information should remain, then so be it. But I feel that this is not the last time you will have to deal with Users with differing views to yours regarding what you have written in this article. Also, a person can be new to Wikipedia and figure out how to edit, Talk and look up the rules of wikipedia relatively easily. It's a matter of googling and copy/pasting for the most part. It's fairly basic stuff, especially if you're familiar with HTML. I will no longer be engaging in this discussion, however I felt it necessary to clear up the inaccuracies you stated regarding my edits. Now to wash my socks! ElleToTheTea

RfC started on the article talk page. Feel free to weigh in there. GMG ^talk 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Gerald Schoenewolf

The Southern Poverty Law Center is repeatedly inserting derogatory information on this page. This is a radical liberal organization that tries to smear anyone who disagrees with its theories. I have today reedited the article again. How can I protect it from being vandalized again? Gerald Schoenewolf

Hi Gfswolf, while the reliability of the SPLC as a source (WP:RS) is disputed, the SPLC article cited in the current version of Gerald Schoenewolf does not seem to be unreliable enough to warrant its unconditional removal, especially as that section of the bio is attributed to the SPLC rather than stated as fact.

Also, given the name, do you have a Conflict of Interest (see WP:COI) to declare? SWL36 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is absolutely a reliable source for their own opinion, which is what that source is being used for.
There is no visible reason to believe that the SPLC themselves have done any edits.
What Gfswolf describes as "vandalization" is merely the sourcing of material to two non-SPLC sites, judging by what they chose to remove.
This is a rarely-edited article, with only one editing session of significance during the year before GFSwolfs recent edits. The claim that someone is repeatedly editing is odd; the SPLC information was added in June 2017 by an IP that made a single edit, and while the editing session that was done since then was also an IP, that editor also added the subject's novels to the bibliography; that doesn't sound like the actions of someone trying to trash the subject or vandalize the page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the threshold to add BLPs to Persian Jews

I note that the second paragraph in the lead starts "Judaism is the second-oldest religion still practiced in Iran..." I reverted the addition of 3 names by a fairly inexperienced editor, leaving the edit summary "Lead makes it clear that this is based on religious affiliation, none of the BLPs added states that they are Jewish, and one article doesn't even mention any Jewish background" and User:Bus stop reverted me with an edit summary "David Hindawi, Joseph Moinian, and Paul Merage are Jewish according to their articles." Note that I hadn't removed Merage but Michael Moradzadeh whose article doesn't mention anything about Jewish ancestry or beliefs. The other two did mention Jewish ancestry but not religion. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The requirement is self-identification per a reliable source. Lacking such, it is clear that the category obviously includes ethnicity and religion, and thus its use is bound by the more restrictive standard required by Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller—yes, the lede says that "Judaism is the second-oldest religion still practiced in Iran". But that does not imply that only religious Persian Jews are truly and authentically Persian Jews. Aren't nonobservant Persian Jews also Jewish? And how are you making the leap from a historical assertion in the lede concerning the origin of religion in Persia to Persian Jews of the 20th and 21st centuries? (Sorry about an inadvertent mix-up between Merage and Michael Moradzadeh.) Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You would need sources for either religion or ethnicity within their articles. If it's not in the article you can't add the category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller—with good justification you removed Michael Moradzadeh from the article "Persian Jews"—it did not say in the article that Moradzadeh was Jewish. When I re-added that name to the article (the first time) I did not do so knowingly. It was my mistake. But I see that there is a source in the article supporting that he is Jewish. It is the one source in the "Personal life" section. I've taken the liberty of making this edit and adding him to Category:American people of Iraqi-Jewish descent and also re-adding his name to the article "Persian Jews". Please tell me if any problem with any of what I've done. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Marrying "in a Jewish wedding" does not make one Jewish. Marrying in a Chinese wedding does not make one Chinese. Marrying in a Buddhist wedding does not make one a Buddhist. Marrying in a Hindu temple does not make one Hindu. Sorry. Labelling folks requires more than "they got married in a ceremony". Collect (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

One problem I see is that the term "Jew" can refer to either a person's religious affiliation or their ethnicity, and the two aren't always mutually inclusive. Albeit, Judaism is one of those religions that doesn't usually go around trying to convert everybody, people can and do convert religions all the time, but cannot change ethnicity. This article seems to conflate the two, so I'm not sure if it refers to practicing Jews from/moved to/reside in Persia, or people of Jewish descent who live in or come from Persia, or people of Persian descent who practice Judaism. The title of the article is vague enough that anyone with the slightest connection with these two words can seem like a viable candidate for inclusion. Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This is why we need either an ambiguous statement from the subject or a clear reliable secondary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, just to clarify, did you mean "unambiguous"? Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth—the question is not whether the subject of the article is religious or not. The question is whether sources support that the subject is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, your interpretation of this article is that it's referring only to ethnicity without regard to religious affiliation? If that is what this article is about I think the title should be changed to make that clear. Not to mention the text is just as ambiguous, because it starts off describing how long the religion was practiced in Persia. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth—the essential question we are addressing concerns whether or not we find support in sources that the subject of the article is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Collect has reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 852668419 by Bus stop (talk)narrying "in a Jewish wedding" does not make one a Jew any more than being married in a Catholic church "makes one a Catholic" etc."

But the source, J. The Jewish News of Northern California, supports that Michael Moradzadeh is Jewish. How do we know? Excerpts from the source:

"The wedding was held at the Julia Morgan Ballroom in San Francisco, and with 225 guests 'it was small by Iranian standards and large by Ashkenazi ones,' joked Michael, whose family is of Iranian descent."[61]

"Three Orthodox rabbis — two from the Jewish Study Network and one from Chabad — officiated. Those gathered for the event danced to both klezmer and traditional Iranian music, and enjoyed kosher American cuisine."

"The couple commissioned Oakland artist Naomi Teplow to design their original ketubah, which featured images of a sukkah and pomegranates."

"The Kiddush cup the couple used under the chuppah was borrowed from Michael's parents, who have used it at family Shabbat dinners for 20 years."

"Michael and Nomi had a very traditional Jewish wedding, which included not only the chuppah, but also a tna'im (engagement agreement), a bedekken (veiling of the bride) and a hassan's tisch (groom's table)."

"'These parts of a Jewish wedding are not commonly done here in San Francisco, but they are done back East, where I'm from,' noted Nomi."

"The mothers of both the bride and groom, together with Michael's aunt, broke the customary plate at the tna'im ceremony, and the mothers and other female relatives from both sides of the family surrounded Nomi as Michael covered her with the veil during the bedekken.'"

The source supports that the subject of the article is Jewish. (The internal links were obviously added by me.) The support in the source for Moradzadeh being Jewish is strong. If the support were flimsy an argument could be made that he may not be Jewish. But that is not the case. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole source, but just reading the excerpts, all I see is circumstantial evidence. If this were a court, you may have enough to sway a jury, but this is not. What this amounts to is drawing a conclusion not expressly stated in the source, which is commonly referred to as "synthesis". We don't need to examine all the evidence and make such a conclusion, because that type of original research is not what we do. We just state what the source does and let the reader draw their own conclusion (they're the jury). If there was an article "People who had Jewish weddings" you'd have it covered, but I'm pretty sure that's not what this article is about. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why we are trying to read tea-leaves. This profile on the ABA Journal website directly says, "Moradzadeh and ... are Jewish". Btw, how do we know he is of Iraqi descent (as in this edit), or of Persian descent (this edit)? Abecedare (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this would be a reliable source but "Born to a family that traces its roots in Esfehan, Iran, Michael Moradzadeh will speak on how Iran has slowly evolved from a dictatorship to a participatory theocracy and the nature of the current conflict among political parties in Iran today. Michael Moradzadeh is a founder of the Rimon Law Group, the head of the International Delegation Group of the American Jewish Committee's Cleantech Conference and a member of many Jewish organizations including the JCRC."[62] Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare—you are right—I made a mistake—I chose the Category for Iraqi descent, when I should have chosen the Category for Iranian descent. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I think we have a resolution here. The ABA journal article is a reliable source for him being Jewish; the JWeekly article for him being of Persian descent; and his profile on his own Law firm's website shows that he self-identifies with those groupings. So I think we can do so too although, as usual, taking care of due weight etc. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A little late to the game and I just wanted to add that while being married in a Jewish wedding ceremony doesn't necessarily make you Jewish, but being married by an Orthodox rabbi, let alone three, does. Orthodox rabbis will not perform an interfaith ceremony. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard Easterlin

I am the person, Richard Easterlin that this article is about. I tried to make some small corrections and seem in the end to have eliminated most of the article. Sorry. Can you restore the original, or if my edits are still showing publish a corrected version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoBoomer (talk • contribs)

TotoBoomer, I've restored, and tried to incorporate as many of your edits as I could. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing biography of a living person

Steve Gottwalt Steve Gottwalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am the subject of the page. The page contains errors of fact, misleading information and is missing some relevant information. I would like to correct these errors, but have been prevented from making direct edits to the page. I would like to propose specific edits with justification. Please advise. Thank you.Steve6187 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You should propose Wikipedia:Edit requests on the article talk page, Talk:Steve Gottwalt, that first link should explain how in more detail. For more information about conflict of interest editing in general, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. For proving that you are a notable person with an article about yourself, please see WP:REALNAME. I notice you have also posted this message on User:Steve6187 and User talk:Steve6187 - can we keep this discussion to just one place, please? Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Steve6187 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Just trying to figure-out how to do this correctly. It is a complicated environment and what is posted on Wikipedia can harm a person's reputation through errors of fact and omission. If I understand you correctly, I should delete the other conversations, and move this discussion over to Edit Requests only. Correct? Thank you for your help. Steve6187 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Steve6187: You should go to the talk page Talk:Steve_Gottwalt, click the button at the top that says "New Section", make the subject "Edit request" (or whatever you want, that part doesn't have to be specific), and then in the body you will have to explain the edits that you want made. At the very top of the body, before you list your edits, add the template (in other words, simply type { {request edit} } without spaces between the braces). Make sure to be explicit with each edit, say that you are requesting to change "X" to "Y" for each one so that an examining editor knows EXACTLY what you want it to say. It should end up looking something like this:

Subject: Edit Request
Body:
{ {request edit} } (without spaces between the braces)
I would like the following edits to be made to this page:
* Please change "X" to "Y"
* Please change "A" to "B"
. . .

Once you've described all your edits, you may post it to the talk page by clicking "Publish changes". Feel free to post if you have any more questions. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As a comment, I was looking into what sourcing there is, and it still seems to be the case that in Minnesotian politics, Gottwalt's name is used as an example of possible corruption as late as 2017 (I can't say if there was or not). The changes that an IP editor (which I assume was this user in questin) to remove that is unfortunately inappropriate. That said, if what was added that he was cleared by the ethics committee is true (I cannot immediately find a source for that), that should be added, or at worst whatever the resolution was. I cannot immediately find sources for that, but I am sure they should at least exist. --Masem (t) 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

James Gunn, Michael Ian Black, Dan Harmon, etc.

As reported here, here, [63], etc. there looks to be a strategic feigned outrage campaign by Mike Cernovich and other alt-right twitter users to dig up old offensive content by comedians and other entertainers in an effort to have them fired or otherwise get them in trouble. It worked in at least one case, with James Gunn (how I came across the story), and has extended to Dan Harmon, Michael Ian Black, Patton Oswalt, etc.

In many of these people's articles now we've had users adding big blocks of text, reproducing the offensive content in full and otherwise making the events of the last couple days take up a huge amount of space in otherwise highly notable people's articles. There are WP:WEIGHT concerns, but also, increasingly, BLP issues. See for example: Michael Ian Black, addition of Dan Harmon-related material to tangentially related Adult Swim article, Trevor Noah (2, 3), Dan Harmon (2)... at James Gunn, things have gone in another direction, focusing more on criticism of his firing than the firing itself. I would argue that this, too, is concerning, but in lesser part due to BLP and more just to WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT.

It sure seems like we'll keep seeing more of this. To be clear, I'm not proposing that we ban this material from BLPs -- it's clearly receiving a lot of coverage. I'm more calling for more attention to this phenomenon and a discussion of how we should cover it. I guess my inclination would be to automatically protect these BLPs for a week after the material is covered, and to wait a little while before adding it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Trevor Noah is on my watch list for other reasons (there's some editing trying to turn him into an ethnic jew) and I have just been reverting the twitter shit out. It's tabloid gossip about bad jokes he made years ago. I want to see consensus that it should be in the article first. But you don't need to dig far when you see what editors (not all) have been adding yo various articles. It's basically turning enwp into the means by which these online hate campaigns are being spread. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A simple accusation (and this works whichever direction the idealogical mud is being thrown) that has no significant repercussion on the BLP's current well-being should be omitted/removed (such as the one directed at Noah as best I know at this point). If there are reactions that do impact the person's career (Gunn for example being kicks off GotG, or Chris Harwich, even with the "reset" when they were found false) they should be included, to the level of detail of "This happened to this person because of this accusation" as part of the scope of their career. RECENTISM tells us then otherwise to hold off on criticism or commentary until the event is well in the past - we're not a news service and should be avoiding covered these breaking controversies to that level of detail. --Masem (t) 00:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything expressed here so far. I'll watchlist the pages mentioned by the OP and try to help stem the tide. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 00:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Rian Johnson is another possible target.[64] And I think it's at best a poorly-kept secret who they are ultimately gunning for. (I should probably disclose that I'm a big fan of the Guardians of the Galaxy films and the work both Kennedy and Johnson have done with Star Wars so I'm not exactly free of bias on this matter myself.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW this continues to be contentious at James Gunn at least. Requested temporary ECP for BLP concerns. Mainly updating here because I linked to this thread at RPP and realized it might get archived soon. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Emily Care Boss

This is Emily Boss writing regarding this bio entry. It is my bio page, and I'm not sure how else I may be able to offer further information to correct the page.

Some relevant items which could be added follow:

Career: Add to - "Her company Black & Green Games is best known its romance-themed indie games, Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon, and Under My Skin." ", which she collected into one volume as the Romance Trilogy in 2016. The Romance Trilogy was nominated for the Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming in 2017." citation: http://www.dianajonesaward.org/the-2017-award/

Change - "She was on the programming team for the Living Games Conference in 2014 and helped with the Living Games in 2016 as well." to "She was on the programming team for the Living Games Conference in 2014, helped with 2016 and chaired the conference in 2018."

Personal Life: Correction - "Boss resides in Plainfield, Massachusetts.." change to "Boss resides in Greenfield, Massachusetts..."

Roleplaying Bibliography: Correction - "Under my Skin: Who do you love?" should appear as "Under my Skin"

Add - Romance Trilogy, compendium of Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon and Under my Skin with hacks and mods, 2016. https://books.google.com/books/about/Romance_Trilogy.html?id=4Po8vgAACAAJ https://www.evilhat.com/home/inside-the-hat-emily-care-boss/ https://books.google.com/books?id=ix9WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT166&lpg=PT166&dq=romance+trilogy+emily+care+boss+2016&source=bl&ots=8uxdPYv8BU&sig=fDO3Zb7YjfYgiUB5G0ptpIdZFl4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn3er-3JfcAhWDc98KHY41Dgc4ChDoAQhUMAs#v=onepage&q=romance%20trilogy%20emily%20care%20boss%202016&f=false http://file770.com/2017-diana-jones-award-shortlist/

Publications: Additional work - "Beyond the Game Master: The Rise of Peer Empowered Tabletop Roleplay." Emily Care Boss, Ivan Vaghi and Jason Morningstar. States of Play: Nordic Larp Around the World. Juhana Pettersson (editor), Solmukohta, 2012. pp. 163-169. http://www.nordicrpg.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/states_of_play_pdf_version.pdf

Honours and Awards: ENnie Gold Best Family Game 2017 (Bubblegumshoe)

this was not signed by User:Grapevine999 at 19:00, 11 July 2018‎

the article seems to be written by someone close to the subject and is not WP:NPOV

69.181.23.220 (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Mostly Done; I didn't include every possible link to the Romance Trilogy, which seems a bit much, but the awards seem to be worth mentioning, and if we're going to mention the city of residence at all, we might as well get it correct. For what it's worth, I contacted the article subject via her professional website, and she did confirm she was she. In theory the proper way to suggest edits is on the article talk page, as described in Wikipedia:Edit requests, but that's a technicality. Thanks for not editing the page yourself, Ms. Boss. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Toby Young

It is 19 days since this BLP was last raised, archive. The same editor, @Cleisthenes2:, has been persistently attempting to spin the statement that Young's homophobic and misogynistic tweets which directly led to his swift exit from politics, were either not, or that only some people think they are, and it is some kind of two-sided debate. As per 19 days ago, virtually anyone that reads the reprinted comments such as "Actually mate, I had my dick up her arse", or similar (ref businessinsider), would agree there can be no doubt whatsoever that their description as added by @Black Kite: is factual and encyclopaedic.

The only counter evidence put forward by Cleisthenes2, is Young's own blog post last week, on a website which he is an Associate Editor for, where he puts a defence against being called a misogynist because he has a wife and a daughter.[65] However the BLP does not call Young a misogynist or a homophobe, it factually states the posts were misogynist and homophobic and that is why he lost his job. These are the facts that were fairly represented in the lede, based on the best available reliable sources, not any assumption of whether Young is a homophobe or misogynist.

Original wording: "A controversial appointment, he resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter comments were uncovered."
Current wording:"A controversial appointment, he resigned over a week some of his past Twitter comments were uncovered. Young has denied accusations that some of these were misogynistic."

As Young's blog post seems self-serving and a poor choice for the lede, I propose this is removed and the lede reverted, though the blog post may be added to the later section if correctly described as Young's response to defend himself.

Considering that the article has had a problem with Young editing it himself, and in the light of Cleisthenes' persistence over an extended time, further protective steps may be needed to ensure the article retains a neutral point of view, rather than being subject to political spin in Young's favour. --Fæ (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus of independent observers is pretty clear. Journalists typically give the article subject the last word, partly a convention and partly historical fear of libel writs, but Wikipedia has no such policy. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's against NPOV and BLP to not include at least a very brief statement "Young denied the claims." against claims by a court of public opinion; we just don't need to give equal weight in the coverage of that view. We are meant to document controversies, not elaborate, and to that end, we should include any counterstatement made by a BLP on the article about that BLP if their views are heavily criticized. We would do the same thing if a criminal or civil court charge was being leveled against the person, there should be no difference in handling the court of public opinion. --Masem (t) 21:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

just to note, the 'current wording' is no longer the current wording, Young's comment has been removed. I, like Masem and for similar reasons, support its inclusion. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As originally suggested Young's blog post may be added to the later section if correctly described as Young's response to defend himself, rather than making it appear in the lede that describing the tweets as homophobic or misogynistic is non-factual or considered controversial to say out loud.

It is worth reading Young's post, he paints himself as a victim who is now so poor he is struggling to clothe his children. Not a credible reliable source. --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. In view of the majority in favour of preserving neutrality and balance, I am restoring a reference to the Quillette piece. I will try to do so in a way that takes into account Fae's point that Young denies he is a misogynist and homophobe in that piece, not that his tweets were misogynistic and homophobic (though I would argue that is implicit). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Musk part 2: can an An RfC overrule our BLP policy?

See [66],[67]

My comment: "An RfC cannot overrule our WP:BLP policy. I would have no objection to a new RfC asking whether the material in question is or is not a BLP violation, with the new RfC posted on the BLP noticeboard." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless that talk was about changing the policy and posted on the BLP talk page. The way I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), BLP works in accordance with, but ultimately trumps all other policies. It's not something to fool with and blatant vios are not up for debate. Zaereth (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What I'm seeing there is a discussion about weight, not "overruling our BLP policy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing in those links related to overruling our BLP policy.- Mr X 🖋 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A attempt to overrule our BLP policy with an RfC?, because I intend to keep the BLP violation out of the page no matter what the result of the RfC is. That's a rather aggressive thing to do and will no doubt result in complaints, so I really want to make sure that I am right about it being a BLP violation before I act. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, Ill check that out. I still have no idea what the supposed BLP vio is.- Mr X 🖋 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"I do believe that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. And I don't think that simply omitting the name does enough to protect him, given the ease of searching on 'musk pedo diver' --Guy Macon 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[68]

"Agreed, in fact the situation is astonishingly obvious.... if notable person A says non-notable person B is a pedophile (later withdrawn), repeating the slur throws mud at B, some of which would stick. It could be argued that the effect of this article would be negligible but that is no reason for us to do something bad. Also, this article will exist for many years when the name of B would be totally irrelevant and the current news reports will have been forgotten. If the wording is kept, this article would still cause some readers to think there just might be something behind the attack." ---Johnuniq 07:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[69]

"I've removed it as a blatant BLP violation. The BLP is written precisely to protect living individuals against this sort of smear. If someone wants to re-write it without including the diver's name, that would be at least compliant with the policy. However its tabloid gossip. WP:NOTNEWS. (Also no WWGB, I am under no obligation to re-write it myself to remove the offending material. It would need to be substantially re-written and I am not interested in enabling gossip. The onus is on those who wish to include the information to do the legwork to make it compliant with out policies.)" --Only in death does duty end 10:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[70][71]

"Its flatly impossible to cover this without Identifying either directly or indirectly through linking to the material. Since the diver is a non-notable non-public figure, I am not satisfied after looking at the various sources that it is possible to comply with the BLP and cover this while protecting the diver. BLP applies regardless of if the person is explicitly named if they can be easily identified. Now you need to gain consensus to include the material, do not replace it again." --Only in death does duty end 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[72]

"I previously reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk. The subsequent comments on that page made it clear that this is an unambiguous BLP violation to be removed on sight, and that the removals are exempt from our edit warring rules." Guy Macon 20:03, 30 July 2018[73]

Also see:

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I admit I haven't had time to read up on all of the details, but I look at it like this: Someone said (somewhere in this discussion) that it is not illegal to be a pedophile, thus such an allegation doesn't fall under BLPCRIME. I contend that the label is just as bad if not worse than being labeled a criminal (even in jail pedophiles are the lowest of the low), and unless this person freely admits to being one, or is convicted of doing pedophilic things in a court of law, then it has no place in the subject's article. We're not even talking about a legal allegation here, but one from a single individual who may have just been throwing out insults at random, and that very fact I think should make it fall squarely under BLPCRIME, plus the broader spirit of which the entire BLP policy was intended. Even stating that it was just one person's comment doesn't help, because 1.) people don't always read the whole story and the stigma of such a label can be far reaching and long lasting, and 2.) the fact that it is just one person's comment really, really doesn't carry enough weight to warrant inclusion. (I'm not sure it should even be included in the accuser's article, but at least there it actually demonstrates something about the subject's character.) Imagine what the Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, or Donald Trump articles would look like if we included everyone who called them something derogatory.

The question I'd really ask is: Does this information actually tell me something about the subject of this article? Have I learned anything about the subject at all by reading it? If it turns out to be a legitimate accusation then it belongs in the article, but if it's just name-calling it should go. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I would modify that question a bit; Does this information tell me something about the subject of this article that cannot be told without linking an innocent person with pedophilia? It turns out that the answer is yes: Elon Musk has made a number of other tweets that can be used as examples without violating BLP. (Whether what is being expressed with the examples should be in the article is another issue; I am only concerned with the BLP violation). See Elon Musk: A Deep Dive into the Tesla Chief’s Tweets in Barrons or 4,925 Tweets: Elon Musk's Twitter habit Dissected in The Wall Street Journal for a wealth of alternative tweets that could be used.

Given the above, I reject the view that it is OK to link this non-notable person with pedophilia as long as we don't actually name him (but every source we use does). I have every intention of deleting all mention of the "Pedo Guy" tweet as a BLP violation. If anyone here objects to me doing that, speak up now. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Up!".

Our content policies, like WP:BLP, restrict what we write, not what our sources write. If we enforced all our content policies on our sources, we could never write anything. We are supposed to avoid original research, but we can use sources that do original research. We are supposed to only write things that are verifiable, but we are allowed to use sources that write things that aren't verifiable. We are supposed to cite our sources, but we can use sources that themselves don't. All our text is free content, but we are allowed to use sources that are not free content. We are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, but we are allowed to use sources that have a point of view. Similarly, I agree that we should avoid writing the diver's name per BLP (though even that is being disputed on the article talk page); but we can certainly use sources that mention the diver's name. --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The above appears to contradict WP:NPF, which says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures" and WP:BLPCRIME, which says "This section applies to individuals who are not public figures.... 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.

Can you tell me why you reject the alternative of using one of Musk's other tweets? What is your reason for insisting on the one tweet that links a non-notable person with pedophilia? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Am I misinterpreting your comment? I'm not talking about quoting Musk's tweet. I'm talking about deleting all sources that do, as, by my reading of your bolded text, you seem to be saying you are going to. That's beyond what BLP calls for. We shouldn't write about non-notable persons, but we shouldn't delete sources that do, they're perfectly usable. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I am still curious about the answer to my other question. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You mean, should we discuss this tweet specifically at all? That's more of a standard editorial due weight question, and depends on the relative reliable source coverage, I imagine. Is this particular tweet worth a sentence or a paragraph, relative to the size of the article? Don't know, it's worth debating; this has gotten a lot of press, but Musk gets a huge amount of coverage for doing an amazing number and variety of things, from rockets, to batteries, to cars, to websites, to tunnel machines, to personal life, to ... I don't know if anyone can even list them all. If this is just a flash in the pan, then goes away, I can see not covering it at all. But if it can be shown that this specific tweet has gotten enough coverage relative to the rest of coverage of Musk to be worth it, then writing about it would not be inherently a BLP violation. When person A says something horrible about person B, it is not true we can never cover it because that would be a BLP violation about person B; we should be as careful as possible (including leaving B's name out if we can) but no more so. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If you break WP:3RR doing that then you're looking at a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.

Would you really want to be the administrator who blocks an editor without any prior warning who:

Has a history of 12 years and 40,000 edits with zero blocks
Who believes in good-faith that he is removing a BLP violation
Who has stated on multiple occasions that all an Administrator has to do is ask him to stop doing what he is doing, at which point he will stop doing it and start discussing it, even if he is 100% sure that the Administrator is wrong.

?

In other words, if it comes down to you disagreeing with my actions, all you have to do is place a standard edit warring template on my talk page, and I will immediately stop reverting and open up a discussion at WP:ANI, where I will make my case that I am following policy. Then we will see what the consensus is.

Would you like me to open up the ANI case now, before I attempt to enforce our BLP policy in good-faith? I would need your support for opening the case now, because there is a high probability that someone will say that I am bringing it to AN too soon.

Or we could continue discussing this here or on my talk page. Perhaps one of us will change their mind on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You've already brought it up here and at WP:AN. You asked, "May I request that an administrator evaluate whether I am right about this being a BLP violation?". I gave you an answer - you're wrong. That should be a clear indication that I will not consider deleting all mention of the "Pedo Guy" tweet as BLP-exempt if you are reported for edit warring. If you have enough support to remove the material then you should not have to violate WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As an additional comment, I don't understand why it's suggest the RFC is held here. While I'm not a regular here any more, I don't believe this is normal practice especially in a case like this where the dispute only really concerns one article. (I believe there has been dispute over the article on the cave rescue itself before, but this particular dispute seems to concern that one article.)

To make sure there wasn't some trend that I missed, I looked at the archives from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive271 to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive267 (second most recent to sixth) and only found one formal RFC Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Using 'Legacy' for still active living entertainers. There was one more instance of !voting which didn't seem to be a formal RFC Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage. And one more case where the discussion was formally closed based on discussion on BLPN and the article talk page after a request without it being a formal RFC Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive268#Shooting of Stephon Clark. And a key point here, that only the last one concerned solely one article. All the other ones were wider issues.

Note that this isn't just a WP:BURO case about the right place to put RFCs. There's a wider issue here namely that BLP issues come up in RFCs all the time. Surely way more than the 3 months + covered by my search. If BLP issues can only be dealt with by holding the RFC here, there's something seriously wrong with wikipedia that we need to fix. I strongly suspect though that this is not the case.

It may sometimes be helpful to mention the RFC here, but there's no need to hold the RFC here when it solely concerns one article. Notably since RFCs are not votes as I presume we all know, if BLP concerns are raised and other respondents aren't able to adequately explain why these don't apply, then this should be properly dealt with by the closing. If someone has concerns that a RFC wasn't properly closed or that insufficient time wasn't given for the discussion or even if they only now became aware of it and are concerned no one else properly raised the BLP issues this can be dealt with either by reopening the old RFC or by opening a new one. There are various processes to do this, and the RFC can also be advertised here once this is done, but there's still no need to hold any RFC here.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, there is no wider policy that is ever going to be settled here since ultimately whether or not something is a BLO violation is going to depend on the specifics of the case. For example, let's say some world leader who likes to use Twitter a lot starts tweeting every single day that someone, say someone in charge of an investigation into him is a pedo with zero evidence. This eventually leads to nearly all members of the legislative branch of this leader's country tell this person to stop. And many advisors and staff members (like press secretaries) and stuff abandoning this leader even those who have repeatedly defended this person. Eventually this leader ends up being banned from Twitter so set up their own Twitter like service run by the government they control where they continue.

This eventually results in this leader being impeached. Later this investigator completes the investigation and the results are widely credited as excellent finding some extremely troubling behaviour from the former leader, and a bunch of criminal actions by members of their staff, but nothing criminal from the leader themselves.

After a few years, this investigator tires of retirement and becomes an extremely successful whatever and their strength and resilience in dealing with continually being called a pedo and despite that leading an extremely fair investigation into this former leader are widely seen as one of the reasons for their success. Everyone of course knows about this investigator being called a pedo, heck in interviews with comedy hosts the first question they often ask is 'are you a pedo' or something similar.

It's clearly stupid to suggest we couldn't then mention that this investigator was called a pedo anywhere after all this has happened, because it's a BLP vio. Note that this is no comment on what, if anything, we should mention in the specific case above since as I said, it depends on the specifics.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong 2

For some inexplicable reason, no mention of the controversy around Sarah Jeong's racist tweets is being allowed on her Wikipedia page (or on the New York Times page). It is questionable in fact if Jeong would even be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, were it not for this *internationally covered* news story, covered in practically every media outlet of note. Could someone please clarify why vandalism of this article is being allowed, and what can be done to remedy it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs)

WP is not required to be updated to the second. We should wait to see what the fallout from the controversy is before adding it in the most neutral way possible. --Masem (t) 18:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. See the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated BLP & consensus violations by Abecedare. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

John Wetteland

I am Michele Wetteland. John Wetteland never had a dog, Baby Marble Eyes. We had one dog, Candy, a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel, which I still own and love. I never sent this imaginary canine, or any canine, to a "farm Upstate". I have never had a beau allergic to an animal. This description of me is completely false.

Michele left John in 2014; she took his dog, Baby Marble Eyes, and subsequently sent the canine to a “farm upstate” when her new beau proved allergic. Their divorce by state decree was final in 2015. They have four children and...no dog.

Whomever posted this fictitious and liable claim should be banned from Wikipedia.

This statement should read: Michele left John in 2014. Their divorce by state decree was final in 2015. They have four children.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu0000987 (talk • contribs)

We don't ban people from Wikipedia for a single stupid addition, although perhaps we should. I see you've already removed the problem content. I have left a strongly-worded warning at User talk:Joeyb7473 which is the person who made the stupid addition. If they keep doing things like that, they will indeed get banned from Wikipedia. They haven't made any other edits to Wikipedia as yet. MPS1992 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Can I get some extra eyes on this article? The subject joined the New York Times and immediately a bunch of users have started adding cherry-picked tweets as part of a campaign to have her fired or discredited. See Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Offsite_efforts.Citing (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your biased editing and reverting on this page. Directly quoting a person's Twitter page is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living people. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is literally a violation of the rules (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources).Citing (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a violation of Wikipedia's rules to directly quote the subject. Please stop with this nonsense. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor blocked. Let me be a bit more precise here: this is a BLP violation though I blocked for the easy one, edit warring (to a ridiculous extent); the edit consisted of primary sourcing, already problematic enough, combined with editorial commentary. What this board could help decided is if the edits warrant revdeletion. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

With coverage already widespread in secondary sources like Fox, NR, and SFGate (not a particulary partisan source to my knowledge), I'm not sure that just including the primary source tweets (many of which are quoted in the articles) in the past reverts requires revdel, unless the editor included other libelous information along with the primary sources. I'm not fully sure of when revdel is required though, just wanted to add that the information is now well covered in the media. SWL36 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

SWL36, after reading the talk page--sure, it is covered, though I didn't see any links to the reliable sources we usually like to cite, so I'm inclined to think that revdeletion here isn't necessary/warranted. The editor inserted their own conclusions, and those could possibly qualify for revdeletion, but there also I think many admins (did I see Masem around these parts?) will probably not think this rises to revdelete level. OH--let me add that only now I see that you linked SFGate here, which is fine. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see much on the talk page that is revdel necessary under BLPTALK allowances. Certainly the issue is not some manufactured controversy within Wikipedia only, which would be time to revdel, and while some of the sources are weak, we're also not talking Daily Mail-type tabloids. Just editors on that talk page should be aware of making sure to talk about the sourcing facets, and not directly talking about Jeong. --Masem (t) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem, I wasn't thinking of the talk page, which I hadn't delved into when I made my comment here; I was thinking of the edits by that now-blocked editor. I think I do not advocate revdeletion for them. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, (we're talking the edits like in this diff [74]) I agree that revdel isn't needed; it's not appropriate to include, but its her own tweets so it's hard to bring a revdel reason into play. --Masem (t) 18:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeong made a number of controversial tweets. They were noticed by message boards, confirmed and elevated to national news sites like Fox and National Review. The New York Times replied to the concerns. People all over the political spectrum are aware of the issue at this point.

Certain Wikipedia editors are repeatedly wiping the mention of these tweets. Many people (I estimate thousands) would never have heard of Sarah Jeong if not for her controversial statements on Twitter. It's definitely noteworthy to mention in her Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:cfc0:1e:14e2:ef9e:f94f:1246 (talk • contribs)

While it is appropriate for WP to include the criticism directed towards Jeong and the NYTimes for her past social media behavior that has been brought by several other reliable sources, we shouldn't be including the contents of her tweets unlesss the specific content is discussed in depth by the reliable sources. (Many RS discussing this seem to provide a few phrases that can be quoted). WP editors picking and choosing which Tweets to use in a controversy like this is both against NOR, NPOV, and BLP. --Masem (t) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued

the comments below were originally posted in a duplicate section. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I hope this is the correct place to request additional, NEUTRAL commentary on the discussion being held here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#BBC_says_(Headline):_%22Sarah_Jeong:_NY_Times_stands_by_racist_tweets_reporter%22

It seems there is some confusion over the BLP policy, which I myself am hardly familiar with. It would be great if someone with more experience could come and NEUTRALLY comment on how the policy applies in this specific situation.

By neutral, I obviously mean that I want someone neutral to the story, not that a person has to be neutral with respect to whether a change is approved or denied. Thank you. Ikjbagl (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this as an issue with the BLP policy so much as WP:DUEWEIGHT. I will say that some people in that discussion are citing questionable sources like the Daily Caller and the Independent Journal News. Also, we can't state in Wikipedia's voice that she "wrote racist tweets". That is a contentious claim that would need to be attributed. It looks like the discussion is progressing as it should, so consensus or otherwise should be clear soon.- Mr X 🖋 12:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact, in that discussion ~~XavierItzm has misrepresented the source~~ which says "The New York Times has defended a new member of its editorial board who wrote inflammatory tweets about white people."[75] Inflammatory≠racist.

@MrX: He did not misrepresent, BBC changed the wording after they published the article. Here is an archive link where it did say "wrote racist tweets". I personally think it's kind of dishonest of the BBC not to denote that they changed the article, if it hadn't been archived then it would have looked like a misrepresentation. https://web.archive.org/web/20180802234530/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 Ikjbagl (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, then I take that back. I'm surprised the BBC would have written that at all. Obviously, labeling someone WP:RACIST in Wikipedia's voice is probably not going to happen.- Mr X 🖋 13:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be very inappropriate to label her as WP:RACIST, but it's hard to deny that the tweets are racist.

"The tweets in question were largely from 2014, and they aimed criticism at white people. In one, Jeong wrote that "it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." Another referred to "[d]umbass f******g white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.""^[1]

The reliable sources seem comfortable characterizing the tweets as racist as well. The BBC headline called her a 'racist tweets reporter' before switching it to ' "racist tweets" reporter' to make it clear that they meant the tweets were racist. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind, headlines should not be taken as a reliable source. They are usually written by someone else than the writer and meant to draw attention to an article. Looks like BBC's person here assumed "racist" before it was changed. And it is OR for us to look at those tweets to call them racist. --Masem (t) 13:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The sub title at the top of the article text read "racist tweets" when it was on the front page of the BBC website though it now reads "inflammatory tweets". I am not familiar with the exact procedures at the BBC, but I'm fairly sure authors write subtitles like those. I and several other editors have had to constantly dump a bevy of reliable sources every step of this discussion -despite this story being front page news on many websites.

Just look at a few of these sources because many describe the tweets as racist: Fox, Washington Times, TheWrap, National Review, and the BBC (formely, and while it was a front page story). I don't even think the word racist has to be used to describe the tweets, "disparaging towards white people" is the phrase I went with in my edit and I think it covers nigh every RS, those that tiptoe around the word racist still describe them as "inflammatory" or "derogatory." SWL36 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fox and the Moonie Times are not RS. The Fox reporter in question has a history of absurd and misleading reporting. The news section at NR is borderline, and I'm not familiar enough with The Wrap to say definitely, but the website has always struck me as similar to Mediaite (clickbaity, borderline RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. If RS disagree about the characterization, we report the disagreement or follow what most RS say. If RS change their language, then we use the new language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

More participation at the talk-page by truly-neutral and experienced editors conversant with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be appreciated. While there are plenty of discussants there, they have mostly retreated to their ideological corners (contrast the proposals and references in discussed in these two sections) and outside guidance may help. Abecedare (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The page still contains nothing about the controversy her tweets caused. Perhaps they should not be described as racist by Wikipedia, but the fact that other notable people have called them racist should definitely be noted. As it is, it mentions the fact that she was hired by the NYT but not the huge controversy this caused. The article is in urgent need of attention from people with less bias. MathHisSci (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey of opinion. The editors on the page have made surprising progress, and are now trying to decide among some proposed-text options. You and other are welcome to weigh inAbecedare (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets in the wiki article: [76]. So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

___

References

^ Tom Kludt (2 August 2018). "New York Times stands by new hire amid Twitter backlash". CNN. Retrieved 3 August 2018.

Misrepresentation of Robert D. Putnam's research

As far as I can tell, Putnam's research is being misrepresented on his Wikipedia article in a way that exaggerates the harms of diversity and immigration. Far-right figures and bigots frequently misrepresent his research in this exact same way, and Putnam himself frequently complained that his research was being "twisted" to say things that it did not.[77] In Putnam's 2007 study on immigration on trust, he wrote that diversity had adverse effects in the short-term but likely positive effects in the long-term, see the abstract to his study here[78]:

Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

I have repeatedly tried to note that Putnam found that diversity had (i) adverse effects in the short-term and (ii) likely positive effects in the long-term, but this keeps getting removed. As a result, Putnam's research is being misrepresented in precisely the same way that Putnam complained it was. I think this is a BLP violation, as it does not give a neutral depiction of Putnam. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I think something along these lines is necessary. But here's a caveat. Putnam's own research is focused on the idea that diversity undermines trust ("in the short term"). His assertions that there are long-run benefits, in contrast, come from his reading of the research of others. His specific contribution is the "short-term costs" finding. He knows this finding is controversial and is therefore understandably keen to shield himself from the consequences of putting it out there. Now, we can use his own statements (and any coverage in secondary sources, to be sure) to include that idea at some level. But I'd be careful about putting it on equal footing with the short-term costs idea. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong 3

The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets in the wiki article: [79]. So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's assume bad faith and bite the newbies, that is a great idea. /end rant 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing about assuming bad faith or biting the newbies. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

[1] Tom Kludt (2 August 2018). "New York Times stands by new hire amid Twitter backlash". CNN. Retrieved 3 August 2018.

[1]