Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive285

Dan Snow

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Snow&type=revision&diff=898506095&oldid=898473910

The account Master13alls appears to be re-created every day to insert this defamatory information in the introduction to Dan Snow's article, then the account is immediately de-activated again so the person cannot be contacted. The defamation has been reverted repeatedly by multiple people.

Snow angered members of the far-right Brexit party this week by (perhaps mistakenly) thinking that a leaflet from them that arrived in his mail at the same time as his European voting ballot came with it; they are now vandalizing his page over and over with a very biased account from a far-right Brexit website mocking Snow as the source, and insisting on making it the description of Snow in the opening paragraph. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Master13alls added back in the same defamatory statement again (Diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Snow&type=revision&diff=898531384&oldid=898506095) with the comment "This edit is not going to go away just because some people only want to see someone through rose tinted spectacles" and added a new one saying he "lies to his daughter" (Diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Snow&type=revision&diff=898532141&oldid=898531384) as well - then deleted their account again.Lilipo25 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Article protection. Also take it to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would take it to ANI if I could figure out how to do it. I found the guidelines for making a report to ANI so elaborate and obfuscating that I had to give up after multiple tries.Lilipo25 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. The article has now been temporarily protected, at least to an extent sufficient to prevent its being edited by accounts like the ones that have been edit-warring over this. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems they began the current pattern as a Vodafone IP geolocating to Maidenhead. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rafał Pankowski

@Volunteer Marek: has been going around the project in past week or so calling Rafał Pankowski fringe - [1][2]. And lets quote: "WP:BLP. Pankowski himself is FRINGE, just on the other side of the spectrum" - and this on the page of a Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - a far-right activist profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others.[3] Reliable sources, such as Der Spiegel,[4] The Daily Telegraph,[5][6][7], The Washington Post,[8], Haaretz,[9], The New York Times,[10], Newsweek,[11] Deutsche Welle,[12] and multiple others regularly cite/quote Pankowski as a leading expert on right-wing extremism and nationalism, racism, and hate speech. Not only that, this academic (dr. hab and professor at Collegium Civitas) actually wrote the go-to book on this very topic (Pankowski, Rafal. The populist radical right in Poland: the patriots. Routledge, 2010. - cited some 126 times per google scholar). This prompted me to create Rafał Pankowski, and I was somewhat surprised to see VM show up there and elsewhere (in light of this request). VM is currently - challenging approx. a third of the article, which is sourced to reliable media and academic publications. He is also asserting POV and bad sources.[13] Content being challenged includes:[14]

1. Fixing the wrong date on a citation - 2012 to 2016. (The piece on dw is dated 15.06.2016).
2. Description of Pankowski 's research in The populist radical right in Poland: the patriots described in Bíró-Nagy, András, Gábor Győri, and Tibor Kadlót. "Populism, the new zeitgeist?." (2015).
3. Pankowski on football fan groups (anti-Muslim and anti-refugee) in Poland - as covered in Deutsche Welle and Benedikter, Roland, and Dariusz Wojtaszyn. "Football Politics in Central Eastern Europe: A Symptom of Growing Anti-Europeanism and Anti-Globalization?." Geopolitics, History & International Relations 10.1 (2018).
4. Hatred video game -in-depth piece in Hatred, free speech and one developer's connections with Poland's far right (correction), Polygon, Charlie Hall, 18 December 2014]
5. "Lucky Jew" - Polish parliament gift shop removes Jewish figurines from sale, The Art Newspaper, 15 December 2017, Why ‘Lucky Jew’ imagery is so popular in Poland, Times of Israel (JTA reprint), 18 August 2018. Additional full length coverage in Hebrew [15][16], as well as Polish media - Rzeczpospolita and Wirtualna Polska portal.
6. Pankowski's research findings presented at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, and subsequent on-line threats against Pankowski that were denounced by the Israeli foreign ministry. Threats were covered by ToI and JC, and the whole episode was covered in an in-depth fashion by the Associated Press (reprinted of course in multiple NEWSORGs) - AP. Additional sources exist in other languages as well.

VM has also challenged some of this content on the newly created "Never Again" Association (the anti-racist organization (somewhat similar to SPLC) that Pankowski heads) and Hatred (video game). Outside input requested. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think he is a reliable source, but in most cases attribution wouldn't hurt. Not sure why this is discussed at BLPN rather then RSN? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Because we are discussing text on his biography article that is sourced to reliable sources (not himself). The discussion here isn't about use of Pankowski a source.Icewhiz (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I don't think he is fringe. I would not support labelling him as such in the lead of his article, or anywhere else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Valentina Shevchenko

Valentina Shevchenko (fighter), someone keeps editing her nationality/ethnicity and adding the "fact" that she's Russian, when it's clearly not true. When asked about it, she responded with "I was born in Kyrgyzstan, I was born in Soviet Union, I was raised with different understandings. I consider myself more of our kind of person, soviet" [17], which doesn't really make any sense in the modern day, neither it should. What makes sense is her heritage and background, which is obviously half Ukrainian - Half Kyrgyz, judging by her surname, birthplace and relatives (like her mother). Someone, please take a look and do something about this vandalism. I've already changed it tons of time since September last year, but one person with a Russian IP and the nickname "Ricco Baroni" keeps editing it back, sourcing with "she isn't Ukrainian, she's Russian, she said so herself" without any valuable proof and which I've already disproven.

P.S. The person editing it all the time might be "Ricco Baroni", judging by the edit comments and someone with a Russian IP editing the same text he edits once in a while. Dmig2332 (talk) 2:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

While she's obviously not Russian the claim of Ukrainian ethnicity is also unsourced (her surname alone is not enough to support this) not to mention unnecessary. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations

Ranjan Gogoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This matter has been brought up on the noticeboard before – Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive283#Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations — and Renewbo has been repeatedly inserting disputed content into the article without seeking consensus on the talk page first. As of now, other users (including myself) have discussed it on the talk page and there exists no consensus for its inclusion. Can an experienced user/administrator intervene? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Shawn Christian (mayor)

Multiple users have made good-faith edits to Shawn Christian (mayor), adding to his intro the fact that he is a convicted child rapist. This features on the intro of his father Steve Christian's page, who was convicted at the same trial for assaulting multiple adults and raping his own children. However, one user keeps removing this information from Shawn Christian's intro, claiming that it is inappropriate or irrelevant.

I would stick my neck out and say that Shawn Christian is better known for his offending than for the fact that he is the mayor of a community of 50 people.

Also, adding this information to the intro is consistent with the intros of other people who have gained celebrity in their own right before being convicted of serious offences. These include Rolf Harris and Adam Johnson (footballer), both of whose offences, grave as they are, are less serious than Christian's.

Do others believe or not that it is proportionate and appropriate to have a short neutral statement in his intro that Shawn Christian is "mayor of the Pitcairn Islands and a convicted child rapist"?

Thanks, have a great day everyone.

--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No not as worded, if you look Harris says "Rolf Harris (born 30 March 1930) is an Australian entertainer whose career has encompassed work as a musician, singer-songwriter, composer, comedian, actor, painter and television personality."Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I meant the introductory paragraph of the article. But in any case, any opinions on whether this should or should not be included in Christian's case? --Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"Abortion survivor" Melissa Ohden

The Wikipedia article for Melissa Ohden recounts her story of being an "abortion survivor" in Wiki voice. Most of the sources appear to be small local newspapers that describe claims made by her. I checked one major newspaper's coverage of her (the Washington Post) and the paper casts doubt on her narrative of being an abortion survivor, saying that it was pretty much evidence-free and that one statement made by her is just a falsehood.[18] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are also related discussions on Heartbeat bill as to whether the term "abortion survivor" is appropriate at all.[19] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is an "Abortion survivor"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Even not using the term it states as fact that she survived a failed attempt - but that seems to be accurate, right? I see we have a category Category:Abortion survivors. 12:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh I see.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC has a story about her if we want to use that to strengthen up the sourcing a little.[20] There is also this Washington Times story, although it ends with an affiliate link to her book so I'm somewhat less comfy with it.[21] Washington Post has an article that describes her as an abortion survivor and casts no doubt on her story. It's already linked in our article. The Washington Post piece mentioned above that casts doubt on her story doesn't cast any doubt on the main point, that she survived a saline abortion. It only casts doubt on how the hospital handled her before they realized she was alive. In my opinion, the label of "abortion survivor" is well referenced in major media. Sperril (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Athena Reich- living biography

Hi,

I noticed a 'neutrality of this article is being disputed' notice due to this page being a living biography. In reading what to do, it says one is supposed to post here. So I am doing that. I am curious what to do to fix this error. All references are legit so let me know and thanks!. New to wiki...

thanks!

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

Neutrality issues have absolutely nothing to do with the sourcing and everything to do with the actual article content. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

True in this case, but not necessarily every case. Anyway, this just looks like a new page patroller with the old "something is wrong with this page but not quite sure what". Now fixed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

This is propaganda and it is slanderous. It must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.201.220 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to delete it due to this being libelous and illegal under Wikipedia policies but Wikipedia locked it so i cannot delete it or change it 71.254.12.181 (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you outline particular parts of the article that are a problem? I had a quick look and most of the content seems to be sourced to probably okay sources. BTW for clarity, there's no such thing as "illegal under Wikipedia policies" since wikipedia policies don't have the strength of law. Something may or may not be illegal under the law of some country, and it may or may not be in violation of our policies. These are separate issues. For better or worse, we only really consider the law of the US in deciding our content, and our policies go further than that required by law. Further, if something really is "illegal", that's best decided by the Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation legal team. So something being "illegal" is not something that's of great relevance to us here. Individual editors do have to consider for themselves the risk of their editing in light of their local laws, that's a different issue. Likewise our policies go beyond what would be consider libel or slander in a number of jurisdictions. In cases where they don't, the fact that it may be libelous or slander in some random jurisdiction is not going to convince us to remove the content. Further use of such words could be interpreted as a legal threat so they are best avoided. In other words, concentrate on our policies and guidelines not what's "illegal", "libelous" or "slanderous". Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede about what she is "known for" is sourced to lengthy investigative pieces by Channel 4 News and The Guardian, a shorter but still substantial one by snopes.com, and an article in Huffington Post. That's substantial sourcing. If the concern is some other part of the article, that needs explaining -- it's not a big article. MPS1992 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The disputed parts of this page was settled through a RfC where there was a strong consensus to keep the current version.[22] 20:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Naming arsonists

Comments at Talk:Hafodunos#Naming_of_individuals relating to the naming of arsonists would be appreciated. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Maness

As the person whom this page is about, the information in the page is seriously outdated and I would like it either taken down or updated. I really do not appreciate a complete stranger having admin privileges over the content of a Wikipedia page that I did not give my permission to create in the first place.

Thank you,

Ryan Maness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

At AfD now. – Teratix ₵ 08:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bryna Kra

Bender235 is violating WP:BLPPRIMARY by edit-warring to include a primary-sourced birthdate on BLP Bryna Kra. Beyond the sourcing issue, my impression was that we typically only include birth years, not dates, on BLPs to respect the privacy of the subjects. But as this is not obvious vandalism, I've reached the three-revert limit. Anyone else want to take it up? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(i) Library of Congress authority files (like the one in question) aren't primary sources; they are secondary by definition. As a matter of fact, they even list the source for the information they provide.

(ii) Contrary to your impression, we typically include the full date of birth for biographies if we find a reliable source. LOC clearly is reliable.

(iii) The privacy concern is moot. Kra's DOB is publicly available. If it took me just one click to find it, Eve the Identity Thief will find it, too, regardless of whether we include the information on Wikipedia or not. --bender235 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that Library of Congress source only gives the birth year, 1966, not the full DOB. If the full date of birth is used in reliable secondary sources, then it is generally okay for us to use it. Edwardx (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Under the section header "sources" (as in "sources for this information"), the LOC entry clearly states "found: Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory, 2018:ECIP t.p. (Bryna Kra) data view (b. 10/06/1966)" --bender235 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That most certainly is a primary source. The Library of Congress uses authority control to maintain a clear language concerning authorship status for legal and filing purposes. (ie: All works are filed under Bryna Kra rather than Bryna Rebekah.) It is most certainly directly involved and not a secondary source that is reporting on the matter from the sidelines. LOC is directly involved. (Scientists, tax collectors and phone companies have sources they use and often cite, but are directly involved and do not report as an objective, one-step removed source with editorial oversight like a newspaper or book. Thus, the mere fact that they cite some sources does not automatically confer secondary-source status on them. However, not all primary sources are forbidden. Things like scientific studies or flight manuals or even the subject's own work can be used for certain info --with care. What cannot be used is stuff that may contain home addresses, contact info, names and details of non-notable people, or stuff best interpreted by someone with a proven background in translating legal jargon. That's what BLPPRIMARY, and by association NOR, is all about.) That said, as primary sources go this is similar to a congressional biography or a university profile. The source they use for the date is the subject's own book, which would be the preferred source and is probably good enough to demonstrate that the subject does not object to its being published, so I wouldn't bother removing it unless the subject comes along and actually does make a fuss. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: with all due respect, I don't understand your standard for what makes a source "primary." The LOC entry in question (as any LOC entry) reports information they either received from the author, or their publisher. If that source of information is "too close to the subject," isn't most of Wikipedia then? I mean, where do you think we know DOBs of all the tens of thousands of former and current NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL players from, if not from NFL.com etc.? Sure those sources are "involved," rather than "reporting from the sideline." But honestly, what difference does it make? As I understand it so far, the only reason to not include someone's DOB is supposedly a privacy concern. But how valid is that argument if the DOB in question is readily available in easy accessible sources, "primary" (on whatever classification) or not? To me this seems more like privacy theater.

PS: to give you my definition of "secondary sources"; it's a source that is "one step away from" (i.e., reflecting on) original research. The LOC entry above clearly meets that definition; as I mentioned, it even lists the primary source for the information they provide. --bender235 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No as our rules make it clear we should not (except in a few cases) accept information that has link to a subject. We should use "third party reliable sources". The issue of privacy is this, if it has appeared in public media then it has already been seen ans us repeating it is not going to make it more widely known, if however it has not received publicity then we are making the information known.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'm sorry, but what's the link to the subject in this case? Or let me rephrase it: how is the Library of Congress not a third party to Mrs. Kra and us? They are, clearly more so than NFL.com is to us and Aaron Rodgers. Or are you suggesting that we should delete all currently included DOBs on all articles about NFL players and other professional athletes?

Also, there seems to be some misconception on how the DOB information come to be on the LOC catalog. The Library of Congress didn't send some investigator spying on Kra or ferreting through personal documents. The DOB information is on LOC because Kra (or her publisher) submitted it. There is no legal requirement for this, so they must've done it voluntarily. So what on Earth is the big fuzz? --bender235 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"he LOC entry in question (as any LOC entry) reports information they either received from the author, or their publisher" they do not produce it, they reprint it. Thus it is very much written by the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is reprinted. Do you expect some sort of contemplation and reflection over a birthdate? What kind of logic is that? The point is that this information (just as affiliation etc.) appears on LOC because the author (or somebody on their behalf) submitted it. Why would they do so if they wanted it to remain private? --bender235 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I brought the issue to the Village Pump, see here. --bender235 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• • It seems a perfectly fine secondary source for this purpose and anyway self sourcing for basic information such as birth dates is permitted WP:SELFSOURCE, and full dates are now common practice thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Bender235: replying to User:David Eppstein you wrote "Contrary to your impression, we typically include the full date of birth for biographies if we find a reliable source." That's wrong and David is correct. WP:DOB says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." That's our policy and I hope you are following it. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: How is this related to this issue? Do you have indication that the subject complained about her birthdate included? Besides, the DOB-privacy policy is among the most nonsensical on Wikipedia, written by people who do not understand how the internet works and controversial from the start. --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bender235: you don't need evidence the subject complained, that bit is if they do. Which iw why it also says "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." I'm not one that thinks that editors should just ignore part of BLP policy that they don't like. It may have been controversial in 2006, but BLP policy is taken a lot more seriously now then it was back then. If you don't like it, try to change it, don't bring up ancient threads. You should know that, you're even more experienced than me. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: BLP is meant to be applied to be extremely cautious towards the BLP's privacy. We should assume that every BLP would object to personal details like DOB being included even if they are a matter of public gov't records. Unless the BLP themselves have said it, or the data appears in multiple RSes, we should omit completely. --Masem (t) 17:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And to add, once a BLP becomes a bio (death + a period of 6-12 months as per BLP), then that privacy issue goes away and we can document the DOB of deceased people using public records. --Masem (t) 17:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: I agree with you on privacy concerns, but unfortunately what you don't understand is that this mock secrecy over published information is mere privacy theater. If you are author X Y and you are conscious about your DOB being out in public, don't submit it to a public authority file. And we're not even discussing the fact that the thought that your DOB is private just because it isn't on Wikipedia is laughable. --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: indeed I am more experienced as a Wikipedian than you. And that BLP-privacy provision is not the only current policy that popped up out of nowhere and then stuck because of status quo bias (exhibit 1: MOS:CURLY, stating we should always use the incorrect but simpler "quote" over “quote”, whereas in every other situation we prefer the correct symbol over the simplified, e.g. en dash – and minus sign − over hyphen -, or multiplication sign × over letter x, etc.)

That being said, correct me if I'm wrong but I am sensing an extremist reading of WP:DOB. Are you suggesting that WP:DOB now goes beyond the subject actively requesting their birth date removed, and instead us Wikipedians inferring that they want their birth date removed? Doesn't this preemptive obedience violate WP:OR at its very core? And more specifically: what makes you believe Kra objects her DOB being on Wikipedia? Clearly someone, on her behalf, submitted the information to Library of Congress (unless you are willing to assume that the LOC obtained the information without her consent). --bender235 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an amount of "original research" that every editor does in adding or deciding what information to add to an article - this is allowable OR as to determine what is acceptable as to summarize the person in an encyclopedia, and how paraphrase or incorporate other facts. So we have the allowances to decide if the DOB only reasonably sourced to a gov't database is appropriate or not. And we have to consider over the last 10-some years that identity theft has grown significantly, and DOB is a critical-enough piece of information that can be used to support that. As such, we should assume that every BLP wants their identity protected unless they are in a public position where their identify is impossible to hide. Kya is certainly not well-known public person like a politician or celebrity, so we absolutely need to use care with identity information even if we have no clue on their stance. --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that Kra had her DOB submitted to LOC indicate to you that she doesn't agree with your laughable assumption that keeping it out of Wikipedia is effective guard against identity theft? Wouldn't she have had it deleted from LOC if she really objected the information to be out in public?

And second, we do not distinguish between well-known and not-well-known people, only between those people who are notable by WP:ACADEMIC and those who are not. And for the notable ones, the same rules apply. I strongly object the idea of creating those wishy washy sub-categories on the fly only to justify application of special rules. --bender235 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, even if Kra actually included the DOB with authority records themselves, that doesn't mean they expect it to be public. No, the LOC isn't a private database, but still its not a highly visible one. And even if they didn't add the DOB themselves, they may not be aware it is out there so haven't taken steps to remove it. We defer to represent privacy as much as possible.

On the second point, yes, we actually do differ from public figures and non-public figures in BLP policy; there's WP:PUBLICFIGURE for this reason. --Masem (t) 16:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are making assumptions, to which I don't agree. Based on your reading of the situation, to how many of those authority files need the subject submit their birthdate to until we can reasonably infer that they don't share the privacy paranoia expressed by WP:DOB? Wouldn't it be a more reasonable approach to say "Kra made the conscious decision to have her DOB published in a publicly accessible record, and therefore we use the information, until she actively takes measures to reverse that decision (by filing a ticket to Wikipedia, or having the information removed from LOC)." Simply put, I strongly object the prevalent notion here that Kra and others share this ridiculous notion that protecting your DOB somehow protects you from identity theft. Most likely they are smarter than that. Why do we have to make assumptions on their behalf? --bender235 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

When I applied for my driver's license, I had to include my DOB, which I knew would be going into a public record (one that is behind a paywall but that exists). It was a "necessary evil" to follow the law. Does that mean I think I made my DOB public knowledge? No, absolutely not. Same with the LOC DOB. All this stems from the core principle of BLP to "do no harm" - assume that people want privacy of their critical information. For example, this is the same reason we don't deadname transgendered individuals unless they were public personas before transitioning. --Masem (t) 16:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, let's take WP:DOB at face value: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources,..."

Y Library of Congress is clearly a reliable source

"... or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."

 Unrelated The source is not linked to the subject, and we have no reason she objected the DOB being public.

Case closed then? --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I've followed your advise to challenge the existence of WP:DOB. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Removal of WP:DOB.

(edit conflict)- copying and continuing my edit. @Bender251: no, I'm not saying it, I'm quoting it. A form of that statement (changed to turn bullet points into a sentence) was added just over 10 years ago.[23] The last discussion was about 4 years ago.[24] So I'm not making an extremist reading. I can see that you are unfamiliar with this part of BLP and I still don't think you understand it. User:Atlantic306 I hope you are still reading this. As for WP:SELFSOURCE, it doesn't mean that we can always take a subject's statement as a reliable source. Many people believe that they have legitimate reasons to not tell the truth about their age and when I was active at OTRS - a few years ago - we were told that we needed more than a subject's word for when they were born.This seems pretty obvious to me. Thus the LOC is not clearly a reliable source. @Masem: your thoughts on this? I agree with you that we need to use care and err on the side of conservatism with birth dates. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, so your position on this issue just pivoted from "Kra objects her DOB being included" to "Kra consciously submitted a wrong DOB to Library of Congress which makes LOC unreliable"? --bender235 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never held either position. Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? Doug Weller talk 16:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Then please tell me your position, and how it connects to WP:DOB. --bender235 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at how a DOB gets into the LOC, it looks like it is through authority control records. [25] Which can be prone to errors (they talk about "high quality data" from their originating sources) so there is a slight chance this may be wrong. I would still call this a primary source for all purposes, and BLPPRIMARY along with the other issues should readily apply. --Masem (t) 16:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The information that the LOC records in an authority record comes from the resources they catalog, or from references sources that they access. It is therefore not a primary source. If you don't believe me, Ask a Librarian at LOC, they will confirm, as they have to me. --bender235 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Its a primary source as identified by WP's use of primary and secondary. There's no transformation of information. --Masem (t) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What "transformation of information"? Do you expect some sort of contemplation and reflection over a birthdate? I can't believe how ridiculous this debate has become. (PS: see here for a consensus on LOC being reliable and admissible.) --bender235 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A DOB including a biographical sketch to discuss Kra's background and their importance would be a secondary source. Also, that discussion seems to agree with the points raised here. But even moreso, there is a key point that is missed in the wording: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." (my emphasis). Appearing only in the LOC is not "widely published". So the date should absolutely be kept out. --Masem (t) 17:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What's the difference between a website and widely published website? How do we distinguish? Are we supposed to ask the admins for traffic statistics? Absurdities like this underscore further why we need to get rid off WP:DOB. --bender235 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would read "widely" here as to be either "multiple websites" or a "widely-published work" ala the New York Times or Wash Post, in the context of that phrasing. The LOC is not "widely published" in that regards. And this is not absurd at all, this is recognizing that the DOB has become a more "valuable" asset for a BLP that we better respect as much as possible. --Masem (t) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Multiple websites?" Well, then lucky us, because the authority file of the National Library of Israel reports the same date of birth. I guess we settled the issue then, haven't we? Yet, somehow I suspect further moving the goalposts. --bender235 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Both LOC and the Isreal library are reporting the DOB from the same source, the book "Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory" that Kra wrote. So no, that's only one site. So I'm to track down where the date is coming from, and the only place it might be listed in the data view for the ECIP for that book, and nowhere else. And best I can tell that data view is simply not viewable. And it is clear that the data source is not from an LOC employee but general sharing of the CIP records between libraries. There is no way we can trust this source for a BLP. And yes, goalpost have moved over the last several years due to stronger emphasis on BLP enforcement. --Masem (t) 18:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there is "no way we can trust" authority files of national libraries. These institutions don't make up information out of thin air. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the LOC and other library all include this information as a type of "chain of custody" of information in the case mistakes are made. They all appear to make sure that these records are not perfect nor of perfect quality. Are there going to be a lot of mistakes? No, of course not, but as these are all primary sources just repeating the same data point, we should be looking back for that original data point to make sure it is correct or coming from a source in the know. Which I can't find a way to do so here. --Masem (t) 19:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth and Edwardx: given your insistence on a reliable secondary source reporting Kra's date of birth, I wondered if this notice from the American Mathematical Society fits the bill. Given that pretty much everyone seems to disagree with me on the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I don't trust my own judgement anymore. --bender235 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bender235 Thanks. The AMS would appear to be a reliable secondary source, but we still have the "widely published" issue, and this one may be borderline. If someone was to add the full DOB to this article, cited with the LOC and AMS sources, I would not personally object. Many editors would like our policies to provide clear guidance in this area, and although our policies are tending to get more detailed and prescriptive over time, this will always be a grey area. It is the same with the law in general. With regard to identity theft, my understanding is that having someone's full DOB may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Our readers may have a reasonable expectation of at least knowing someone's year of birth, but it would be unusual if having the full DOB materially enhanced our understanding of the subject. I often use the "birth based on age as of date" template where national newspapers (or other reliable sources) in an article published on a particular day are stating that John/Jane Doe was x years old. This produces a range of two years, and should generally suffice in the absence of anything better. Of course, those creating reliable secondary sources may well be deriving them from the same primary sources we should not be using, but they then make an editorial judgement and can be held accountable. Edwardx (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A practical question: if "widely published" indeed refers to the number of reliable publication containing a given DOB rather than their reach (as seems to be the common understanding here), do all of these publications have to be cited in the article using footnotes? If not, how do we demonstrate for future reference that a given DOB was indeed "widely published"? --bender235 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Amy Rutberg

This article Amy Rutberg is quite casually written and needs a serious overhaul. It relies too much on quotes and is missing quite a fair amount of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.255.13.115 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Self-identified" Native American ancestry

There are several long-running discussions regarding the categorization of people who have Native American ancestry but are not members of a tribe or nation, including active ones at WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Categories for discussion (permalinks). I'm concerned that the current approach of labeling these individuals as "self-identified" descendants raises BLP concerns since the term is almost always unsourced and seems to be intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their ancestry. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick

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

---

Theodore Edgar McCarrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick contains a false statement about a living person, Donald Wuerl. The statement reads, "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied." It is in the section, Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Warnings_about_McCarrick's_conduct. If you read the sources provided, none of them state that Wuerl was suspected by anyone of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities. This is a false statement and needs to be deleted immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the WaPo story cited in the article, the first sentence is "Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl knew of sexual misconduct allegations against ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick and reported them to the Vatican in 2004, church officials confirmed Thursday evening, despite portraying himself since last summer as unaware of any complaints surrounding McCarrick." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that is discussed later in the article. The specific issue I am raising is whether it is appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice that Wuerl was "suspected" before that point in time, when not a single source states that he was suspected. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe "claimed" or "believed" would be better than "suspected," just tonally? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem still is that no sources state that anyone claimed/believed Wuerl was aware prior to the publication of WaPo's investigative report in January 2019. The most that can be said is that the news media asked Wuerl if he was aware of the accusations against McCarrick, and he denied any awareness. The statement would need to be rewritten as follows: "During 2018, Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, denied having knowledge of McCarrick's activities when asked by the news media." I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456, the claims made by PluniaZ are once again, untrue. As I wrote in the talk page, a Washington Post article cited in the text says: "The explosive allegations against McCarrick, which include two other accusations of abusing minors as well as those of harassment of seminarians, tipped off a full-blown crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." There can be no charges unless there is suspicion. Here's a quote from a Catholic News Agency article from September 7: "In recent weeks, Wuerl has faced questions over his knowledge of the alleged sexually coercive behavior of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick." I still do not understand how this means anything other than Wuerl was suspected of having knowledge about McCarrick. PluniaZ, I quoted these for you on the talk page. You knew about them, So, your claim that "no sources state that anyone claimed/believed Wuerl was aware prior to the publication of WaPo's investigative report in January 2019" is entirely untrue. I offered to change the wording to "accused" or "charged with," but PluniZ ignored this suggestion. This suggests to me that PluniaZ's interest is not in conforming what we write to the sources. I'd still be fine with saying that Wuerl "faced questions' about his knowledge of McCarrick's behavior. This is the exact same wording as in the CNA article, so I don't see what objection anybody could possibly have to it.

PluniaZ, it is my hope that you will not remove this content once the protection expires. Besides myself, two editors, including an administrator, have objected to your attempts to game the system, and another one here seems skeptical of your rationale. You clearly lack consensus. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No source states that Wuerl was suspected, charged, accused, claimed, believed or anything else prior to the publication of the Washington Post's investigative report on January 10, 2019. The closest any source comes to saying that is the 1/10/2019 WaPo article, which says, "All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." But that article does not identify who made such charges, when, or in what form. As such, it is insufficient grounds for Wikipedia to make a claim that anyone "charged" Wuerl. The only facts available indicate that Wuerl was asked by the news media whether he knew about McCarrick's activities, and McCarrick denied knowing. That is all we are permitted to say, and the sentence needs to be immediately revised to comply with WP:BLP. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted supports the article's current phrasing. Even though WaPo doesn't say who made the charges, it says that they were made. Otherwise, how could they have been denied?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Update - I am fine conforming the passage in the article on McCarrick to the corresponding passage in Donald Wuerl written by Display name 99. There is no reason for the passages to be different. In order to comply with WP:BLP, this change should be made immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved - Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Shelly Miscavige

I know Scientology isn’t held in high regard in many places including with Wikipedians, but this article is a cesspool of unsourced “facts” and POV tone. It really needs to be refactored with a flamethrower. Short of that, it belongs in your watch list. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Andre Morgan factual inaccuracies.

Hello, We've been attempting to amend/remove the page about Andre Morgan (Movie Producer) as some of the facts reflect information about the subjects personal and professional life that are inaccurate.

If there's any way you might be able to assist us in amending/removing the entry, we would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteCatProds (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As your account's previous edits were over a year ago, it is unclear what problems you have with the current article and what you wish to see changed. I recommend you list your concerns at Talk:Andre Morgan, with references to correct information wherever possible. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible defamation of academics

This is a bit complicated. It involved a controversy concerning Mića Jovanović, a Serbian academic who "esigned after allegations that he had falsely claimed to have a doctorate from the London School of Economics and had supervised a plagiarised thesis." Mića Jovanović#Controversy I reverted this edit[26]@ "n the meantime, Professor Dragan Pavlovic from Paris published number of articles in Belgrade daily newspaper "Politika" and a book (Etika naučnog teksta - Ethics of scientific text, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015) demonstrating that the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270161770_Dobronamerni_verovatno_lazni_docentiprofesori_i_slaba_analiza_plagijata_Tehnicki_dodatak) and similar ones from 3 other articles.

Below is the discussion User:Sorbonneparis started on my talk page:

Sorry, on the page "Mica Jovanovic", you misunderstood the correction and were probably not informed about the regulations. Equivalent means just "equivalent" but it does not mean to have a power to be used in a foreign country without original qualification. Would you please examine my comment below, consider putting back my changes and remove your warning addressed to me. One of the "Professors" was senior lecturer in UK. Radeljic was Senior lecturer in UK. The other were not, but they also claimed to be "Professors". Yet even if some title may be equivalent, this does not mean it could be used publically in other country and the law forbids to use the titles that are not recognised by some official body (University or similar) of the country where they are used. For example, in Germany:

Using foreign university degrees, titles, or positions in Berlin is regulated in Sec. 34a of the Berlin Higher Education Act (Berliner Hochschulgesetz, BerlHG). It is prohibited to use a degree, title, or position in a way that deviates from the provisions in Sec. 34a BerlHG and can even have criminal consequences (Sec. 132a German Criminal Code, StGB). University degrees and titles that were purchased may not be used. According to Sec. 34a(1) BerlHG, a foreign university degree, title, or position may be used regularly • only in the original form, that is, precisely the form in which it was awarded, • with the inclusion of the university that awarded the degree (known as the “origin information”). Reference: Senatskanzlei Berlin, Berliner Rathaus, Jüdenstr. 1, 10178 Berlin: https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/en/university-studies/artikel.711552.en.php

In EU the rules are similar: "If your profession is regulated in the EU country where you want to practice, you may need to apply to get your professional qualification recognized there." (reference: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/professional-qualifications/regulated-professions/index_en.htm)Sorbonneparis (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sorbonneparis: I don't have time tonight to respond. It would be useful if you showed me where they "falsely" claimed to be professors. In any case Wikipedia cannot say that any of "the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic." in its own voice. I don't know what qualifies Pavlovic to even make such comments, but these are very serious allegations and we must have much more than a paper on Research.Gate to represent Pavlovic. I'm speaking as someone with over 200,000 edits here and . Doug Weller talk 19:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think that I gave enough proofs that the text that I proposed should be accepted. It is hard to understand your method and the reasons behind your resistance to accept the text that I proposed. Here below are other elements that will help you make your decision.

I give below the citations and the links to the sources where the mentioned authors were falsely represented as "professors". As you can see, sometimes the British title was also given, which was correct, but stating the Serbian "equivalent" was false; it should have been stated that this is not the title but the eavivalent. In the Serbian press the British title was always ignored and the title misrepresented; and the authors never presented a correction. There were hundreds of such misrepresentations in the Serbian press. On the contrary, Mica Jovanovic mentioned just one single time that he defended PhD at LSE and did not claim that he obtained a diploma! Yet he was attacked for misrepresenting his qualifications. (see in the book "Ethics of scientific texts"). AUTHORS misrepresentations (examples): "Autori: dr Uglješa Grušić (docent / lecturer, Univerzitet u Notingemu), dr Branislav Radeljić (vanredni profesor / senior lecturer, Univerzitet Istočni London) i Slobodan Tomić (doktorand, Londonska škola ekonomije i političkih nauka)" IN: https://pescanik.net/kako-do-doktorata-lako-slucaj-ministra-stefanovica/

"By Dr Uglješa Grušić (lecturer, University of Nottingham), Dr Branislav Radeljić (senior lecturer, University of East London) and Slobodan Tomić (PhD candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science)" IN: https://pescanik.net/getting-a-phd-in-serbia-the-case-of-minister-stefanovic/

"Dr Marko Milanović is a lecturer (and from August this year associate professor) at the University of Nottingham School of Law. Peščanik.net, 07.06.2014."

In fact it is stated in Serbian also: Dr Marko Milanović je docent (a od avgusta ove godine vanredni profesor) na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Notingemu. IN: https://pescanik.net/rector-mica-baron-von-munchhausen-or-how-the-ministers-supervisor-misplaced-his-own-doctorate/ "Autor je vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Notingemu." Peščanik.net, 27.12.2016." https://pescanik.net/lazni-doktorati-u-tihom-mulju/ ____________________________________________________

Who is DR: PAVLOVIC: Dr. Pavlovic is apparently a scientist with considerable reputation: https://dal.academia.edu/DraganPavlovic His CV and publications may be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303370465_CV-Doctoral_students-List_of_Publications or here: https://www.academia.edu/5284534/My_links_my_CV_my_homepage_DIALOGUE_homepage or here https://www.academia.edu/23804137/Nasilje_nad_Filozofijom_autori_D._Pavlovi%C4%87_i_S._%C5%BDunji%C4%87_-_Full_text_PDF_from_2016_in_Serbian

The mentioned book "Ethics of scientific text" is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297739842_Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_the_first_chapter_in_English Or here: https://www.academia.edu/23129099/Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_First_chapter_in_English

Or at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861

Finally, the claim that Mica Jovanovic left Serbia is just false. He is in Serbia, rector of Megatrend university that is the second best private university in Serbia at this time!! Sorbonneparis (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Sorbonneparis I think this needs to be discussed at our BLP noticeboard, would you like to just copy this to WP:BLPN? Doug Weller talk 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it myself. This seems to be a good faith editor who hasn't tried to reinstate it but I'm concerned that these accusations that the lecturers are being falsely accused. I note that the UK until fairly recently had far fewer professors than the US. See this comparison[27] - the situation changed partially because Oxford and Cambridge senior lectures objected strenuously over looking junior to their American colleagues. Obviously the wording about "demonstrating" is NPOV and would have to be changed but that's an easier issue. Also of course and relevant to any BLP issues is WP:UNDUE. Who else makes these claims or supports Pavlovic? Finally, I suspect that there's an element of nationalism involved but we can't resolve that here. Oh, if anyone thinks they can format the material copied from my talk page so that it looks better, feel free. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I read this article carefully. I also made some minor fixes, like fixing a dead link and similar. I see nothing exceptionally problematic in that article. All claims reference reliable sources. This is obviously someone connected to Megatrend University who wants to whitewash the article about its rector. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the accusation ("This is obviously someone connected to Megatrend University who wants to whitewash the article about its rector.). This is something defamatory, since not necessarily true.Sorbonneparis (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Mica Jovanovic article

I request that when presenting "Mica Jovanovic controversy", both side of the arguments be given. Both may be defamatory though, but Wikipedia is just presenting the arguments and not endorsing them. Therefore equally to the accusatory arguments (that are potentially defamatory) my defending arguments (for which I demonstrate that are not defamatory) should be also given.

I introduced a paragraph that was deleted with the claim that it was defamatory. I claim that my addition is descriptive, as the article on Mica Jovanovic is, and that the book of Dr. Pavlovic just describes both sides of the argument.

I think that I gave enough proofs that the text that I proposed should be accepted. It is hard to understand your method and the reasons (Doug Weller) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller) behind your resistance to accept the text that I proposed. Here below are other elements that will help you make your decision.

This has been my addition to the article on Mica Jovanovic: In the meantime, Professor Dragan Pavlovic from Paris published number of articles in Belgrade daily newspaper "Politika" and a book (Etika naučnog teksta - Ethics of scientific text, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015) demonstrating that the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic.

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270161770_Dobronamerni_verovatno_lazni_docentiprofesori_i_slaba_analiza_plagijata_Tehnicki_dodatak) ____________________________________

I give below the citations and the links to the sources where the mentioned authors were falsely represented as "professors". As you can see, sometimes the British title was also given, which was correct, but stating the Serbian "equivalent" was false; it should have been stated that this is not the title but the eљvivalent. In the Serbian press the British title was always ignored and the title misrepresented; and the authors never presented a correction. There were hundreds of such misrepresentations in the Serbian press. On the contrary, Mica Jovanovic mentioned just one single time that he defended PhD at LSE and did not claim that he obtained a diploma! Yet he was attacked for misrepresenting his qualifications. (see in the book "Ethics of scientific texts"). AUTHORS misrepresentations (examples): "Autori: dr Uglješa Grušić (docent / lecturer, Univerzitet u Notingemu), dr Branislav Radeljić (vanredni profesor / senior lecturer, Univerzitet Istočni London) i Slobodan Tomić (doktorand, Londonska škola ekonomije i političkih nauka)"

IN: https://pescanik.net/kako-do-doktorata-lako-slucaj-ministra-stefanovica/

"By Dr Uglješa Grušić (lecturer, University of Nottingham), Dr Branislav Radeljić (senior lecturer, University of East London) and Slobodan Tomić (PhD candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science)"

IN: https://pescanik.net/getting-a-phd-in-serbia-the-case-of-minister-stefanovic/ "Dr Marko Milanović is a lecturer (and from August this year associate professor) at the University of Nottingham School of Law. Peščanik.net, 07.06.2014."

In fact it is stated in Serbian also: Dr Marko Milanović je docent (a od avgusta ove godine vanredni profesor) na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Notingemu.

IN: https://pescanik.net/rector-mica-baron-von-munchhausen-or-how-the-ministers-supervisor-misplaced-his-own-doctorate/ "Autor je vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Notingemu." Peščanik.net, 27.12.2016." https://pescanik.net/lazni-doktorati-u-tihom-mulju/

____________________________________________________

You asked Who is DR: PAVLOVIC:

Dr. Pavlovic is apparently a scientist with considerable reputation: https://dal.academia.edu/DraganPavlovic

His CV and publications may be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303370465_CV-Doctoral_students-List_of_Publications

or here: https://www.academia.edu/5284534/My_links_my_CV_my_homepage_DIALOGUE_homepage

or here https://www.academia.edu/23804137/Nasilje_nad_Filozofijom_autori_D._Pavlovi%C4%87_i_S._%C5%BDunji%C4%87_-_Full_text_PDF_from_2016_in_Serbian

The mentioned book "Ethics of scientific text" is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297739842_Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_the_first_chapter_in_English

Or here: https://www.academia.edu/23129099/Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_First_chapter_in_English

Or at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861

Finally, the claim that Mica Jovanovic left Serbia is just false. He is in Serbia, rector of Megatrend university that is the second best private university in Serbia at this time!! Sorbonneparis (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

__________________________________________

NEW ADDITIONS: My intervention is based on Dr. Pavlovic book Ethics of scientific text: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861

It appears that Dr. Pavlovic is serious scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lpBAhP0AAAAJ&hl=en

What concerns your argument, let me repeat: The article on Wikipedia only describes and does not make any particular claim about truth or falsehood of the exposed facts. Some facts are "against" Mica Jovanovic (main article), the other facts are in defence of Mica Jovanovic (addition of mine).

The first claims seem to me to be false (and as such may be defamatory) since Mr. Jovanovic was accused of misrepresentation - to have claimed to possess a PhD from LSE. Apparently he did not claim this at all (as Pavlovic demonstrated) but only to have defended a thesis at LSE (odbranio je = defended it, see below).

This was also stated by the Professor Wood who was even cited in the accusatory article! http://www.istinomer.rs/stav/analize/ovako-je-govorio-mica-jovanovic/

The second claim seems to me to be right, because the accusatory(s) of Mr. Jovanovic falsely represented their titles in Serbia. Their titles could have been equivalent to the claimed titles in Serbia, but they were not officially recognised as such, so they formally misrepresented their titles in Serbia (see above). Professor Wood claims that Dr. M. Jovanovic presented his thesis (see below).( Most probably he was demanded to introduce some amendments - I guess).

Therefore the accusations were in fact not stating the trut so they were potentially difamatory. My citing the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are neutral, but the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are obviously true (the British Doctors obviously misrepresented their titles in Serbia).

I would be grateful if you would examine the case again, remove warning on my TALK and put back my text in the article on Mica Jovanovic.

In addition, the last sentence in the article on Mica Jovanovic is false too. He did not leave Serbia and he is in Serbia and his University is actually rated as second of private universities in Serbia.Sorbonneparis (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Therefore, I propose the following: Profesor Dragan Pavlović (Dalhousie University, Канада) claimed in his book "Ethics of scientific text" that the accusations were unfounded. It was claimed also that the lecturer who incited those accusations (Marko Milanovic) did not have Serbian equivalence to his British qualifications, and that he also were committing similar felony as the accused. (Etika naučnog teksta, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015)Sorbonneparis (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

All controversial claims on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially claims about living persons. All of the sources above fail one or more of those requirements: either they are not reliable, not independent, not reputable, are self-published, or require some amount of synthesis to imply a conclusion. If the claims about Jovanović are false, then that must be clearly and unambiguously stated in a reputable source. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree. The references are either that have already been given by the people who attacked Jovanovic, or are really highly reliable references. The burden of proof is on you. Here is the proposed text, slightly corrected to be added to the article on Mica Jovanovic:

In the meantime, Professor Dragan Pavlovic from Paris published number of articles in the most prominent Belgrade daily newspaper "Politika" and a book (Etika naučnog teksta - Ethics of scientific text, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015) demonstrating that the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic) what is eveident from their original article in "Pescanik". Pavlovic also claimed that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional (Pavlovic teaches scientific method at number of Universities) and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic.

I hope that this will be accepted.Sorbonneparis (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you would like to use your proposed text, you must (a) cite which references support each claim and (b) convince other editors that the references are reliable for those claims. Our article on Mića Jovanović currently cites sources like The Australian, Al Jazeera, and Reuters, which are usually considered acceptable for controversial claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly

I would be grateful if someone could review my recent edits at Wilfred Reilly. I may have got it all wrong but much of what was there seemed somewhat weird to me, eg: excessive reportage of self-published works and of criticism directed at him by organisations such as judaswatch and counter-currents. I'm not into US politics or the alt-right etc, so my edits have been mostly a gut reaction thing, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article further.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. The creator reverted a lot of what I did. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly

This article, about a college professor in my community, seems to have been "edited" roughly 50 times in one day by trolls - several of whom have been cited by Wikipedia before - who removed all comments about past publications, debates with the alt-right, anti-racism, etc. What the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Had a quick look, it appears more WP:NPOV and less attacking now. A lot of the content removed and tidied was done by experianced editors.

I see you have now replaced everything, I will leave it to other users to access your replacements. I will note that disputed content when removed from a BLP should not be replaced without discussion and wp:consensus. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported this article here yesterday (see section above). I left a few comments on the talk page but am very unhappy about how it looks following the IP's edits. Whereas I have no COI in this, it seems that the anon may have. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

67.131, you wrote in an edit summary The same user, utterly unaffiliated with the source, seems to continue editing. On WP, being utterly unaffiliated with a source (whatever you meant by source in this context) is generally a good thing for a user. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest tends to mess things up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

67.131, you (or someone with your IP) said that Reilly is "a prof of [yours]" in this edit summary. If that's the case, you should be very careful to avoid Conflict of Interest issues when editing his article, particularly if he's still your professor, and has the ability to affect your grade. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell (writer)

I request the deletion of the Jonathan Mitchell article on the following grounds; No NeutraL Point of View - The article was created by a friend of Jonathan Mitchell who shares a similar ideology. The article creator has also cherry picked criticisms from the source material so as not to include those that challenge Jonathan Mitchell.

No Verifiability - The primary source for the article is a single interview piece with no apparent fact checking done within the article (citation 2). Citation 7 references the primary source at the beginning before moving onto another subject. There is no direct quote for citation 6. In citation 8 Nick Cohen makes a single reference to the article Jonathan Mitchell writes in the Spectator (citation 5), Nick Cohen is also a blogger for the Spectator. Citation 9 is just a letters page.

The article claims he wrote three books, names two and only one of which has a Google result. The School of Hard Knocks is only listed on his website and his Wikipedia page. The link on his website doesn't link to the book. The article also claims he's published 25 short stories based on the interview (citation 2) even though according to Jonathan Mitchell's website it's only 23. In both instances the short stories aren't named or any details given about their publication.

Not a public figure - Jonathan Mitchell is an author of a self published book that he stated on Twitter sold less than 250 copies and he has a blog. His Twitter account has been active since 2009 and has less than 1,000 followers. Outside of the Spectator Jonathan Mitchell is not a featured contributor in any other publication. He's not been the subject of an interview since 2015.

It's worth pointing out that the person who wrote this article has added Jonathan Mitchell as a critic in both the Neurodiversity and Neurodiversity Wikipedia pages

Mattevansc3 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I think he's borderline. He wrote this for LA Mag, and he's covered pretty deeply in this Newsweek story. (Although I am pretty involved in autism Twitter, maybe I'm overestimating something here). And yeah, I remember the drama around its creation on Twitter and the circumstances of were questionable at best, but the article doesn't look too bad to me.

-Thrashunreality

References

Writing his own article is self publishing and does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources ;

How to meet the requirement An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.

Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.

Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.

Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source. However, any information that violates What Wikipedia is not must be removed, regardless of whether or not it is verified in reliable third-party sources.

There is only one third-party source in the article, the Newsweek article, so it doesn't meet the sources requirement. The Newsweek article does not verify any comments made by Jonathan Mitchell so it does not meet the Based Upon requirement. The Newsweek article does not discuss fact checking or its standards of fact checking meaning it doesn't meet the Reliable requirement.

Regarding the article itself. What is the title of the 3rd book Jonathan Mitchell had published? What are the names of the 25 short stories he had published? Where are the sources to verify that these exist and were published? Where is the source that verifies School of Hard Knocks exists and was published? Why is no mention made that Mu Rhythm Bluff was self published? Where are the sources to verify that Jonathan Mitchell is qualified to write blog entries about "autism including the neuroscience of the disorder and neurodiversity movement."?

The article uses a single interview as its main source, it makes claims without providing independent sources to verify them, the article writer has a stated COI with Jonathan Mitchell which makes this more of a Vanity Press and outside of their usage of the #AutisticDarkWeb Twitter hashtag Jonathan Mitchell has no notable presence within Neurodiversity or autism. His blog hasn't been the basis of any academic study or think piece by a professional with links to autism or neurodiversity research.

Edit 11/06/19 - Just found an article written by Jonathan Mitchell where he states he's not a published author and has only self published one title https://corticalchauvinism.com/2016/10/03/jonathan-mitchell-autisms-gadfly/

Mattevansc3 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Rosica

Thomas Rosica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Thucyd is repeatedly reverting Thomas Rosica to an extremely biased, negative version and refusing to discuss the changes on the Talk Page. His proposed version of the article includes criticisms of Rosica that are not cited at all, that are cited to notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews, and that contain impossible to verify claims, such as the claim that "almost everything Rosica has published has been found to include substantial plagiarism." Please revert these changes. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anyone? Is the community just going to sit by and let BLP pages be used as a forum for people to launch their personal attacks against notable individuals? --PluniaZ (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked over the different revisions and I agree that User: Thucyd's revisions have a strong negative bias that is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. In addition, some of their statements are not found in the sources they are attributed to (for example, the source for "At least eight retractions were issued by publishers" doesn't say anything about that at all).

I do think that your revision removes some content that is sourced and should be kept, though - notably Rosica's claim that he had an advanced degree from a university which said he did not. Perhaps that part could be left in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this. The claim that Father Rosica does not have an advanced degree from École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem is poorly sourced. The first source given is notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews. The other source given, Catholic News Agency, does not provide enough information to verify the claim. Their article simply says that "its director told journalists that while Rosica had been enrolled there, he had not earned a degree of any kind." A Google search reveals that LifeSiteNews is the only source that claims to have spoken directly with the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, so Catholic News Agency is simply repeating the claims of LifeSiteNews (which should raise the question of whether Catholic News Agency is a reliable source). Moreover, Father Rosica's official bio on his company's website states: "he is Elève Titulaire de l’École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem [1994]." It seems clear that this is just another smear job by notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking into it further, you may be right on this - while there are a number of sources going back years that describe Rosica as having an advanced degree from the Jerusalem university, I am unable to find a source where Rosica himself is quoted as saying it, so it's not possible to conclude that he lied about it. The closest I find is a video of an interview where he says he did the "last part of my studies" in Jerusalem, but doesn't specifically say that he was awarded a degree there. And if the Catholic News Agency merely took the story from LifeSiteNews, which does indeed have a bias and is known to be unreliable, then I would agree that it should be excluded from the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A) User:Lilipo25 writes that: "some of the statements are not found in the sources they are attributed to "at least eight retractions were issued by publishers". this conservative estimate is in the article by Prof Michael Dougherty and by Prof. Joshua Hochshild published in the National Post: "to date publishers have issued eight retractions for plagiarism in response to our work; 20 retraction requests are pending, under review by publishers, and we expect even more to follow." [28]

You sourced the sentence "At least eight retractions were issued by publishers" (written as a stand-alone paragraph) with two citations. The second one is this [29] and it says nothing about eight retractions being issued. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I am glad that User:Lilipo25 and me can agree: a leading expert on plagiarism, Prof Dougherty, and Prof. Hochshild explicitly wrote that at least eight retractions were issued by publishers. The second older source only mentioned three.Thucyd (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mean that we agree that second source has to be removed, then sure. The entire sentence/paragraph specifically states only ONE thing: that "at least eight retractions were issued". All citations attached to it must therefore say that. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

B) Then User:Lilipo25 writes that he was "unable to find a source where Rosica himself is quoted as saying it". One can easily find this information in his books: for example in his book "Stay with us" published in 2018: "Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB, holds advanced degrees in Theology and Sacred Scripture from Regis College in the University of Toronto, the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem here. One can read the same claim over the years: in CatholicIreland in 2012 [30], in the Jesuit review America in 2014 [31], in 2018 [32], in 2019 [33]

Where does this same information come from? From the official website of Salt and Light... User:PluniaZ argues that Rosica's official company's website does not mention his award from the Ecole Biblique. Indeed. This mention was removed after the scandal, as can easily be shown thanks to web.archives.org: "He holds advanced degrees in Theology and Sacred Scripture from Regis College in the Toronto School of Theology [1985], the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome [1991] and the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem [1994]." [34]

Thank you for providing those links to sites/articles, but I'm afraid it's the same problem with most of them - Catholic Review Ireland and the Jesuit Review America don't directly quote Rosica as saying that he has an advanced degree from the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem. They say he does, but it's not possible to conclude from them that he ever made that claim himself. As I said, I found a video interview where he did say that he did "the last of my studies" there, but didn't say he earned a degree. It's therefore possible that someone writing about him originally made a false assumption and then that information was copied by other sites and writers.

The archived Salt and Light one, as it is a website for his own foundation, might be usable if you can find a source other than LifeSite News (which has a strong bias and has been called a "known purveyor of misleading information" by Snopes) that reports that the Ecole Biblique denies he was awarded a degree there. Again, we can't conclude that he himself wrote the information on the S+L site, but I think it might be acceptable to include it in the Wikipedia article as long as it is made clear that it was on the website and not stated directly by him, and the tone is kept to WP:NPOV. For example: "The Salt and Light website in 2018 listed among Rosica's advanced degrees one from the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem, but in 2019, EBAF's director stated that Rosica was not awarded a degree from the institution, although he had studied there from 1991 to 1992" (adding an appropriate source for the second part of the sentence, if one can be found). Lilipo25 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lilipo25. Being biased does not mean that your are unreliable. LifeSiteNews in this specific case is very reliable. The evidence is that CNA uses LifeSiteNews and you would have to show that CNA is unreliable. Good luck with that.

You forget the fact that this degree appeared not only for years on the website of his own foundation but also, as shown, in his books.

In this video, Rosica explicitly says: "I did my degrees in Scripture in Toronto, and in Rome and Jerusalem."

Therefore CNA is reliable enough. I agree with your suggestion. We can write: "Some of Rosica's books and The Salt and Light website in 2018 listed among Rosica's advanced degrees one from the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem, but in 2019, EBAF's director stated that Rosica was not awarded a degree from the institution, although he had studied there." Thucyd (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to his books so can't verify one way or the other what is included in them (I'm afraid the link you provided doesn't show that the book says that at all - it's just a link to a website that sells the book that says it). At any rate, "some of Rosica's books" isn't really specific enough - you could maybe write it as "In his book Stay With Us, Rosica wrote..." Just be careful that it is actually something he wrote in the book, and not a blurb or preview on the dust jacket/cover, as those are included by publishers and not written by the authors themselves

I just don't know that you can say a source is "reliable in this particular instance" - they are either reliable or they are not, and if they are not (and independent evaluators of reliability like Snopes say that LifeSite is not), then you have to assume they might not be in this particular instance. Also, if they are unreliable, then saying that another news agency took a story from them is not evidence that they are reliable in this instance. You need to find a reliable source saying that EBAF states he was not awarded a degree. Have he or his representatives or the church acknowledged or responded to the EBAF statement anywhere? If so, that could possibly be used. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you, from personal experience and knowledge, that the bios on the dust cover are always either written or explicitly approved by authors. And that a false claim made in an official video by Rosica is always pronounced by Rosica ;)

Sorry, but "personal experience and knowledge" of it's "always done like that" can't be used to prove verifiability. If the words are not his own, you can't claim he said it in the book. You can, however, use the video as a source if you directly quote him saying words that he spoke in the video (see my comments below about citing a Youtube video), so I don't think you need to use the books anyway in order to get the information in. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliability always depends on topics. For example, the New York Times is not highly reliable when writing a piece on Catholic theology or canon law (do I have to list all the blunders?). Instead, on those topics, Catholic News Agency is trustworthy.

I'm not going to argue the reliabilty of the NYT. You might be able to get away with using LifeSite if you explicitly state in the article that they are the source: "In 2019, LifeSite News reported that..."Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the Salt and Light website quickly modified Rosica's bio after the scandal shows the reliability of the article written by LifeSiteNews and used by Catholic News Agency. Thucyd (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but you can't use reasons like "they changed it after the scandal" as proof of reliability. It may seem obvious to you and me that this is significant, but it isn't actual proof that meets any Wikipedia standard. But as I said above, I think you could use LifeSite if you explicitly state they are the source in order to keep the tone neutral.

I am attempting to write out an acceptable paragraph as an example, but I've run into another problem now - Wikipedia rules strongly discourage using a Youtube video for a source and say to find the original source of the video to cite. Unfortunately, that episode of the show 'Subject Matters with Sebastian Gomes' appears to have been removed from the Salt + Light website, so I'm afraid you may have to use the Youtube video - there's no actual blanket ban, so it isn't a direct rule violation (you can't link to it, though, either in the article or the reference). So in my personal opinion, I would say the following would be acceptable, if you source all three sentences individually with {1) the Youtube video, (2) the Wayback Machine page of the website from 2018. and (3) the LifeSite article:

In 2016, Rosica was interviewed on the Salt + Light Media video series 'Subject Matters with Sebastian Gomes' and stated "I did my degrees in Scripture in Toronto and in Rome and Jerusalem".(1) In 2018, the Salt + Light website listed among Rosica's degrees one from the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem.(2) In 2019, it was reported by LifeSite News that the École Biblique, while confirming that he had studied there from 1991 to 1992, denied that they had awarded him a degree.(3) Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

C) I am sure that User:PluniaZ is going to admit that in this case ultra-hyper-super conservativeLifeSiteNews and CatholicNewsAgency were highly reliable sources ;) Thucyd (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No reliable source says that Rosica has been found to have lied about a degree at Ecole Biblique. Wikipedia articles are not an appropriate venue to list everything a person has been accused of doing wrong. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The sentence deleted by user:PluniaZ does not mention a lie:"In March 2019, LifeSiteNews reported that Rosica, who claimed to have earned an "advanced degree" from the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, had no degree from the school." The facts in this sentence are true and sourced with a reliable source. Thucyd (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pete Lowe

Article not constructed from Neutral POV, created and entirely written by person with a conflict of interest in the article "Dudley Politics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_LowePete Lowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.61.47 (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Blatant use of WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY for use in a political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.216.21 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lukas Walton

Another editor and I have a disagreement with this edit. I think it's defamatory. And, I do believe that the subject of the article likes his privacy. I would like to know what other's think, since this is a BLP. nepaxt 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a defamation or a privacy issue here. Still, I agree with you that the information should not be included in the article as it is not encyclopedic and is in my opinion a case of WP:SYNTH by the editor. The article does not explicitly state neither one of the two statements. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's defamation, but I'm not sure it belongs either. I've taken it out, along with the discussion about what his mother was once thought to be worth. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am quite sorry the other editor will not talk on the talk page. I waited about a week for a reply to my attempt to discuss this with him. In any case, we are not in any disagreement about the fact the fellow does not have a photo on the Forbes' list. I removed that. As far as I can tell (since he will not talk to me), he objects to reporting that Forbes' gives Lukas Walton their lowest ranking for charitable giving. That seems notable. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(collapse) I apologize for the lack of response. But, I am quite busy in real life. I thought the defamation would be related to the charity issue. Thanks. nepaxt 00:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems important to me. Further, Forbes' went to the trouble of doing the calculations. This sort of implies that they too thought such information is important. Surely they would not have printed such a thing if they thought it was defamatory. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Again @PaulinSaudi:, the issue is not defamation. the problem is that you should not extract conclusions from the sources that are not explicitly mentioned by those sources. If a score is mentioned elsewhere within the text and neither in that article or in other sources there is text assessing that score (comparing it to peers or mentioning how high or low it is), your observation that is the lowest given by that publication is not relevant and it should not be added to an encyclopedic BLP. See WP:SYNTH. That is the main reason why it can't be added, but also, please keep in mind that not all sourced information should be included in a biographic article (please refer to WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE for future reference). Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

We have one link that shows this fellow scored a "one" in charitable giving. We have another link that shows a "one" is the lowest possible score. Would it be better if I provided both links? Of people on the Forbes' list, this gentleman is among the least charitable. This is true. It is not trivial. It is backed up by solid cites.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

For the third time. please refer to WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 

For any further discussion please use the talk page of the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me to stop talking to you. I am not synthesizing anything. The Forbes page on Mr. Walton rates him a "1." nepaxt asked what that rating means. I provided a cite to another page at Forbes. It seems if I provide one cite that is insufficient. If I provide two that violates WP:SYNTH. This strikes me as strange.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Lukas_Walton#Edit_War?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cathy Newman

Some input on the prose and sources added here would be appreciated. I've reverted for now since the text introduces a bunch of subjective fluff, and the only source that isn't a blog or op-ed appears to be this one, which has its own problems (see Talk:Cathy Newman#Callaghan source). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Newman's method was to begin multiple sentences with 'What you’re saying is…', each time this occurs her statement did not reflect what Peterson was saying, Peterson responded on each occasion by calmly re-explaining his position."

While I agree we want to describe what happened, this isn't the sentence in which to do it. It's not grammatical, and the sources don't all say exactly that. Honestly, the paragraph without the sentence already does say the interview was combative, and that Newman was accused of misrepresenting Peterson's views. That may suffice. --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama)

I would appreciate your thoughts on this new article. Very simply he does not seem very notable except for recent news events. Perhaps at the very least it deserves a "Recentism" tag, if not speedy deletion.--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There was already a deletion discussion open for that article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Gente de Zona

Resolved

Gente de Zona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NPOV Honestly, it's worth visiting this article for an example of how to avoid deifying the subjects of BLPs. I tried to fix it, but the article in question was completely shot through with laughable WP:PUFFERY and still needs a serious overhaul in the textual components (the old version that was slightly worse). I'm not up to the job now, but I felt I would be amiss to let it go unreported, so I learned how to make my first discussion board post. Yay! Anyways, the article needs someone with a knowledge of the band and their place in music, both Cuban and otherwise, which I lack. Huge thanks to whoever does end up editing it, as the only good thing about it is that it's not long. The Average Gamer (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I can only assume that was written by their paid publicist. The whole article is one big ego-stroke. And where is the sourcing in the article body? That's the second article I've seen this week with just a list of references at the bottom that aren't linked anywhere in the text, so there's no way to tell where any bit of information came from. I don't think I can take that mess on, but you're right - somebody should. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have BOLDly TNT'ed the history and lead section which are just unsourced and promotional versions of the discography. – Teratix ₵ 12:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Good call. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice work. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! In hindsight, it seems obvious to do, but I'm glad my inaction was not left at that. The Average Gamer (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Health of Donald Trump

My concern is three-fold:

1. the article has raised concern as being a Coatrack, an attack page and/or POV Fork. The entire Mental health section is based on opinions and speculation with claims of mental illness and dementia, most of which were made by his detractors/opposition, and presented as generalizations instead of being directly attributed to the person who made the claims as required by BLP.
2. the material is UNDUE, and appears more as gossip than encyclopedic information. There is far too much coverage of unfounded claims of dementia and other speculative mental issues/personality disorders which were made by observers who never actually examined him whereas the actual medical exams have proven otherwise, and have debunked the claims. Why keep such nonsense in the pedia?
3. in keeping with MOS, we should at least try to maintain some form of consistency with section titles and encyclopedic content. Good models to follow are the articles of former presidents. For example, the mental issues published by RS regarding Hillary Clinton & Bill Clinton. The inclusion of the material was handled properly, kept to a minimum and neither have standalone articles that focus specifically on their health as does Trump. I'm of the mind the article should be nominated as an AfD-merge. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump

Not that I would be surprised if the article was resoundingly kept, because reasons. GMG^talk 20:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

^{That wikilinked essay is brilliant and oh, so true! Atsme _Talk 📧 03:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)}

I think Trump's father was conceived in Germany, but born in NYC.

"Friedrich attempted to return to Germany in 1905 when Christ became homesick, but was ejected from Germany and ordered not to return after it became apparent he failed to perform mandatory military service. The couple returned to the US on a ship bound for Pennsylvania. Christ was three months pregnant with Fred at the time. Their son was born in New York City."[35]

(The charge is that Trump is not aware of where his father was born.) Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's 100% a coatrack. If there were significant physical/medical issues, akin to FDR's polio, where there was clear objective evaluations by professionals, that would be reasonable, but we have sources playing "armchair psychiatrists" here, all using claims that Trump's mental state is not suitable for being president. Whether that's true or not, there's a stronger rigor of tests that would be conducted, with consent of Trump, that could prove that out. That just simply hasn't been done, so any claims about mental health cannot be taken as objective and strictly as POV, making the bulk of this article a POV/attack page against Trump. --Masem (t) 21:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Even if he appeared on Dr. Phil, that wouldn't be a professional evaluation, let alone a bunch of armchair psychiatry. Stuff like this is why I simply cannot stand politics. In my opinion, no one dumb enough to get involved in it has the mental state for it. (That's the only reason I voted for Trump; to give a big FU to the rest of the system. If Daffy Duck had run instead, I've no doubt he'd be president right now.) This violates BLP on so many levels that, in my opinion, it should be speedied on those grounds alone. Zaereth (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

J. Christopher Kovats-Bernat

Maybe one of you can have a look at this. The article was a resume with sourced information; now it's pretty much a resume. Jckovatsbernat is a new account and claims to be the subject. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Make that a completely unsourced resume, since the only sources were in the sections removed. Note that this article is largely the work of 2 SPAs, Biographilios and Biographile. Meters (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have done some pruning, added a couple of references and tagged it for notability. In my opinion if it's not improved it should probably go to AfD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Halsey Minor

Halsey Minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current Halsey Minor page is focused mostly on lawsuits and much of that content is unsourced or poorly-sourced to niche publications, short blurbs, etc. I shared a draft rewrite as a proposed starting point for a more proper biographical article where the lawsuits are a part of a balanced profile featuring both successes and failures. I asked @Bbb23: and @Mojo Hand: to review the draft due to my conflict of interest and both said I should post here instead. Any feedback on the draft from independent editors would be welcome. Jasonliveplanet (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi. Your draft is a great improvement in my interpretation of what a policy compliant wikipedia biography rearding this person should be. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• I haven't studied the details but the current Halsey Minor is typical of what happens when anyone can edit meets a person with opponents on the internet. The "Legal complications" section is way WP:UNDUE—write an article on the topic if it is notable or give only a very brief outline of the issue in the biography. The draft is much better although there may be details that I did not notice in a quick look. Replacing an article with a draft can be difficult because people may object to the new text and to the large change—there will be complaints that such a change should be done piece-by-piece. However, it is hard to predict how things will turn out and people active here may assist. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

This article appears to contain information about two men named Joe Douglass. One is English and works in theatre, the other is American and works in American Football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.70.89.117 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. The correct article for the football GM is Joe Douglas (American football executive). —DIYeditor (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

James Glickenhaus

The constant trolling and libelous re editing of Mr Glickenhaus 1967 Ferrari 330 P 3/4 chassis must stop. 1967 Ferrari 330 P3/4 chassis 0846's legal identity has been confirmed for over 20 years, accepted by Ferrari in a legal action that can not be challenged, accepted by NYS DMV, US and Italian customs and FIVA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.54.104.202 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been mentioned to you before, we need reliable secondary sources supporting claims made, not court case or other primary sources. Especially not stuff like letters, forum posts etc. This applies both ways, so the content at James Glickenhaus has been trimmed down as most of the content there was unsourced. On the page Ferrari P, some limited content remains and it is unsourced so potentially could be removed. But frankly it's at best an extremely minor BLP concern since the James Glickenhaus and his claims are not mentioned in any way anymore. Note that it is reasonable possible that some government body may recognise something but that other sources may dispute that. If both viewpoints are sufficiently significant, as evidenced by their coverage in reliable secondary sources, it's quite likely we will cover both viewpoints. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I suggest you cut down on the use of words like WP:Libel. We have our own policies and guidelines which go belong the standards for defamation in the US and some other jurisdictions. For this reason the use of such words is rarely helpful. Instead, it risks being perceived as a legal threat, which would lead to a block per WP:NLT. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex Molden Bio

Alex Molden

Alex is married to Christin Molden (m. 1998), and they, together, have EIGHT children. Isaiah Molden, Elijah Molden, Micah Molden, Alana Molden, Selah Molden, Josiah Molden, Bianca Molden and Ezra Molden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5B01:F234:4555:408E:EBB6:99E1 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I added a personal life section with a mention that he's married and has eight children. Names of children are usually not added to articles for privacy reasons. -kyykaarme (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Forbes (politician)

Could someone take a look at this. This person was elected a British MP this morning and the page is being used to mislead people into thinking she is an antisemite. Her by-election win is the top news headline in the UK today.77.103.105.67 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked. The section is properly sourced and written with appropriate WP:NPOV, imo. You may disagree, but I don't see any violations that require revision. At the moment, the anti-Semitism allegations are the majority of the article, but that's because no one has added other relevant information about her or her political achievements yet, which can easily be done without removing that section. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It might look OK but I'm pretty sure it isn't. For example, I've put links to the two facebook posts in question at the bottom of the talk page. If you look at the September 2014 one, she's clearly saying she enjoyed reading a (innocent) conversation that happens to be in the comments underneath the post. Yet the wording of her wikipedia page makes it sound like she's endorsing the original post, which if you look at the evidence is completely unreasonable. That's just one of the problems. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to fight an edit war. This is how the page looked as I was waking up this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Forbes_(politician)&oldid=900716266

77.103.105.67 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, you're doing original research to dispute what reliable sources have said about her - that's one of the biggest no-nos in editing Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. We can only take information from reliable sources. If you can find an acceptable newspaper article that says she was "liking" a different conversation on Facebook than what she was accused of and apologized for, feel free to cite it. But I'm sorry, you can't do your own research and use that as proof. Not allowed. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The facebook posts were linked to in the tweet contained in the Jewish Chronical cited. People are just hearing the spin of the material cited and ignoring the facts in the material cited.77.103.105.67 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The big problem here is the lack of newspapers willing to in any way defend Labour politicians against any charges of antisemitism creating an emperers' new clothes scenario. Can you suggest a 'reliable source' that might be willing to make a counter argument? because I can't think of any. If wikipedia just reflects the editorial line of newspapers, rather than fact, what is the point of it.77.103.105.67 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, original research is expressly forbidden in editing Wikipedia. You cannot decide that all the RSs are just giving "spin" and so you need to provide an alternative view - the rules of Wikipedia are very clear. We report what reliable sources say and that's it. It makes no difference if one of the sources talked about the Facebook posts - all you can do is state what the source said. You cannot go to Facebook yourself to investigate, decide the RS is wrong and give that viewpoint on Wikipedia. If there are no newspapers "willing in any way to defend Labour politicians against any charges of antisemitism", as you say, then I'm afraid there's nothing you can do. The "point" of Wikipedia is not to provide your personal viewpoint.Lilipo25 (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to personalise this onto me. It is not a issue of my personal point of view. One issue is the primary source clearly contradicts what is being alleged by the secondary sources, and Wikipedia editors are knowingly propagating an obvious falsehood on the biography of a living person.77.103.105.67 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "personalising" this onto you - I'm telling you that you cannot do original research and use it to edit a Wikipedia article. It's absolutely clear in the rules. We edit based on reliable secondary sources, full stop. You may feel that all the newspapers are "propagating an obvious falsehood", but they meet the guidelines for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Your own research does not. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The "what she clicked on on Facebook" thing needs to be mentioned in the biography -- because of the attention paid to it by significant organizations and reliable sources -- but it taking up most of the biography, as it does at the moment, is undue weight. It would be good if neutral editors could add reliably sourced material about the person, their politics and their life. MPS1992 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

To say that she clicked like on a video without either noticing or caring that part of the accompanying text had an antisemitic phrase would be fair enough, but it's the spin that's the problem, how do you stop hostile editors (see link above) using weasel words implying she's guilty of antisemitic intent, especially when they can cite several newspapers that use the same spin? By the way there is a wikipedia page on "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" that would be more suitable for discussing the subject in depth.77.103.105.67 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that it isn't your job to defend the subject in an edit. The anti-Semitism allegations have been a very big story concerning the subject of this article. They need to be reported factually and with WP:NPOV by all editors. It is never the job of editors to either condemn or defend a subject, just to provide an impartial view of what RS have said. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I notice that the "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" page has editing restrictions on it, but Lisa Forbes page does not? (I'm guessing that would stop me editing it at all, mind due)77.103.105.67 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Lisa Forbes is a nice lady. Some less nice people are mentioned in the article Milkshaking, and I encourage everyone to improve that article too. Particularly apt photographs may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used on all Wikimedia projects. MPS1992 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that the subject is a "nice lady" or that other people are "less nice" is not relevant to editing Wikipedia.. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to defend or condemn the subject of articles. All you can do is report what reliable sources have stated in a neutral manner. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I had tried to address the bias with this edit, however it was reverted by User:TSP. I asked TSP how they considered we could achieve balance in the article: see here. Whilst I consider them well intentioned, I also think them mistaken as the Jewish Voice for Labour already has a wikipedia page (i.e. is notable) which includes twenty blue-links to notable supporters. I also not that the other reason offered for needing to use reliable secondary sources has not been applied to the use of the Board of Deputies of British Jews as a source for a press statement by an Ip editor. (See here). It is disappointing that Lilipo25 did not discuss this when they formed the opinion that article was WP:NPOV].Leutha (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The press statement by the Board of Deputies of British Jews is used as a source for the claim that the Board of Deputies of British Jews issued a press statement. I don't personally think that violates any policy, but sorry to have disappointed you. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point, but I cite that in comparison to the argument that the Jewish Voice of Labour (JVL) statement should not be sourced to their website. The removal of this edit on that basis, I am arguing is spurious. As mentioned above, I have demonstrated that the JVL is significant. I would suggest that you reconsider the matter. I do feel that a higher standard of diligence is required for those who take on such reviews on this noticeboard. Leutha (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything from the article or edited it in any way, nor have I argued that JVL's statement should not be sourced to their website. Terribly sorry that my "standard of diligence" does not meet your "higher standard". Lilipo25 (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, and the clarification. I am thankful that you appreciate higher standards are needed when dealing with Biographies of living persons, however I can hardly be credited as being the person who pointed this out. As no doubt you are aware there is danger that this is descending into an edit war and may require more action as with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. I hope your courteous response helps set the tone for future discussion, as I am fearful that with a topic of this nature editor interactions can become more than a trifle toxic. Leutha (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We are indeed fortunate to have someone so eager to express their disapproval of others' work on this board (we would be even more fortunate if you would please use the correct number of colons before your comments to show that you are responding to the previous comment - add one more colon than the comment to which you are replying. I have corrected it for you, again. You're welcome). As I have stated, I have not edited the article in any way, so I'm afraid I have no responsibility for any edit war there. I have done no more than respond on this board to a request to look at the article and try to impress that editors' original research and personal opinions are expressly forbidden when editing Wikipedia pages. These two points are the very highest standard of Wikipedia editing. Your disagreement over the inclusion of the JVL website as a source should be taken up on the Talk page of the article with whomever is disagreeing with you about it. It is not an issue for the BPL noticeboard as it does not constitute defamatory or libelous material, which is what this board is for (read the description at the top of the page). Lilipo25 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Fortunate indeed to have such a helpful co-editor who kindly gives me one of their spare colons when I was caught short. I do apologise for this short-coming. I am afraid I got carried away by the proposed changes to the talk pages in the Talk pages consultation 2019 and allowed knowledge of this convention to be squeezed out of my moderately sized brain by the welter of new facts I am being exposed to daily on the internet.Leutha (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Bushwick Bill

About an hour ago, TMZ reported he was dead. Than a half hour ago they said he wasn't, but it's spreading all over the internet as we speak. Recent article history reflects the changing story, nothing too awful yet but more eyes would be good. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. Changes were coming in so fast I decided protection was in order for a few days. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Emanuele Pirro

Quite a few instanced of vandalism on this article: Emanuele Pirro. Probably by disgruntled racing fans unhappy with a decision.--Lead holder (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected for one day by Kingboyk.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Does this statement / source constitute a BLP violation?

Is the following statement (in the People's Mujahedin of Iran article) a BLP violation?:

According to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government.

This is what the source says:

In December 2009, the EP-Iran delegation invited a "former PMOI member from Camp Ashraf Iraq", Ms Batool Soltani and gave her the floor to speak out against and demonise the PMOI. At the end of the debat, MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, a senior British Conservative, criticized the event: "I am not a fan of the PMOI, but I have a nose for Government-sponsored propaganda and I regret this Delegation is becoming a tool for Tehran's misinformation. During a conference in Paris in 2012, Lt. Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran after she left Iraq and sent back to Ashraf "at the behest of the Quds (Jerusalem) Force - a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as an agent of the Iranian government."

Thank you for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about how it doesn't match the source? I don't see the problem at first glance.

The quote accurately matches the source, but there was an objection that because it's a single source making this claim, then it may constitute a BLP violation. Was advised to bring it to this forum to get a final decision. Would this constitute a BLP vio? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Tom Hadler height

We have two editors at Tom Hadler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) who claim to be the subject and his brother, changing the height (despite it being sourced to multiple reliable sources). Myself and another Admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have tried to discuss with them, including pointing them in the direction of OTRS, but to no avail. Raising here for further input; will also cross-post at WT:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watch page, I feel that visibility should be changed for the edit summary of this revision by Gillingham Fc lover. It clearly violates WP:EQ. That along with the disruptive behavior after so many notices probably warrants some kind of administrative action to protect the article and the editors involved. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Anand Kumar

Anand Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are some issues with this article leading to an edit war on the talk page between myself and Britishfinance. To resolve it, I am inviting opinions of more editors. The contentious issues are

1) Is Anand Kumar a mathematician? He does not seem to have any research-level contributions in mathematics. The claim that he has papers in number theory are from low quality articles and there are no original references to be found of these papers. Is teaching mathematics the same as being a mathematician? What is wikipedia's policy to call people mathematicians?

2) There were some accusatory articles about Anand Kumar in Dainik Jagran Dainik Jagran. Later on, many people came to Anand Kumar's defense including some newspapers. The presentation of this affair in the article does not seem NPOV to me. The article openly declares the whole thing as a "Smear campaign". It makes no sense to me that wikipedia needs to talk about this as a smear campaign but not mention why was it done or who was it done by and how was it done.

There are other minor issues with this article as well. Please offer inputs, fellow editors.Breakfastisready (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please read the Talk Page of this article first where the diffs are laid out. This is the BLP of an Indian mathematician (almost every ref calls him a mathematician) who gave up his career to take 30 children of low-caste status in India every year, and coach them to pass the Indian entrance exams. There is an upcoming film Super 30 (film) about his life. Because of what he does, there has been a lot of vandalism/disruptive editing, and we have had to get both his BLP and the film articles protected for periods.

I came to this article to address apparent vandalism over a controversial section (I do a lot of AIV). The largest section in this BLP was titled "Controversy" and included a whole range of 7 unproven allegations ranging from profiteering (despite that these students can't afford to pay), threatening police, not donating winnings he made on an Indian TV game show etc. (here is an example [36]).

I deleted the unsourced content and took remaining material at face value. However, when I was brought back to the article, I realized that a series of editors, including Breakfastisready, has been constantly inserting unproven allegations from low-quality RS, and other biased material against the BLP (and even promoting it in other related articles about the BLP, including an upcoming film about his life). There are higher-quality RS that explicitly call this a "smear campaign" (including a senior Indian minister), and state that these allegations are false.

I kept the main allegations (because it is important to address them), but inserted new higher-quality references that explain they are a "smear campaign".

Breatfaskisready then re-appeared to re-name the section "Controversy". When I pointed out that their historical diffs (on this, and other related articles) showing that they were part of inserting false/biased information into a BLP, they aggressively accused me of COI (and a whole bunch of WP acronyms). They have no interest in improving this article, except to push an agenda.

I should probably go down the path of getting Breatfastisready sanctioned for what they have been doing, but they only have 177 edits, and given their skill level of editing (from their very first edit) this is unlikely their first account in WP; I wonder if it is, therefore, worth the effort. Britishfinance (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance Accusing COI was perhaps not appropriate for me. But this discussion is not about me or you, it's about the article. It's not even about Anand Kumar and what he had done in life, or about his biopic or other articles. The issues are clearly stated above and please focus on the issue. Breakfastisready (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I was more than just COI. Ultimately, the term appropriate here is sealioning. Britishfinance (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Personal Life" section appears to have no references and is probably vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micpoc (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted, but should be oversighted. Can someone do that? Kablammo (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Kablammo (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yana Peel

Yana Peel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added some links to the talk page and also raised the question of how long a COI tag should remain on an article. User:Chris_troutman suggested that tags of that nature should be left up "forever" and "the people most eager to remove templated messages of any kind are the ones of which we most need to be wary."

I don't agree with that - with BLP subjects who have made a mistake (or have had a staff member make a mistake) but who now want to do things absolutely the right way, I think that just as we are clear that "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one" we should be equally clear about tagging - the point is to make Wikipedia as good as it can be, not to punish people for transgressions. (Especially given that most people have no idea what to do in the first place with a biography about themselves which isn't as good as it could be.)

Because I have a COI in this particular case (Yana is a friend) I won't make any edits myself. But I could ask if some good BLP editors could take a look and improve the entry to the point that the tags at the top could be removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If the issues remain, the tag remains. The COI tag being one of the few tags that actually tells the public anything useful. I have no opinion on this particular case, but an actual review by people who don’t know the subject is probably best. This should be handled just like any other case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am also not involved in that particular article, but I don't think leaving a tag forever in an article makes too much sense. I feel that it should be removed after the user with a COI stops editing the article and after it is reviewed and neutralized by other editors. The template uses the present tense and the template documentation clearly specifies that it should be used on biased articles. It even clarifies that if the article can be neutralized it should not be used and warns:

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.  Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia.

I think the objective as with all other tags should be to improve the article to be able to remove the tag. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. My point was more that the article actually needs to be reviewed, rather than the tag just removed by a friend. It also certainly isn’t a BLP issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tony, I fully agree with you. I have taken time to review the article. I found one minor issue that I solved, The COI editor's last contribution was in February 2018. The article has been thorughly edited since then. In my view the article now seems neutral and is well sourced, so I went ahead and removed the tags. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: No, the tag is neither a punishment nor a shaming device. It's a warning to other editors that there has been CoI-compromised editing. The readers seldom ever see the talk page of any article so I'm not sure why you continue to show up here and advocate for your friend. If Yana wants to do the right thing, please tell her to stay away from that biography and every other article where she has a CoI. Otherwise, I recommend the two of you wait patiently for other editors to act upon editing requests made on that talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I see a discussion about two tag types here, one at the top of the article, which can be removed when the article has been assessed to no longer require it (and has now been removed); another one for the talk page, connected (or alternatively paid) editor, which I agree with you should normally remain and is part of good COI disclosure practice (COI editors are encouraged to add it themselves, or to alternatively declare their COI when posting at the talk page, like for disclosure on their user page). —PaleoNeonate – 22:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point PaleoNeonate. I agree, keeping the connected contributor template at the talk page also makes sense to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Darryn August

The article glosses over credible claims that the subject's "heroic act" never actually happened. It cites the relevant sources but does not plainly describe the issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks a bit BLP1E to me ClubOranje^T 04:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ClubOranje I considered BLP1E but the exposure of the fraud has given the subject news coverage over a significant timespan, so I'm not sure a BLP1E deletion argument is valid. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dodger67, Came back and had a look at this. I believe it doesn't pass notability so have AfD on BLP1E basis. Just FYI. ClubOranje^T 11:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Desmond Napoles

Desmond Napoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! This is a biography of a highly visible child LGBTQ activist and gay drag queen Desmond is Amazing. There is already an immense criticism section almost solely stemming from anti-LGBTQ websites who also fan the flames to harass Desmond’s family with false reports of child endangerment.

Now a new section was added[37] which seems like it’s all loosely guilt by association to imply the child hangs out with pedophiles or murderers while doing drugs. This seems like the whole new section should be removed. Not sure if it’s libelous/defamatory. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. Really? Anyway I've removed that sub-section. I would appreciate other editors assessing that entire article. And subsequent changes to it. It's a BLP of a minor. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve researched everything but the criticism section as I just don’t care to look at rabidly hateful sites. So anyone who can stomach it please see if it’s accurate. Thank you for keeping an eye on it! Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

• Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a cult is constantly subject to single-purpose account editing. Recently I've seen conflicts about the inclusion/substraction of names, so that could have BLP implications. It would be nice if more editors could watchlist and/or audit those confusing changes. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is such a mess, I don't even know where to start... GiantSnowman 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple WP:SPA accounts and identical edit summaries in some of their contributions make me suspect socking. I agree with GiantSnowman. Is a big mess. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth getting an admin (with more time than me!) to fully protect and clean up the article. GiantSnowman 10:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And we now have two accounts on the talk page confirming that they were the same person but also claiming to have done and reverted defamatory edits... —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The accounts have not done so explicitly, but pretty much so. Both accounts are also asking to not let them do defamatory edits in the future. I could file a WP:SPI, but I think it would probably be best if someone with buttons and enough time takes a look at the whole thing. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Kellen Winslow II

The article states that Kellen Winslow II was convicted of rape on June 10, 2019. This is incorrect. He was convicted of indecent exposure, but not rape. This is a libelous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.71.4 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The USA today article used as a source explicitly states he was found guilty of rape and two other lesser charges. Is this incorrect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As does the Guardian - a source we would usually consider reliable. Although I am unsure on the 'convicted' part only because he hasnt been sentenced yet. Someone more conversant with US law could probably provide more info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The statement is correct. "Convicted" means the jury has found him guilty of the crime. Sentencing is just the determination of the punishment. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. I only brought it up because in some jurisdictions (Italy I believe is one) technically they are not fully convicted until all appeals are exhausted. Either way its reliably sourced he has been found guilty of rape. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Under the US system, if the jury convicts you, you're considered convicted. An appeals court can overturn that conviction, in which case you're no longer convicted. If someone's been convicted, but is currently appealing, we often express it in WP articles as something along the lines of "Smith was convicted of aggravated aardvark molestation in January 2019, but is currently appealing the conviction." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think in pretty much all common law countries a conviction is considered valid until overturned or otherwise dismissed in some way. That said, it is IMO important to mention any appeal especially any initial appeals. While common, they are also a key part of the process. For some more minor crimes in some jurisdictions it's not uncommon a person can get bail while on appeal, rather than serving their sentence. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Gossip, innuendo and anonymous sources

Theodore Edgar McCarrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff showing disputed material

In the above diff, we have an anonymous source telling a reporter an allegation against the subject of a BLP article that he in turn heard from unnamed sources. Moreover, all the sources in the article are anonymous, and with one exception are never quoted referring to the article subject by name. All the quotes refer to "he" or "him". The one time the article subject's name is mentioned in a quote, the quote simply refers to "rumors" without specifying the nature of the rumors. This all seems like gossip and innuendo that is not appropriate for a BLP article. I think the entire paragraph should come out. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The news report given as a source for this paragraph seems to plainly violate WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The quotations in the news report are almost entirely weasel words, and are 100% attributed to anonymous sources. -PluniaZ (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Melissa Ede

Melissa Ede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes this woman is dead, but the vandalism occurring (the individual was trans; IP vandals are changing pronouns) affects many other BLPs. I have blocked but more eyes welcome. GiantSnowman 10:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BDP recently dead - up to 2 years. So no editor should worry about removing anything that violates WP:BLP Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

According to The Intercept, Heshmat Alavi may have been a fake character and works under that name may have been created by a team in People's Mujahedin of Iran. Would this edit by JSH-alive be a violation of BLP? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Intercept is advocacy journalism and should not be considered a RS for anything. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Thank you for comment.

@Mhhossein: You didn't have to mention me. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You were the editor inserting the material, so I though it was reasonable to have you mentioned. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You would be better off asking at WP:RSN if you want to assess reliability. The intercept is not unreliable because it has an agenda/bias. It has an editorial board, publishes corrections and previously fired a journalist for cause. All signs of a reliable publication. Saying that - generally it should be attributed rather than stated as fact, and for a BLP you would usually want at least 2 sources reporting on the same issue for it to be notable enough to be included, as single-source controversial claims are either not notable, or too controversial to include just because one paper might be having a slow news day. Of course the other side is that news orgs that concentrate on specific areas are more likely to carry articles in those areas than more general mainstream organisations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Alberto Cobo

Alberto Cobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The real name is Manuel Alberto Cobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grossepianist (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Source?--Auric talk 02:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankopan family : 'Doimi de Lupis's name claiming'

WP:NPOV Section has very negative bias, multiple defamatory opinions presented as fact, some possibly defamatory claims about the family not sourced at all.

Negative bias: "the family falsely presents itself" / "members of de Lupis family managed to get presented [to the Pope] not by their original name yet as Frankopans" (it was their legal name at the time)

No source: "Louis Doimi de Lupis together with his wife and children eventually started to use the title of Prince"..."which is a royal title that only the heir apparent of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine could illegitimately claim" (stating that there are online sites where they are referred to as Prince or Princess is not proof they themselves were using the titles)

Opinion: "trying to save the reputation of his family name, Louis's cousin Mirko denounced" (assumes that the family's reputation was destroyed by the using of the name, not a fact) / the family "influenced with false information the publishing of a book with the intention to distort history about these two families" (possibly defamatory opinion, their intentions cannot be established as fact)

Also, section is repetitive and overly long - a brief, NPOV description of the controversy would suffice, instead of what currently reads as a lengthy hit piece on the family. User keeps reverting all efforts to make the article more neutral and remove unsourced claims.

Same user has also repeatedly removed the one sourced quote from a member of the Frankopan family - from Doimi de Lupis' son, Peter Frankopan - about the name controversy, as it gives the other side of the issue: "We were given the name Frangipani by the Pope in 1425. Then in 1671, the other branch of the family had their heads cut off. We lived in Dalmatia, along the coast, minding our own business. We always had the same name."Gapper, John (April 19, 2019). "Silk Roads author Peter Frankopan: 'We're in trouble in the long term'". Financial Times. Retrieved May 29, 2019. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

See also this post from last year--Auric talk 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - the biased editing in violation of WP:NPOV has been going on for a long time on all of the Frankopan family pages - this one and the three for individual members of the family, Peter Frankopan, Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Lady Nicholas Windsor, so I guess it's not surprising that there have been previous reports about it. All attempts to improve the articles to a NPOV are reverted by a single user. For the moment, work by several editors has improved the three individual pages and that user is concentrating their efforts on this Frankopan family page.

Part of the problem is that since the sources they use for their edits (when they use them at all) are almost all in Croatian, it is difficult for most editors of this English-language Wikipeda to evaluate how reliable those sources are or if they even say what the article attributes to them. But regardless, the article has a strong negative and biased tone and states possibly defamatory opinions as fact. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, both Saluspopuli and now Lilipo25 are claiming and advocating the same thing, which is against what's written at the section, supported by reliable sources, as well as facts. By the way, Saluspopuli disruptive edit and removal was on two occasions ([38], [39]) reverted back by editor and admin because the information is "very heavily documented". The editor Lilipo25 was also extensively answered at the talk page as well, proving his claims are mostly false.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

At no time did you "prove" that any claims were false - or that your opinions were supported by "facts" - in the Talk, Miki. You merely continued insisting you were right and edit warring while doing it, so I opened this page so other unbiased editors could review the article instead of continuing to pointlessly argue with you. Please allow them to do so. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just looked at User:Saluspopuli's edit that you linked yourself, and they didn't say any of the things I have said at all - they argued with you over the title of the section, which I have not disputed, and then blanked it, which I have never done (Also, the person who reverted their blanking does not in fact appear to be an Admin, and they only said that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section because "much" of it was sourced, and told the two of you to take it to the Talk page, so that appears to not be an accurate characterization of your dispute with Saluspopuli). If you are implying we are the same person using sock accounts - and I have not encountered them before now, for the record, and have no other accounts nor ever have- I would caution you to be careful, as that edges toward a personal attack.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost all the complaints at the talk page were proved point by point, with the extensive quotation of RS, to be completely false. This is an example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not to mention that editor is making psychological projection as is constantly insisting that his personal point of view is right while not substantiating it with any RS, not to mention it is completely contradicted by all the RS. The editor Lilipo25 is not getting the point by describing the Salupopuli's extensive removal of the content merely as "argument over the title of the section", he also falsely claimed that he did not do such an extensive removal ([40]), and the previous editor tediously pushed the false family agenda also ignoring to get the point, from that we are not dealing with "living members of the Frankopan Family" to Lilipo25 it's only "adoption of name", to claiming that information is "not adequately resourced and refers to tabloid gossip", "disparaging newspaper articles", "offensive and irrelevant remarks". I did not imply these users are related merely that we already dealt with such unsubstantiated and false criticism, also, I was not present at all during the Saluspopuli's case, which is ironically another false claim. However, that's not even the last one as the first revert back was by an admin, while the second by an editor who did not claim at all "that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section", that's another his example of not getting the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Miki, I am not going to continue this pointless tit-for-tat with you here - that isn't what this page is for. I will tell you again to stop the WP:PERSONAL. I do not believe you are qualified to evaluate and diagnose my psychological state based upon disagreeing with me on a Wikipedia article, and that is highly inappropriate.

(I only looked at Saluspopuli's part of the revisions you linked - I mistakenly assumed you were referring to a dispute you had with them because you said that we both say the same things. I don't know why we need to be upset over what another user said to someone else before either of us was around if that's the case, but it really doesn't seem worth arguing about either way).

This section is for one purpose only: to ask the Wikipedia community to look over the current article and judge whether or not it violates WP:NPOV, so let's allow that to happen. I will just say that the article specifically names and makes claims about Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Peter Frankopan, both of whom are Living Persons and members of the Frankopan Family, which is the subject (and title) of the article currently at question. Please allow other Wikipedia editors to read the article and the Talk page if they wish and evaluate it now. I promise right now that I will abide by whatever consensus is arrived at and I hope you will do the same, and we don't need to argue with each other about it at all any more, okay? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, is this some funny game for you? Are you deliberately distorting what other editors have to say or do you have a problem with understanding? How can you "allow" something to happen or "disallowing" others basic things such as to read the article and talk page? Are you aware of how much pointless nonsense you write? You are constantly writing about the editors and not the content, constantly misinterpreting, misunderstanding, making misassumptions, not listening to what other editors have to say, you began and continued this "pointless tit-for-tat", you have been told several times to stop the PERSONAL, although it cannot be correctly categorized as such. You have been noted several times to start a dispute resolution. Also, they are not "living members of the Frankopan family" as they are Doimi de Lupis family members falsely claiming to be Frankopan's. I will not waste any more time replying here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want a dispute resolution started, then just start one already. I don't know why you keep ordering me to start one when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself if that's what you want. In the meantime, I will ask yet again that you stop the personal attacks. And I am not debating whether or not they are descendants of the original Frankopans here - merely pointing out that the article makes claims about Living Persons and therefore comes under WP:BLP. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody other than the same two of us who were already in disagreement over this article have time to go take a look at this section and give an opinion here on whether or not it meets WP:NPOV? It would be much appreciated, as the two of us are never going to reach a consensus alone and this will end up archived without anything useful having been achieved. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My honest (although largely unhelpful) response is as follows. I spent about five minutes trying to even understand what the nature of the dispute here is, and those five minutes were enough to tell me that I would need to invest a lot of hours (and probably learn Croatian) to have anything resembling a coherent opinion on this issue. There are clearly very strong views here, but to someone not extremely well versed in the topic, the debate is completely incomprehensible. I would imagine other editors have come to a similar conclusion. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I thought some feedback is better than none. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking at it, @BubbaJoe123456. You did more than anyone else has even attempted, and it is appreciated. I understand the problem with the Croatian - since almost all the sources are in Croatian, it's all but impossible to verify if they say what the article claims. The dispute is largely over the tone of the article, but I can see where people would run into trouble without knowing any background. Thanks again. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: I already verified with quotes in the article's talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue, Miki, is whether or not the sources actually say what you yourself have written in the article (for example, that Ingrid Frankopan had the "intention to distort history" by using the name Frankopan - something that can only be verifiable if Ingrid herself has at some time said or written something to the effect of "I use the name in order to distort history", since there's no other possible way for anyone to know what her 'intentions' were). You have not "verified" this (or any of the many other biased statements you wrote in the article) in any way. You have not provided a quote from any source that shows Ingrid Frankopan stating that was her intention, therefore it can only be someone else's opinion of why she did it and thus cannot be stated as a fact; that's defamation.

I have tried to explain repeatedly that if you want to include someone's opinion, you have to say it in such a way that makes it clear it is their opinion (i.e., "Joe Smith, writing in the Croatian Daily Sun, accused Ingrid of attempting to distort history by taking the surname Frankopan", NOT "Ingrid Frankopan took the name in order to distort history"). In addition, you can't write things in the article like "it's possible to find online sites where they are styled as Prince and Princess" and then insist that this is the same thing as you having "sourced" the statement that they themselves have publicly claimed the titles of Prince and Princess.

These have been the issues from the beginning and they are still the issues. Nothing has changed. The article remains biased and defamatory, and the issue is so convoluted due to all the sources being in Croatian that we can't even get another opinion on it to try to reach consensus. Despite your edit-warring reverting (that you falsely call "bold editing"). I have held off from making any changes to the article for weeks in hope that some other editors would be willing to review it. But that is apparently not going to happen, and we are right back where we started.Lilipo25 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we are not "right back where we started" and it is pointless to continue the discussion when you got the quotes and still don't want to accept them as verification.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Even though said quotes are translated and provided by you to back up your own writing in the article, I would happily accept them as verification if they verified the opinions you have written in the article as fact. Your own translations show that they do not.. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as BubbaJoe. I really have no clue what this dispute is about. What I can say is that it most certainly is possible to know another's intentions without having them state them. It's even possible to know their intention when they themselves do not. See theory of mind. A subject's own words are often the most unreliable source about their true intentions. For example, to prove a killing was murder, a prosecutor must be able to prove intent to commit murder. More often than not, the accused is not going to step up and admit their true intentions. Actions really do speak a million times louder.

That said, I don't know if that helps or not because I don't know what this is all about. It's like walking into the middle of a dispute on particle physics having no background info in the subject at all. My suggestion, when you bring something to a forum like this, pretend you're speaking to a bunch of people who know absolutely nothing about this subject. Start at the beginning, and as briefly as possible, try to lay out exactly what the problem is (specifically, what part of BLP policy is being violated, by what, and how), and what your proposed solution is. Otherwise, we can't help you, and you'd be better just taking this to the article's talk page to work it out there. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth, for looking at this! It is very much appreciated to have another voice in the debate. My reasoning on the "intentions" is simply that we know she took the name. but we cannot know that she did it with "the intention to distort history", as that makes an assumption about her thoughts that there is no way for us to know. There needs to be some kind of evidence that this was her specific intention in order to say something so negative about a Living Person (and there is none); otherwise, it approaches defamation.

I did try to lay out the specific problems with the negative tone of the article at the start of this section. The dispute over the page really isn't about the use of the Frankopan name: that the current family changed their name to Frankopan in Great Britain in 2000 is established fact on which we agree. It's about the bias of the article not meeting WP:NPOV. Opinions like Ingrid wanted to "distort history" or the cousin criticized the taking of the name Frankopan "in an attempt to save the reputation of the family name" (assumes that the family's reputation was ruined by the taking of the name Frankopan). Things like saying they "managed to get themselves presented to the Pope" as Frankopans instead of saying the more neutral "They were presented to the Pope as Ingrid and Louis Frankopan" - the tone implies duplicity (at this point they had legally changed their name to Frankopan in Great Britain, where they have lived for 70 years, so it was their actual name). All attempts to insert a neutral tone to the article are reverted by Miki.

Recently, the most prominent member of the current Frankopan family, Peter Frankopan, was directly questioned about the name controversy (by a journalist from the Financial Times) for the first time, and his response is the only evidence we have giving the family's side of the whole controversy: "We were given the name Frangipani by the Pope in 1425. Then in 1671, the other branch of the family had their heads cut off. We lived in Dalmatia, along the coast, minding our own business. We always had the same name." Miki deletes the quote every time it is put in and instead cuts it to a brief and incomplete 'paraphrase' buried in the second half of a sentence criticizing the family; there's no reason for this except to bias the article.

So I know the history seems convoluted, but the main issue is really just the negative tone of the article not being NPOV. Thank you again for looking at it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. We should definitely avoid language that implies something not directly said, such as "managed to get themselves". This is what is called editorializing. I still don't know what a name has to do with distorting history. We can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that anyone intended to distort history, because that would be OR and a judgment call on our part. What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion, but we'd need to attribute it to them, and then make an effort to find opposing views to maintain balance. We can definitely give the family's side too, but all of this needs very reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth, these things are directly said in RS, it is already attributed, authored by an academic, published in top Croatian scientific journal. There is no "only evidence" in Peter "Frankopan" quote as we already know his family "side of the whole controversy" while the information he gave in the quote is the history of the Frankopan family, with which his family does not have any genealogical and historical connection, except a false claim to the Frankopan family name, identity and history. It is pointless for citation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Miki, for what feels like the thousandth time, writing something in Wikipedia's voice as a fact and attaching a source to the end is not enough when what you wrote is someone's OPINION. You did not make clear that it is someone's opinion in the text: you wrote it as a fact. You have made a bunch of other editorializing comments, as well, such as claiming that "Louis Doimi de Lupis together with his wife and children eventually started to use the title of Prince" - nowhere at all do you source Louis or his wife or children ever directly having claimed themselves to be princes (or princesses); all you show is that they were sometimes called that by other people, and the opinion of someone else that they are behind it. That is not enough to support that statement as a fact. And you editorialize with negative language throughout the article, saying things like "they managed to get presented (to the Pope) not by their original name yet as Frankopans". That is bias.

You removed the one quote from a current Frankopan on the issue - which absolutely belongs in the article - because it does not fit the very negative image of the family you are painting. You can't just decide that it is "pointless" to show both sides. Again, that is bias.

Another problem with the article is that the sentence structure, grammar and syntax are very, very poorly written - in some places, so much so that it is nearly impossible to tell precisely what you are trying to say. I recognize that English is not your first language (and more and more, I wonder if that has something to do with why you seem unable to grasp the difference between editorializing and NPOV, or between citing someone's opinion as fact and writing it as a clear opinion given by the source). But I can't even fix that, because you revert every edit immediately. This article is such a convoluted mess that it is nearly impossible to get anyone else to even look at it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lilipo25, I am going to ask you a few questions on which you need to give a clear answer: 1) Is in the article written "Accoding to Ivan Mirnik..."? 2) How many RS in the English language are cited which show the Doimi de Lupis members titled themselves as "prince or princess (of Croatia)"? 3) What is the context of information of the quote by Peter Frankopan? Is this information about the Frankopan family or Doimi de Lupis family? As well, explain what is true and what is wrong in The Daily Telegraph quote from 1997 "Jessica's fiance went by the name Peter de Lupis. Then, suddenly, while he was at university, his family emerged as descendants of the noble House of Frankopan, previously believed extinct in the 19th century. Count Peter, as he became, then rapidly discovered he was Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia, a member of that war-torn republic's old royal family"? 4) Did I give you quotes of RS on the talk page which prove this is not my "editorializing"? If you want different wording then give an example at the talk page, but constantly writing one and the same comments which contradict the RS or trying to disruptively blank almost the whole section as you have previously done ([41]) are just a waste of time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Why does the link on the source for that Daily Telegraph quote just go to the Wikipedia article about the newspaper, and why does a Google search for an article with that title come up empty? Also, why does a quote from the Telegraph - an English newspaper - have a sentence in it like "Count Peter, as he became, then rapidly discovered he was Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia", which sounds as if it were written by someone who is not quite fluent in English? Do you understand that even if that quote is real, it does not show Peter Frankopan calling himself a Prince or saying that's his title, and so you still can't use it to prove he styled himself that? Do you understand the difference between writing "The earth is flat" and writing "NBA player Kyrie Irving said in 2017 that the earth is flat"? Do you see that there is a difference in tone between these two sentences: "Susan took the last cookie" and "Intending to deprive others of the share they were entitled to have, Susan managed to get the last cookie for herself"? Do you recognize that since the article is about the current family's use of the Frankopan name, a quote by the most prominent member of that family about their use of the name is relevant? Do you get why it is circular logic making no sense at all to write an entire Wikipedia article on the controversy over this family's use of a name in which you depict only the viewpoint that they are not Frankopans, and then say that you can't include the family's own statements about their use of the name because they aren't really Frankopans and it's an article about the Frankopans? Lilipo25 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Saying "it does now show Peter Frankopan calling himself..." is intentionally misrepresenting what's written in the RS, making a strawman to invalidate reliable and verifiable information. Do you dare to say that Peter is not calling himself as a Prince when he titled himself as "Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia" in his own wedding ([42], pg. 41)? The source, The Daily Telegraph (1997), was previously already used in the article, you cannot find it online because it is from a newspaper, it is archived, you can check it in the library. Saying the "article is about the current family's use of the Frankopan name ... circular logic ...", raises the questions 5) Do you understand a difference between an article and a section? Is the article about the Frankopan or Doimi de Lupis family? Is it already included information about the family's own statements? Give a clear answer. You did not give clear answers to the previous questions, actually, exactly the opposite. Please answer them because it is important as the things you are saying show you do not have a basic knowledge and understanding of the topic at all nor about the editing policy of Wikipedia. Do you understand that?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no way of checking the verifiability of that booklet due to it being in Croatian and my not speaking Croatian, but since it isn't the source you cited for that information in the article anyway, it doesn't matter. You must have accessed this Daily Telegraph article in order to quote it - are you saying that you copied down the quote in the library? I am still unclear why the language sounds so odd, coming from an English-language newspaper (sorry to say that I can't "find it in the library" as my local libraries don't carry the Telegraph). If you can verify that the Telegraph said it was on his wedding invitation, then it would absolutely be acceptable to say in the article "The invitations to Peter Frankopan's 1997 wedding stated his name as 'Prince Peter Frankopan'". You cannot say that the whole family "styled themselves as princes and princesses" using that as the source, as it doesn't prove that, and it's important to state it in a neutral POV and stick only to the facts. That you cannot seem to do this makes it quite clear that you are the one with difficulty understanding the editing policy of Wikipedia.

Yes, I do understand the difference between an article and a section, and I should have used the word "section" but my point still stands: you are using circular logic by saying that in a very lengthy section which you have written entirely about this family's use of the name Frankopan, you can't include a quote from one of the very family members using the name - ABOUT their use of the name - because he is only using the name and therefore isn't a real Frankopan. Do you understand that? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

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

---

• Mark Bourrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article is under page protection, is being stripped of content and re-worked by one Wikipedia editor to turn the page into attack piece. Comments by this editor show agenda-pushing and POV. Artice violates Wikipedia rules regarding biographies of living persons and neutrality. Much of the material on the talk page also violates BLP policies. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your report is a bit short on details and evidence, though, wouldn't you say? El_C 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that the IP above claims to be Mark Bourrie [43]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am Mark Bourrie. No secret there. I am asking you to look at the edits, the edit summaries and the talk page. This is the route suggested to me by Wikipedia's legal couynsel. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, speaking for myself, I'm rather busy. So I would need you to do a bit of the leg work yourself by compiling the evidence (in the form of diffs). Good luck. El_C 18:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps one of your colleagues can find the time. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps. Good luck, again. El_C 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is in response to my edits. I've certainly stripped out a lot of fluff, redundancy, and puffery, and tightened it. And improved the references. The article needed a lot of work. I'm sure others can improve it more. But how is anything I've done made this an attack piece? I've barely added other than a word here or there. Note that Mark Bourrie used to edit as User:Mark Bourrie but was renamed to User:Ceraurus and remained blocked by Arbcom. In today's exchange at Talk:Mark Bourrie they confirmed they did the 2010 edit that was testified to by Mark Bourrie in the 2015/2016 Regina verus Duffy trial of Mike Duffy - confirming the 2015 media speculation that Mark Bourrie is recently banned User:Spoonkymonkey- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spoonkymonkey/Archive. Perhaps it's time to block IP's from editing that Talk page. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I confirmed no such thing. And it seems outing is just fine at Wikipedia these days. So let's put all the cards on the table. Just who am II talking to?

As for the entry, what was stripped out? My National Magazine Award. Everything positive about my books. My academic publications. The high-end magazines I wrote for. What was added? Scolding commentary from a blog, quoting a professor who knew absolutely nothing about the facts of the Duffy case. I wasn't doing Parliamentary reporting in 2010, I was writing Fog of War and teaching. I had a press gallery membership because I needed it to use the Library of Parliament. I certainly wasn't writing about the Senate. See the link I posted on the talk page. Material has been removed to downplay anything important I've ever done and added to make it look like the sum to total of 35 years of writing and scholarship is unimportant compared to the Duffy experience, which I never sought out. BLP policy is about fairness, not tailoring an entry to demean the subject in the public's eye. This editing is clearky bad-faith work meant to punish. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not add any commentary from anyone. If that is there, that was in the article months ago. There was very little about the books that was sourced, or was sourced to your own articles ... or the books themselves. You need third-party sources that say great things about your books - but avoid WP:Puffery. Better yet follow WP:Best practices for editors with close associations and don't edit articles about you. The exception in reverting vandalism (I don't see any, personally) and enforcing the WP:BLP policy. If there's something in particular then you should point it out. Personally, I didn't touch the Duffy paragraph - someone expanded it today, apparently based on your concerns. Yeah, there should probably be a paragraph or so about the books ... the 9 paragraphs that were at removed appeared to be more promotional than anything else, and were redundant with the bibliography also listed .. there wasn't really any good references, other than the books themselves, and routine lists of books in print. There certainly need not be text describing every book! But really this is what this is about ... that there's not enough text about your books? Stop with the false claims. I've never even heard of you before I started on this article (though I surely saw and forgot your name reading coverage of the Duffy trial) - how can this be punishment for anything ... the article needed improving. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The award - perhaps there should still be something there however the relatively recent source only lead to an error message. I'm not sure a 2015 nomination is notabale, and the only source listed was the awards website - there needs to be something else that's published mentioning the nominations. Though if these awards are notable, shouldn't there be a Wikipedia page (perhaps there is, but it wasn't linked, and I didn't find it) there should be third-party sources? Also the 2008 Ontario Newspaper award is still in the article, but there needs to be a source for that too, as that may also not be notable. I'm not seeing a reference in the article to 2010, let alone Parliamentary reporting that year. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a reference for the Ontario newspaper award, and the 1999 NMA, so I've edited that back in with references. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of the IP's opening remark, the Mark Bourrie article is now under EC protection, which keeps IPs or anyone with fewer than 500 edits from editing. You can use the talk page to propose any changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I have been, to no avail. I am going to arbitration with this and asking for topic bans. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:246C:426A:63B5:209B (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

[Just passing by, have not studied the merits of the issue.] You'd want to go WP:ANI instead of actual ArbCom arbitration. ANI can issue topic bans. Be sure to have diffs ready showing documented instance of particular instances of bad acting. (Diffs show individual edits, they are obtained by reading the History and doing the compare-revisions thing, then copying the resulting URL.) Herostratus (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie has apparently been editing his own article for a long time. His allegations are ridiculous. I happened to come across the matter yesterday and am already tired of all of the allegations and threats being thrown around. It seems like he just keeps coming back with new IPs and accounts. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am now looking into this. El_C 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, et al., why on earth is this IP allowed to edit any page here? This IP (and variants) is evading the indefinite blocks on all of Bourne's serial sockpuppets: Ceraurus (renamed from User:Mark Bourrie), Marie Tessier, Isotelus, Arthur Ellis and likely many more, e.g. GoldLilydog. For background see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Socks of Arthur Ellis. He is causing serious disruption, both here and on Talk:Mark Bourrie, including attacking good faith editors with spurious accusations. His edits should be reverted on sight. Indefinite blocks apply to all pages on Wikipedia (apart from the blockee's own user talk page). If he has a problem with this article, he needs to follow the correct procedure in these cases and communicate via email to [email protected]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware. See my closing statement. El_C 15:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

First, Voceditenors statement is conjecture and is inaccurate. Second, when I expressed my concern about the defamation posted on the talk page and creeping into the article, Wikipedia's counsel told me to hash it out on the talk page. I have tried to go this route. I acted in good faith. I tried to have a conversation about the entry, which has been diverted into fantasy talk about sock puppets. I will now go another route. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:246C:426A:63B5:209B (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

jesee sanchez

I'm fairly new to wikipedia so sorry if I am bringing this observation to the right place. I've been cited for writing edits because they came off as too biased or not factually relevant. The way this article is wrtten (especially the section about "american idol and on - glee" seemed not to adhere to those guidelines?

apologies again if I've wasted anyone's time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koriq (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Jessica Sanchez? I can’t see that you’ve ever edited that article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)