Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive295

Should Vivek Agnihotri have a controversy section

• Talk:Vivek_Agnihotri#Controversies

The thread above has a short discussion between several editors where, Myself User:Vanamonde93 and User:Harshil169 had shared opinions against this. IMHO whatever is in that controversy section can easily be merged into other sections, But we have User:Winged Blades of Godric opposing us with the line that "WP:CSECTIONis an essay". I would like other editors at BLPN to weigh in and share opinions if a controversy section is merited there. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to controversy sections - I think they're an example of lazy article crafting, and I they're very prone to become bloated. But from a policy standpoint, the issue is WEIGHT - as long as they're not unbalanced, they're not a policy issue. It's also important not to use CSECTION as an excuse to whitewash an article - if you're removing a controversy section, make sure that legitimate, balanced criticism remains in the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm also strongly opposed to controversy sections in BLP articles, they are often impo used to unduly attack a person, WEIGHT is the issue. It would be a good idea to discuss moving the essay WP:CSECTION into BLP policy. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Have the article baptized by GOCE and I guess, it will resolve the issues ..... ∯WBG^converse 12:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, is that another one of your Delaying tactics ? Kindly speak about the merits or demerits of your "still" unjustified position that you have been taking on the article talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have justified my reasons (Agnihotri has done seldom anything of mention, outside directing films and raking up controversies) and I am not bound to convince you of the merits, thereof. You have been already advised against leveraging an essay in content-disputes, to remove/move criticism.

Also, comment on the content, rather than on the contributor. ∯WBG^converse 12:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop distracting, No one talked about removing content from the article. You are expected to explain your position on why cannot the content be merged into other subheadings. (Something that is explained in detail at WP:CSECTION, if you bothered to read it) For example Urban Naxal can easily be merged on the section about his book. Controversy about his movie can be moved to his career as a filmmaker, etc. You have anyway clarified your hatred for this person on the talk page [1]. It appears to me that you are deliberately shifting the balance of this article to negative coverage using this controversy section and reverting improvements to fix this problem.

Remember discussion is not optional here. And yes you are expected to clarify your position when asked, if you aren't interested in justifying your stand you can as well abandon editing that page & move on to other pages. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not choosing sides here, however DBigXray Your accusation of hatred against Winged Blades of Godricis {WP:ASPERSIONS}}, untoward and unjustified. There is nothing in that diff you linked to that justifies an accusation of hatred, despite the characterization of his work as "crappy", which is an opinion apparently backed up by reviews (facts).After reading his article and diff's it appears that this is really an argument with an ideological basis. Otherwise the heat being generated is inexplicable and all out of proportion to the significance of the man and the article.Using wikipeak and wikilawyering to push or defend an ideological/political POV is rather commonplace.Oldperson (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, thanks for joining this thread with off topic comments. Now can you kindly comment on the topic of the thread ? --DBigXrayᗙ 06:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm, you started with casting some blatant unsubstantiated aspersions about my personal likes and dislikes. ∯WBG^converse 13:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray I have no interest in the topic, commenting on the topic only adds to the drama. What did garner my interest is the social discourse, the emotions ginned up resulting in name calling and accusations. Such raised my antenna (I'm a Martian :) ). Very little of what I can read of this discourse has to do with improvement of the article and as such is offtopic,i.e accusing others of hatred and an agenda.My question, which will remain unanswered, is what is behind all of this rancor and emotion, given that the subject of the article is so mundane and obscure No way can i sanctify this b.s. by jumping in with an opinion about the article Apologies for jumping in with an off topic observation.Oldperson (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

If you aren't here for the topic, then the WP:Drama is what brings you here. I wont be feeding you. Adios--DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I moved the "Urban Naxals" sentence in the controversy section to the relevant section about the book. It was a single sentence, and does not make sense to have its own subsection. For the Twitter and sexual harassment allegations, couldn't we just remove the "Controversy" section header and leave those in "Personal life"? That would seem to be an easy fix. I also posted this comment on the article's talk page thread. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "Controversies" section header for now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

– wallyfromdilbert Thanks for fixing it. Harshil had attempted it before but WBG here had reverted him. So we were discussing the need for a section that is titled "Controversy" lest he would edit war and bulldoze his loved version back into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Wallyfromdilbert and Guettarda:Also, read Republic TV and OpIndia curated by same editor. Though not much controversial like this but still needs copy editing. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Harshil169: You probably don't want me looking into those articles. On the issues here, I think I agree more with WBG, and while I don't always agree with them, I respect them as a Wikipedian. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

”Controversy” sections automatically signify poor and usually POV writing. Readers are better served if NPOV content is merged with the rest of the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with current article structure. Fell free to close this or whatever. ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Eric Geiselman

A piece of puffery, commandeered by an IP account. Would profit from more eyes and a lot of paring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Needs to be rolled back three years or so to here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Jpgordon. A draconian reversion is necessary; my concerns are that my doing so would be mistaken for vandalism, or that the other IP would engage in an edit war. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I was BOLD and took the liberty. The few sources for some of the claims were little more than PR copy. And I’m not sure a user-driven poll for “most radical maneuver” could be considered analogous to WP:AWARD, either. The rest of it was either unsourced, or just acknowledging the reality of sponsorships. Professional surfers are sponsored; this doesn’t affirm notability, nor is it particularly due. If the IP(s) take issue with any of this, point them to this discussion, and I’ll be happy to explain the reversion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Jpgordon. I rolled back the article before I realized that you had already done so, and to the version prior to the one you had linked here. I still don’t think the sponsorships are particularly due, as these companies support numerous athletes in any field, but it also doesn’t hurt anything, and perhaps fills out the article a bit more. Your explanation to the COI IP on the article talk page was also very good, by the way. I haven’t checked, but have they declared their COI? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Archana Vijaya

The article Archana Vijaya redirects to a Web show Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5). I believe the Biography of a living person information is not justified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The9Man (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ajaz Khan

Contentious material about the subject have been repeatedly posted like son of xyz, abuse for profession and changing it to prostitution. I will like to request oversight the content and hiding their version. This version is okay, all versions after it should be oversighted and removed;just one edit before this version was also defamatory. Can someone help with it?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: - to get something oversighted, you should use the Wikipedia:Requests for oversight procedures.

Looking at that article, I'm rather concerned about the third paragraph, which details two arrests. It doesn't mention charges, far less convictions, just arrests. It has a lengthy quote, but no context. And the charges cover more than a third of the (not tabular) content of the article. At the very least, this is a WEIGHT issue, but it might represent a more problem. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Kingston Papie Rhodes

Kingston Papie Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to Wikipedia, but this article seems to go against Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons.

It seems like an attack page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page, as the biographical material is “unsourced or poorly sourced” and the article seems to lack balance. Where citations do appear, they are quoted from only two media outlets, including three citations from a single source, the Inter Press Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service, and the fourth citation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllAfrica.com

The article also reads like a news event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS

In summary, the page seems to go against all of the rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrcol5718 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Inter Press Service is a news agency that is frequently republished by other sources, much like the Associated Press. They are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP. That being said, most of the article is entirely unsourced, and the controversial content is largely WP:UNDUE so I've removed much of it. I found another source and added that as well. Woodroar (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Woodroar for your assistance and for helping me learn more about the inner workings of Wikipedia. Lrcol5718 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Jasmine Shimoda

I would be grateful for any input at Talk:Jasmine Shimoda#BLP. The disputed content involves the contention that the BLP subject has appeared in pornography. Cheers, gnu57 18:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely BLP violations. I've revision deleted several revisions, including some edit summaries, and warned the editor responsible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Onision article and child grooming and spousal abuse material

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

Over at Talk:Onision#BLP again, A Simple Fool is insisting that we add material about Onision engaging in child grooming and spousal abuse. The editor is upset that I removed this material. The editor told me, "Protecting a guy like this, despite the caution both me and the aforementioned editors have taken in regards to wording and sourcing is disgusting. You make me sick." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The guy is a fairly well known figure, so if the allegations are being talked about in multiple reliable and independent sources, they could legitimately be reflected in the article. That said, I agree with your removal of the material which was originally in the article, as it was sourced to YouTube and 'hansenvspredators.com', which is hardly independent and unbiased, and therefore didn't meet our sourcing requirements for any article, let alone a BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Taken care of for now. If reliable sources have discussed the allegations, that's one thing, but YouTube and some guy's personal website are absolutely not adequate. Allegations like that would require something of much higher quality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Onision's child sexual abuse allegations

Should we add the subject's allegations of grooming and sexual abuse in the article? His case is being investigated by journalists such as Chris Hansen.98.6.21.229 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly moved this to a subthread of the older thread. There's no need to have multiple open threads on the same article and largely dealing with the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris Hansen is what I'd call a journalist only in the colloquial sense. I don't know about his new show, Hansen Vs Predators, because it requires a log-in to view. I really hope, from the title, that he's facing some alien hunter with natural heat-vision in the middle of the jungle while firing an 85 lbs minigun with 2000 lbs of ammo that's putting off about 300 lbs of thrust from the recoil, yelling "Eat lead Mother 'F'errrr!!!". (That would be cool.) If the show is anything like his Dateline: To Catch a Predator, then I would not count that as a reliable source anymore than I would shows like Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, or other shows that dramatize stories. And from all the reviews I've seen, that's basically what it is. Zaereth (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Upon further review of the article, while the subject obviously seems to be notable, the sourcing is sub-par at best, with youtube, the Daily Dot, op/ed columns, and similar sources being used for the most part. Some lines are completely incoherent. (I particularly like this: "The clips were scripted but presented in a manner many fans interpreted as unscripted. In some of them, however, Hoganson experienced amnesia, which was confirmed by her to have experienced a memory loss and was real, a pregnancy, and a miscarriage." I've read this ten times and still have no clue what it means.) I'd say this article could use more than a bit of work to bring it up to standards. Zaereth (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:TNT as a good, ideal standard to bring this article up to, uh, snuff. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be almost as cool... Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You may be able to see the Hansen video here [2]. Note that it is a live stream involving interviews with random people and stuff. So even if Hansen vs Predator is a reliable source, it wouldn't be a great source. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil. I'll try to check that out when I get home. Part of my problem is I do most of my editing at work, mostly when I'm on hold and actually sitting at my desk, so I'm limited by the restrictions the IT dept puts on me here. But thanks for the info. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that the interviewees aren't "random people". I suppose the argument can be made for people like Repzion, a guy who's not physically been around Onision, but a lot of the female interviewees have documented history with Onision, i.e appeared in videos, mentioned by name, what have you. A Simple Fool (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look yet. My life at home is really busy, and even here I'm constantly on the go. Here's the thing, if the show is like Dateline, which by all accounts of the reviews (some not so good) it is, then it's something called "literary journalism". Unlike true journalism, which is written in journalistic style (a form of expository style and not too different from encyclopedic style), literary journalism is written or presented using a narrative style. Narrative style is something you're probably most familiar with from fiction writing, because that's where it's used almost exclusively. About the only exception to that is in literary journalism. In this style, we're given a narrative that let's the reader or viewer see through the character's eyes, feel their emotions, hear their internal thoughts, and other literary techniques that are actually impossible in real life. Makes for a great story, but lousy for reliability. There's just no good way to determine how much is real and how much is from the narrator's own viewpoint, and how much is just stitched together like Walt Disney's lemming movie. This is why similar shows like Forensic Factor, World's Most Deadly Serial Killers, Dateline, 48 Hours, those great Ken Burns documentaries, etc... are not reliable sources even though they're based on real events. It's far better to use the same sources they did (history books, newspapers, etc.) than try to decipher the facts from the narrative.

That said, admittedly I haven't had time to view the show myself to be sure. The problem with Hansen's other show, aside from the style, is that he was the one directly involved in exposing the people, and really that makes it a primary source to boot. I'll try to wrangle up some time this weekend so I can see it for myself. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Fool: I disagree. From our PoV, these are random people. They mostly aren't recognised experts on child sexual abuse. Nor are they journalists or whoever who have looked into the allegations. They are just random people making allegations. We covered people making allegations, when they have been properly covered in reliable secondary sources. This requires that the secondary sources have actually looked into the allegations and found them credible enough to publish. This does not include cases where sources have simply conducted interviews with random people making the allegations. Consider a far more prominent case, Brett Kavanaugh. If the only sourcing we had, was an interview Chris Hansen did with random people making allegations, even if those random people were clearly former class mates of Brett Kavanaugh, then no, we would not be covering the allegations in his article. If you want a more ontopic case, feel free to use Roy Moore as an example. Again an interview Chris Hansen did with random people, even if we had photos of Roy Moore with these random people, would not be sufficient to cover the content in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't watch the interview except for the first few minutes. If in the interview, someone covers their investigation into the allegations etc then there is a slight chance that will be enough. Frankly though, the first few minutes was enough to make me believe it's not the sort of source was can use. Also as finally comment, do remember that we are should always be slower than RS, especially in cases like this. The RS coverage needs to come first, then we can include it, not the other way around. No one is saying that the info is never going to be included, simply that it doesn't seem it can be included from the sourcing currently available. Assuming this really does become a significant thing with sufficient coverage in RS, then we will include it. The fact we can't and won't now is not a mistake if it currently meet our sourcing requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

They really aren't though, they have appeared in multiple videos with the guy, he's mentioned them several times, he mentioned them by name just a few hours ago on Twitter. I realize these women aren't professionals, but they have very tangible, public connections with the man, ones he acknowledges personally. Honestly, just look at his Twitter. Ever since this started he's basically been making (Redacted) tangents to mock the allegations against him. A Simple Fool (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with anything? No one here has ever questioned their connections with the person, since it's irrelevant to us. As for what the person may be saying on Twitter, it may very well be completely disgusting but is also irrelevant to us until and unless it is reported on by reliable sources. Looking at our article, I think a big problem is this guy is basically a minor Youtube star so no one particularly cares that much what they get up to (in terms of media coverage) and the allegations are extremely serious so not something many sources are willing to cover without significant research and there is likely to be additional concern about whether extensive media coverage may be harmful to any possible victims who I assume are still fairly young. One would hope that Chris Hansen and his team are working with those they interviewed to look into how they can take this further, and I don't mean more media coverage but law enforcement. If something like that does happen, then there's a fair chance it will get reported on IMO and then we can cover that part. Note that the article may very well have too much info that is poorly sourced and needs to go. The solution to that, as I said in reply to another thread, is to delete this material as I have now done, rather than allowing more poorly sourced material. Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia is not the news, and we are deliberately very conservative (in the general sense, not the political one) when it comes to covering living people, especially in cases of substantial controversy. We shouldn't be doing "investigative reporting" of people slinging mud or engaging in Twitter spats. If organizations with actual fact checkers and editors, and a high reputation for accuracy, decide to start looking at this situation and reporting on it, that is when it might become significant and well-sourced enough to go into the article. It's not that anyone's trying to whitewash or anything like that, but Wikipedia should always follow the lead of reliable sources, not jump out ahead of them. If and when such sources decide to weigh in on this, we'll use them as our sources and follow their lead in that as well. If they've not yet done so, we also follow their lead, by not doing so. But we never write articles from our own interpretations of primary sources and their significance or lack thereof; we let reliable secondary sources make that call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Since this has been picked up by two sources Wikipedia considers generally reliable, I have just made this edit. The majority of the edit deals with the Patreon deactivation—rather than the accusations of abuse—and includes a direct quote from a Patreon spokesman as reported by the source in question. I have furthermore taken effort to use language which is as neutral as possible. In addition, I have added a Current Event template which states clearly that some sources may be unreliable. While I think this is a separate matter from the original point of this noticeboard incident, I am nonetheless mentioning it here for transparency. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 20:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@PonyToast: looks reasonable. We still want to be cautious about not overrepresenting what is essentially a small amount of internet drama/rumor mongering. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DIYeditor, your edit seems reasonable. This gets into what I said in my last comment i.e. just because we don't cover it now doesn't mean we're never going to cover it. We have to wait for the RS. And frankly I'm not surprised that Onision response appears to be a bit part of why there's now something to cover. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the addition, with explanation on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, well - looks like someone here was in the right all along. But at least now (Redacted) at least, and getting the information out there is far more important than anything else. A Simple Fool (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you were totally wrong, youtube videos with vague allegations are not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and if you continue making defamatory comments about living persons on noticeboards or article talk pages in violation of WP:BLP you may find yourself blocked from Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not use YouTube as a source. Others may have, but as far as I am concerned, you are lying if you say I have done so A Simple Fool (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more eyes would be useful here, as it looks like some decent sources are beginning to report on the issue. Some additions have been appropriate in light of that, but some have been unreferenced and highly controversial assertions. There will be a need for both keeping an eye out for that, and also watching for due weight and verifying that cited sources actually do confirm the article material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Fool: I think you still don't understand. The fact that the information can be included now since there are appropriate sources doesn't mean mistakes were made in the past. I think many of us fully expected it may eventually be covered. Definitely I said so before it was actually covered. But we need to wait for the sources, not lead them. If the only stuff we have are crap sources, then no we cannot add it. Once and only once, the sources emerge then we can. It's entirely to be expected that we do not cover something at one time because of a lack of source, but then do cover it in the future because we now have the sources.

BTW, as for the Youtube stuff, from what I see you did add a Youtube video. In this edit [3] you added a single source. This one https://www.hansenvspredators.com/hansen-vs-onision/ . But this source has no meaningful content to support the allegations unless you count the title or user comments, other than an embedded video (a saved livestream). And the embedded video is indeed hosted on Youtube, this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5Spil1J10 . So by definition it's a Youtube video, no matter if it's embedded on the HansenVsPredators website. If I embed this video, or Friday the infamous Rebecca Black song or whatever else on my personal website, it's still a Youtube video.

I did wonder from some of the earlier comments if the site used geolocation to show different content, but I tested with a US proxy and also looked at the Google cache of the site [4] and I see no indication of this. So I strongly suspect it's a Youtube video for you too even if you did not realise this.

Mind you IMO the whole Youtube video is a distraction anyway per WP:Youtube. A BBC video hosted on Youtube is not unreliable because it's hosted on Youtube. If I choose to host my own video on my own site rather than relying on Youtube to host it, it doesn't become more reliable.

What is clear is that this video, and HansenVsPredators generally do not seem to be reliable sources so cannot be used, especially for BLPs. So it was proper to exclude the material when it was the only thing that came close to an RS. Now that we have better sources it is not. Something perfectly reasonable, and also somewhat predictable hence why me, and probably others did think it may happen like this.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A lovely confluence of minors, trans, and public figures

Juliana v. United States is a case of several minors (or when this started, were minors), represented by an attorney, suing the US gov't over climate change. The 20-some minors have been identified in RSes ([5]) and while maybe not household names like Greta Thunberg, have been publicly visible on this trial which has received more than enough attention.

Now, apparently, one of the minors (well, now 20) has identified as trans, with a new name that differences from the past publicity. (This article [6] would be sufficient to support that if we're including it) But do we keep the dead name? One can argue that they were a public figure under that former name and thus we should keep mention of it (footnote would be my choice if we had to keep it), but I can see a lot of minefields if we're talking the issue on minors and transgender people. Just want to make sure on this. --Masem (t) 03:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

NO the commentary from the Guardian isn't sufficient, it's not an article, it's a commentary. Second, if the individual's not known under their new name, that's no ok as it would fail WP:NOTABILITY. Keep the the name they were born as, they're notable as that name and there are reliable sources to support that. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the guidance of MOS:MULTIPLENAMES applies here: "A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article." (E.g., Benedict XVI is called "Joseph Ratzinger" in articles which discuss what he did before he became pope.) Maybe with a parenthetical "later known as", if needed to prevent confusion. Cheers, gnu57 13:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually ok with that, provided a reliable source exists for both name. In this case, so far, no reliable source exists for the individuals new name. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If/when reliable sources start using the new name then the article can likewise be modified to include both. At least a mention of the prior name should be kept as they came to wide attention under that name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO this is one of the pitfalls with mentioning random non notable people in articles, although at least in this case it's people who were involved in a court case, even if as minors, rather than victims or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of ADMIN privilege in Hunter Biden

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.

---

This article has been hijacked to serve the purpose of POV and advocacy. I attempted to restore WP:NPOV to the Introduction, which contains blatant editorializing and online advocacy, using other advocacy for sourcing. Admin User:Muboshgu, instead of moderating to maintain neutrality, uses his Admin power to bully editors who do not play to his apparent desire to maintain this article as a WP:SOAPBOX. Not only was my attempt to remove the blatant POV reverted, but after politely explaining my reasoning on the Talk page, plus a constructive suggestion, I was threatened with blocking by Muboshgu. The WP:1RR is abusive, since it makes the victim of the revert a reverter himself if he dares restore his edit. Hence, there's a tyranny of reverters, since Wikipedia makes resolving revert wars a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, consensus required by WP:1RR to make changes is a sham in this article. I see no consensus, only Admin fiat. Wikipedia becomes a monstrous subversion of knowledge and vehicle for advocacy, when editors attempting in good faith to do their jobs are constantly reverted by those, backed by Admin accomplices, whose agenda is to promote their POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J M Rice (talk • contribs) 21:11, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

I didn't block you for violating 1RR. That is not "Abuse of ADMIN privilege". Talk:Hunter_Biden#Please_do_not_revert_edit! shows two other editors disagreeing with your edit, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of WP:BRD and WP:3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Does not look like any abuse has actually happened. Though with Muboshgu being involved they should probably not be threatening to block people personally. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, my being involved is why I didn't block JM Rice. I was referring to reporting the user to the edit warring noticeboard for another admin to handle, but that doesn't have the same ring to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed that is why I said nothing actually happened. Though my concern is when an involved admin says If you do so again, I will block you[7] that can be a problem. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, fair point. I didn't realize I said "I". I'll be more mindful of that in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

While the issue being raised here is in regard to a BLP article, it does not appear to be an issue regarding the BLP nature of the article. As such, this is likely the wrong noticeboard for this to be raised on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It sure as heck is the right venue. The question is over allegedly fraught material in a biography, where else is this editor supposed to go? (It is unfortunate the J M Rice titled this section as she did, since it draws attention away from the matter at hand.)

User:J M Rice removed some material from the lede. Remember, this is the lede. (Note that all statements are properly sourced). The lede opens with this material, which was kept: "Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American lawyer and lobbyist who is the second son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. He co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm". User:J M Rice removed the rest of the lede, which was this:

In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation. However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by him in Ukraine. He has been the subject of debunked rightwing conspiracy theories. Trump's alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens by withholding foreign aid triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019. In October 2019, Biden resigned from the Board of Directors of a Chinese private investment fund he co-founded, BHR Partners.

All this is true. All this is sourced. The problem is, the article is titled "Hunter Biden", not "Persecution of Hunter Biden". That'd be a different article. We are not here to exonerate or valorize Hunter Biden. Biographies are not supposed to contain unnecessary negative material, but neither are they supposed to be hagiographys. What we have here is the son of a powerful man who has had a life heavily impacted by that. How to handle that is delicate and not the function of a lede. We want ledes to be an anodyne introduction to the subject.

So User:J M Rice was correct to remove this material. However, she didn't actually remove it all. She left in "In October 2019, Biden resigned from the Board of Directors of a Chinese private investment fund he co-founded, BHR Partners." Well not untrue, this is POV worded. "Resigned" has a negative vibe to it. Better would be something like "Biden co-founded a Chinese private investment fund, BHR Partners, and served on its board of directors from [date] to October 2019". For the lede. In the article body, with enough room to stretch out so we can provide sufficient detail to facilitate a reasonable understanding of the matter, we can talk about why he left. So, minnow slap to J M Rice for going too far the other way.

(WP:BRD does not apply to WP:BLP-based edits, generally. If J M Rice was blocked for this, and by an involved admin (I have no idea what happened), that's pretty sketchy and J M Rice could to WP:ANI, but that's a different matter.)

Anyway, the upshoot of all this is that the lede is a little bit better now, altho still problematic IMO, and props to J M Rice for starting the process that resulted in that. Herostratus (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

While there is a BLP exception to WP:3RR it says

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

I don't deal much with discretionary sanctions stuff, but I'm pretty sure it's the same. Notably, there's nothing there about WP:UNDUE concerns. So I'd urge strong caution when relying on the exemption to edit against 1RR. You can't just say it's a BLP so I'm allowed to remove the information pending consensus.

While I'm a BLP hawk, I'm also opposed to WP:CRYBLP since it makes it more difficult to deal with actual BLP bios. So I'm fully supportive of blocking any editor who violates 1RR or 3RR or whatever claiming it's justified under the BLP exemption when it clearly isn't.

I'm not really sure whether the blocking stuff has great relevance anyway. AFAIK, no one was ever blocked. Definitely a quick check confirms my belief J M Rice was never blocked [8] An admin did mistakenly (by their own agreement) warn an editor by saying 'I will block you' (which wouldn't be acceptable since they were involved) rather than 'I will ask for you to be blocked' or 'expect to be blocked' or 'you will be blocked' or 'you may be blocked' or whatever which is a fair enough warning if the editor is editing inappropriately.

Note that none of this means there may not be issues to deal with, or that the article didn't or doesn't need improvement or whatever. All those are perfectly possible, without needing to violate a 1RR restriction. Disputes over changes can and should be discussed where needed, probably on the article talk page and seeking help from boards like this if required. I'm not even saying there wasn't a reason to violate 1RR, I have not considered it in depth although I admin from a quick look, I'm not convinced there was justification. (And it's often the case where multiple editors don't see it as something earning the BLP exemption then it probably doesn't.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, I should start by noting that I am both the editor who reverted the OP's initial deletion and the one who first pointed out to the OP that 1RR was in effect (at a time when the OP was trying to inhibit other editors by pointing to 3RR.)

Having said that, Herostratus, your comment seems to be both a curious reading of the post here (for which POV in a BLP is at most the grain of sand that triggered it - the pearl is made up of accusations of admin abuse - a matter better suited for WP:ANI - and the "tyranny" of 1RR, a sanction that applies not because it's a BLP, but because it involves modern politics, and would be best addressed somewhere that handles policy changes) and our guidelines on what a lead is supposed to be like, which do not call for it to be anodyne as you suggest. Rather, [i]t should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. To omit Trump-related materials from the lead would be a failure for three-fifths of what the lead is called on to do, as the Trump material is covered in reasonable depth below (summary), as the level of notability that Hunter Biden has at the moment is clearly tied to that (certainly, coverage of him has skyrocketed in 2019 despite the fact that he took his seat on the board of Burisma five years earlier), and the controversy is clearly prominent. Was there room for some editing of the material that was in the lead? Of course, and that has been done. However, the OP's goal in editing the page was clearly fully eliminating mention in the lead of the controversy at all ("Controversy should come in the timeline below, in the proper sequence. Placing it in the introduction is promoting it, violating NPOV policy."), which is clearly incompatible with what we are called for in the lead. Indeed, leaving Trump out of the introduction of the Hunter Biden article would be about as unthinkable as leaving World War I out of the Franz Ferdinand lead.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"at a time when the OP was trying to inhibit other editors by pointing to 3RR" Utter rubbish. I was trying to inhibited reverters by pointing to a rule, NOT threatening them, as your ADMIN pal does. — J M Rice (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's utter rubbish to say you were trying to inhibit editors when you say you were trying to inhibit reverters, as reverters are editors, and reversion is a form of editing. Then again, I'm not sure how that particular ADMIN is my "pal", either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the post here, I'm concerned with the content in question.

OK, re WP:CRYBLP, yes, you're correct. Not being a negative characterization, it's not really a WP:BLP problem, there's no need to hurry, and overrides of WP:BRD are uncalled for. It's (arguably) a WP:NPOV problem. Doesn't belong on this board then, but since were' here, let's see.

Hunter Biden is completely innocent of these charges. That doesn't mean I have to be a fan of Hunter Biden; I'm not. If I may be vouchsafed leave to quote from a liberal writer, Matthew Yglesias at Vox:

Hunter Biden’s whole career is being Joe Biden’s son... Hunter interestingly went to work right away for MBNA, a major Delaware-based bank (later purchased by Bank of America) that was also a big contributor to Biden’s campaigns. This was part of a much larger coziness between Biden and the bank.... [I]t’s more like Hunter got the job due to his dad’s overall cozy relationship with the company.... In 2006, President George W. Bush appointed him to the Amtrak board of directors as a gesture of bipartisanship... It would obviously be a stretch to attribute any specific shortcoming of passenger rail in the United States to Hunter Biden’s service on the board. But the fact that the job is treated as a kind of patronage position to hand out to random senators’ kids who have no relevant knowledge beyond riding the train a lot helps explain why American passenger rail is low quality and exhibits little understanding of international best practices. When his dad became vice president, Hunter left the Amtrak board and instead got involved with a series of investment companies. As detailed by Ben Schreckinger in Politico, a lot of this work seems to have hinged on Hunter and his uncle James Biden sort of hinting around that the family connection to the vice president could help get things done and then not delivering. The Obama administration generally regarded Hunter as a kind of embarrassing family black sheep rather than a real scandal.

And there's a lot more. It's an opinion piece. That doesn't necessarily make it a poor analysis. Yglesias and Vox are generally trustworthy on facts, too.

But, I mean, you're not going to get any of this from the lede. You're not going to get any of this from the article. The lede describes him a blameless victim of a particular incident (true), but the article is pretty anyodyne -- he did this, he did that, which is... misleading, if you believe Yglesias. The article implies that he's a sterling figure whose main concern is to ensure that there's no possibility him taking advantage of his father's power and fame.

The article is POV. The lede is POV. Why are you editors defending this. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to have a general content discussion that isn't addressing the violation of BLP standard, the place would be Talk:Hunter Biden, so that other people involved with the article, most of whom are likely unaware of this thread here, can participate. If you're assuming that by defending the inclusion of the Trump material in the lead or that by informing the editor about the 1RR situation, we're saying that everything is perfect with the article, then your experience with Wikipedia must've been quite different from mine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, fair points. See ya there. Herostratus (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that this is not the proper place for my post. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a Soapbox? Everyone here knows that Wikipedia, obviously including this article, is infested with POV speechifying and editorializing and opinionating using cherry-picked sourcing. Battling newspaper/magazine editorials is NOT NPOV. Everyone here knows exactly what I'm talking about. The material I removed obviously violates WP:BLP by using "poorly sourced" (policy term) material, which I cited. Sourcing POV content with a POV source is a travesty.

Further, I and I'm sure other editors are tired of their good-faith edits being reverted and then being threatened for restoring their edit. The burden is on the REVERTER to explain his actions. Bullying ADMINS have made the editors instead of the reverters the perps. The 3-revert rule targets reverters, NOT editors. But bullying ADMINS construe edit restorations from reverts as reverts themselves and threaten the victims of the reverts! (One of their favorite "Gotchas!" is the 24-hour rule.) This is pure Kafka!

I believe that reverts are usually made by those whose egos are bruised at having their brilliant writing messed with. There is or was a notice by Jimmy Wales to the effect of "expect your content to be mercilessly edited". It seems that egos here don't accept that admonition, and too many ADMINS, including the one I cite, use their position to advance their personal agenda.

I full agree with Herostratus. No matter how it's dressed, this article is obviously a battle of POVs. Arguing whether a POV "right" or "wrong" is utterly irrelevant. The issue of POV isn't about right or wrong but about being unencyclopedic.

I have no position about Hunter Biden; I just know unencyclopedic when I see it, and this was blatant. I see that POV is still in the lede ("debunked right-wing conspiracy theory"). I've edited it to NPOV language. Is it going to be reverted, too? The answer is, Yes, by the same abusive ADMIN Muboshgu.

I ask the ADMINS here, are you going to do something about this rogue ADMIN, this rogue article or, when users try to edit this mess, circle the wagons and continue to throw around arcane acronyms?

Of course, what it's come down to is that cliques of editors and ADMINS write article the way they want, then when they're called on it, threaten or bury the challenge in endless process, so legitimate editors just throw up their hands in disgust and walk away. That's the monster Jimmy Wales has created then placed on autopilot to work its mischief on the dissemination of knowledge. J M Rice (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

J M Rice, when allegations are false, we say so. We don't do this equivocation that makes it look like the conspiratorial allegation could be truthful. That would be a disservice to our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"We"? "A disservice to our readers?" You are not journalists. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Neutrality is not "equivocation". You and others who use Wikipedia as a soapbox violate policy, and it's disingenuous to claim you don't. I'd try to have you removed, but the bureaucracy here makes the process not worth the effort, and THAT'S a disservice to the reader. J M Rice (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Gentlepersons. I have opened a thread over at Talk:Hunter Biden. I have been properly correct, that indeed is the place to take this. Let's go there, for article content. If there're any behavioral issues, WP:ANI is the place to go. I wouldn't recommend that, at all. User:J M Rice, my advice would be to calm down. There's no hurry, and it's not world-shaking. Head over to Talk:Hunter Biden and let's calmly work this out. Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 2 December 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.

Aziz Mohammad Bhai

Highly problematic article. Claims of criminal activity are countered by editorializing--it is possible much of the material needs to go. Maybe the whole article needs to go. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

Well, more than one. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Administrators I need your help because people keep posting false information from tabloids and unreliable sources like state run media regarding my father. They also keep removing any information I post elaborating on the situation. I also mentioned several of his accomplishments which were sadly deleted. Please help me on this endeavour it is intensely impacting my family and our lively hood. for over 3 decades my father has been harassed and i have joined him over the last two. Please help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.20.226 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To understand the context from the WP-perspective, take the time to read WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Conflict of interest carefully. Then try to use the talkpage Talk:Aziz Mohammad Bhai for discussion. Successfully editing an article where you have a Conflict of interest is very difficult on WP, but it is not impossible that you can have some influence if your suggestions are inline with WP:s (many) policies and guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Frank Wuco

I don't have time to go through it at the moment, but a recent major expansion at Frank Wuco looks to have made the article into an WP:ATTACK page of sorts. It looks like there are some good sources and many of the edits have merit, but it also looks like it needs to be checked in more detail to ensure compliance with WP:BLP. Thanks to anyone who can take a look. Marquardtika (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Whoa. Yes, that is a lot to chew on. I am not convinced User:ExCITEable really knows what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• I started cutting. A lot of material was referenced with primary sources, and that's already unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @Drmies! It's looking a lot better. But still has the appropriate amount of "wait, wuttt?" Marquardtika (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know. It's certainly not done. I picked some of the low-hanging fruit: the hard work is reading the references and judging what's appropriate and how it should be presented. There's also duplicate information in different section, some of which unverified, some of which verified. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Marquardtika, I created the redirect Faud Wasul in your honor, haha. This is the BLP noticeboard, so I have to be careful, but that's some crazy shit. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going for WP:ATTACK - cited sources. I'm not sure I know what I'm doing either, but I am learning as I go and stay neutral. If someone who is a prominent government official and they previously dressed up as a terrorist and hosted an "Ask the Jihadist" radio show it is not an attack. It is indeed crazy shit but the sources are good. In the wake of Mina Chang, I have an interest in the qualifications and histories of political appointees. Also, I can't edit without using the visual editor - sorry if this isn't formatted correctlyExCITEable (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaim Shacham

Perhaps one of you is interested in digging around a bit to see if this is a case of WP:BLP1E. I can't easily judge whether the guy has inherent notability because of his former position: the only source for that position is primary. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, where to start. First, the allegation should definitely go. From reading the source, all we have is an indictment from three years ago and some vague details they admittedly gleaned from a blog. No official statements nor anything substantial except they confirmed he did lose his job for reason not commented on. There is no conviction and he certainly doesn't pass WELLKNOWN, so I say per BLPCRIME the allegation should be removed.

Beyond that, I find his name mentioned in several newspaper articles, but most are just in passing, like "he attended this event" or "that rally". I'm not seeing anything that really demonstrates that he passes GNG, and I don't think being a diplomat in and of itself is enough, so this may be a good candidate for AFD.

If we do keep, we should at least get rid of all the "former"s. This actually puts it into a present perspective rather than a perfect (timeless) one. We don't say Caesar is the former emperor of Rome, but simply he was the Emperor between such-and-such a date. Zaereth (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Noah Feldman

Noah Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears that someone edited the article about legal scholar Noah Feldman to say that he is a never trumper and a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer. I can find no other source for either, outside of the fact that he is testifying about impeachment today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.142.22 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article had been vandalised a lot recently but has been cleaned up by various editors. It's now been semi-protected (and various vandals blocked) by an administrator, which ought to help. I've removed the reference in the infobox to his political affiliation being to the Democratic party, as it's unreferenced. I've also Watchlisted the article and will revert any further vandalism I see. Neiltonks (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Eastin

Jeff Eastin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He did NOT work for Roger Corman. It is a lie that Jeff Eastin has perpetuated for more than twenty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.98.102 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take care with accusations against living people as BLP applies everyone on wikipedia. As for the specific claim, I have removed it especially since I can't find evidence the 2 movies cited exist. Where the claim originated from, I have no idea. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Religion of climate scientist Cliff Mass

I don't want to get into a dispute on whether the religion of Cliff Mass belongs in the article; instead, raising the question at the noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Give that Mass has clearly stated that his Judaism informs his work, then it is reasonable to integrate it into the article (just as we would cover the religious some noted person who was against addressing the climate because it would interfere with the plans of the Almighty Wildebeest of Atmosphere.) Since our reason for inclusion has to do with his work, it should not be in the "Personal life" section, as it was apparently previously displayed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion. Self stated Judaism informs his work. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If there's a decent secondary source for it, sure. Create a "Personal life" section and stick a sentence there (well, depending on coverage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The article linked above by Nat Gertler from Jewish in Seattle [9] superficially looks OK? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• This seems to be now resolved with this edit to include the detail. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cliff_Mass&diff=929549640&oldid=929542023 Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Verbeuren

Someone keeps adding false and poorly sourced info to this page. Someone named Bralalalala keeps vandalising this page with poorly sourced quotes. They are also trying to speak about themselves on this article and that's a huge no-no. Just a heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelle1111 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a persistent vandal. This is not really the best noticeboard, so I would suggest reporting this at either WP:ANI or WP:RFPP, where an admin can take the appropriate action. While he seems to b notable, the sourcing in that article is lousy, and I would get rid of the list of endorsements because that just looks way too promotional. I would say it needs a lot of work to bring it up to standards. Zaereth (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelle1111: I semi-protected the article so that new users or users who are not logged in (IP addresses) will not be able to edit Dirk Verbeuren for two weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Mohammad Bhai

Aziz Mohammad Bhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have requested that this page is taken down because the info is one sided and the deletion was rejected.

I then attempted to edit the page, adding the results of the legal proceedings being featured therein, that the cases were thrown out for lack of evidence, for example and charges never brought forward, this is clear even from the references used in the article. However, the page keeps getting reverted to leave the article incomplete which is damaging to this living person. He himself wants the page removed. Why do the editors in question refuse to remove the page or, even feature context to allow a more complete and therefore balanced view of the legal trouble this man has faced?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.95.91.51 (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give sorucers that state what you are saying. Thats what i asked you to do many times. also, what is your connection to the subject of the page? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners if you check the post above, I suspect its the same ip that was saying she is the daughter of Aziz Mohammad Bhai. I would seem they may have a point; the sources currently being used in the article do state that none of charges have been brought forward (as of 2015). Curdle (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If no one can find follow-up sources, the murder allegations should be removed as the three sources I looked at were Q&D primary reports with no hint of evidence linking the BLP subject with the murder (beyond a recanted confession by someone not connected with the subject). Strong evidence, or at least secondary sources would be needed to make half a BLP article focus on murder allegations. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Cohn

Danielle Cohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this article while doing new page review, nothing critically wrong, I'd just appreciate some additional eyes on this article (in particular: whether the subject is notable and if any content is too detailed) since I don't have experience dealing with BLPs of minors. Most of the sources are primary, and those that aren't are about a controversy. Please ping me in replies, I don't watch this noticeboard. creffett (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Creffett: Pretty much all the sourcing on the article is primary - her various social media channels, an interview with her father etc. which is pretty poor for a WP:BLP. Searching finds little that's more useful, other than a BBC report about kids being exploited on social media but even that is driven by her father's interview. Personally, I question whether she's notable, but I'm no expert on the notability of teenage social media 'personalities', so I'll defer to the judgement of others on that point. Neiltonks (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Creffett: Really big hmm...as Neiltonks says, its basically all primary sourcing, even down to each social media account being sourced for the followers count, and the music video itself referenced for the music video mention. Of the other two, theres the Buzzfeed news one. The NZ herald seems to be based on scavenging a facebook post the father made, (complete with sexualised pic of underaged girl) so not even an actual interview with real reporting. Later picked up by the Daily Mail, so yeah, tabloid stuff. Curdle (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Curdle, Neiltonks, thanks for the inputs, that's exactly what I was looking for. Would AfD be appropriate here? creffett (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Normally I'd say do a quick google search to see if any good sources can be found before sending it to AFD. But since the article is just a few weeks old, I think AFD is likely the best choice. At this point, the sourcing is atrocious and the writing is bad enough that I think it's best to just scrap it and start over from scratch. I see that the photo is also being discussed and will likely be deleted for invalid licensing, and I think the article should probably follow suit. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. My judgement is that the notability is a case of WP:BLP1E, and because of the low quality sources and controversy of that event when we're dealing with a minor, it's best to delete. Sent to AfD, thanks again to all of you for your help. creffett (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tania Aidrus

[copyright violation removed] TOPGUN (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Cool, what's the question? Elizium23 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I cant see any data about profile generated ? Did I do something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail2506 (talk • contribs) —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sohail2506: I had to remove the text you added here because it violated copyright. I don't see where you've tried to create an article or draft about Aidrus anywhere—but if you do, use the information from the sources like that news article but not the text of it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Juice Wrld

It has been reported that Juice Wrld has died, but all reporting so far appears to be based on the questionably-reliable-at-best source of TMZ (specifically this article). I was hesitant to add his death to his article without better sources to confirm it but now someone else has added it, sourced only to TMZ. I would like some feedback on whether this is an acceptable use of TMZ on a BLP (or at least an article that still falls under that scope, even if he is dead); note that on WP:Perennial sources it says that there is no consensus for the use of TMZ. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I don’t like relying on TMZ, every time I hit refresh I see another website picking up the story. Billboard just did, and they’re one of the highest level sources in the music world... Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And I just added his death as an ITN/C RD based on Variety's coverage. --Masem (t) 16:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And now confirmed up to the NYTimes. [10]. One thing TMZ is very careful of is false death reports. They may jump the gun on other celeb, but as TMZ has been burned in the past for jumping too fast on death rumors, if TMZ is reporting a famous person has died, it is worth starting the process to update articles while looking for additional sources. --Masem (t) 17:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear, Masem, you are saying that TMZ inaccurately reported some celebrity deaths in the past, but because of the backlash to these reports, they have improved their standards and are now a reliable source for reporting that someone has died? If so, a note reflecting this should be added to TMZ's entry in WP:Perennial sources. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

...I think it was just a passing anecdote/background info, that’s all. I doubt we need to add guidance as specific as like “Be cautious about their rumors and gossip but they do take death seriously.” Regardless, it was good to be cautious here, but this does seem to be resolved. Every source out there is reporting it now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Something like that. TMZ is working to fix its reputation as a gossip-y work. It's not the highly quality sourcing (I would avoid TMZ for very contentious claims), but if TMZ is first to report the death, give it 30 minutes and you'll likely have confirmation from more major RS. --Masem (t) 22:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Vivek Agnihotri weasel words

The below lines have been marked as WP:WEASEL. But a particular user is engaging in abusive behavior and reverting these edits. See the message here. It is clear that this user is editing wikipedia to promote an agenda.

• "His films have been mostly subject to poor reviews from critics "
• "Critics argue that the term is a vague "
• "Vivek has been criticised for "

Rabbabodrool (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marc Dutroux‎

I am concerned about changes made in November and December 2019 to the article on Marc Dutroux in which various fringe theories about Marc Dutroux are reported as true or potentially true. The main author of these changes has also made a related article called Regina Louf.

• Previous version of Marc Dutroux
• Present version of Marc Dutroux

I believe the changes to be a breach of:

• WP:EXTRAORDINARY In that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, which is not the case.
• WP:UNDUE Great weight is given to minority viewpoints. That these are minority viewpoints is either ignored or downplayed.
• WP:COATRACK It mentions other bad things that happened in Belgium such as the assassination of a politician and a helicopter-bribery scandal. This implies that they were linked - guilt by association.

Another editor has raised objections to the changes at Talk:Marc Dutroux#Wikipedia at its worst Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Pascoe

It's probably difficult for someone who hasn't lived in Australia to get their heads around all of the issues here, but there has been argument raging for nearly 2 weeks on the talk page of Bruce Pascoe. One of many issues is that the main antagonist, by their own admission, has never edited Wikipedia, so is unfamiliar with the rules, and has been using multiple IP addresses to WP:BLUDGEON. I'm not sure if this is an ANI issue, whether this debate should carry on now that someone has introduced a new source (although there are some justifiable objections to this source), or whether I, as the one who raised the RfC, should close IT at this point, at least for now. Any ideas? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Collins (politician)

The phrase "is a Russia-backed American obstructionist" isn't substantiated and may be libelous.

However, in December 2019 House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings, Collins publicly argued support for corruption in government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.173.139 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Just some vandalism. I blocked the IP and revdeleted the edit. Also, semiprotected the page. Thanks for the notice. El_C 14:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Wow, five IPs — five revdeletions. El_C 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

After I deleted it, an editor restored that Tulsi Gabbard "advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS." ("Toronto SARS travel alert lifted", Honolulu Advertiser, April 29, 2003.) [11] SARS is a highly contagious disease that affected at least 8,000 people worldwide in 2002-2003. One of the areas most affected was Toronto, which reported 30 times more cases than the entire United States. The source does not even mention Gabbard or Hawaii.

At the time, the World Health Organization (WHO)[12] and the Centers for Disease Control[13] advocated the isolation of persons with SARS symptoms. The Hawaii government in facted isolated them.[14] (Note: the technical term for quarantining persons with symptoms is isolation.)

In my opinion, Gabbard's support of an uncontroversial policy that had no opposition has no significance for inclusion. Worse, the edit implies that Gabbard is xenophobic, without providing any source that says that.

TFD (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow some of your logic. As you said, quarantining people with infectious diseases is common practice, so there is nothing controversial about it. I can't for the life of me see how that would make or even imply that someone is xenophobic. Even germaphobic would be a stretch. The statement is really vague and can mean multiple things. It's unclear whether she supposedly wants quarantine people in Hawaii or bar infectious people from entering the state. Worst of all, though, is that it's not mentioned in the source anywhere. The source doesn't even mention her name nor even the word "Hawaii". That's all the justification you need for removing it. If the problem persists, then I would suggests reporting it to an admin noticeboard. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Louise Mensch

I'm concerned about our apparent statement of fact at the end of the lead, that Mensch ... "has published multiple unverified claims, and promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories about the Trump administration and its ties to the Russian Federation,[9][10] leading her to be labelled a conspiracy theorist.[11][12]". I have no knowledge on these matters whatsoever, but I'd guess there's an opposing view and my concerns were actually first raised by the weird manner in which footnote 9 is formatted. I'd be grateful for a view. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I made some changes to the former ref 9, see the talk page for details. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You've definitely improved things, thanks. Can we categorically state that she "has published multiple unverified claims, and promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

While not disagreeing she seems to be particularly known for promoting hoaxes and conspiracy theories now, I'm not sure if the way we handle it in the lead is the best way to do so. OTOH, it seems common especially with right wing conspiracy theorists so I sort of feel there would nee to be a wider discussion to change the way we handle such things. I also feel that while there may be better ways, the sources are probably strong enough to make the claims so it's not a clear BLP vio. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the assessment in mainstream sources. See for example "The bizarre rise and dramatic fall of Louise Mensch and her ‘Blue Detectives’" at the establishment Democratic website ThinkProgress. Even they call her a conspiracy theorist and the Alex Jones of the Left, although she had some support in mainstream pro-Democratic Party sources before her claims became outlandish. TFD (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Matthew Jasper

Hi. For the last month or so, anon. editors have added details of Matthew Jasper's death to his article. He's a British speed skater who competed at two Olympic Games in the 1990s. I've done a fair few searches, but can't find anything to confirm this. Is anyone able to help with this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I am surprised he is notable, I assume from the bios existence that anyone who is a contestant at the olympics is worthy of note, I did a search, there is nothing about him, I would delete the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Lugnuts. I see you created this article a little over a month ago, so this probably isn't what you want to hear, but I have to agree with Govindaharihari. Sports reference.com is likely a reliable site for simple stats, but by itself is not enough to demonstrate notability. I can't find anything else except a few photos taken from Nottingham Ice Arena. He didn't win any medals and apparently disappeared into obscurity, so I think the article is better deleted because I don't see any hope of ever expanding it beyond what is currently there. I do find an obituary of someone with the same name near the supposed date, but that person is from the US, so perhaps the IP is confused. Even if it were, though, that still wouldn't help demonstrate notability. Zaereth (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please see WP:NOLY. Anyone who has competed at the Olympics is notable. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. First, that's a guideline not a policy. At the beginning it states: "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles." In general, there should be enough information in reliable sources to be able to create a decent article about them.

Either way, the death hasn't been reported anywhere, so it should definitely stay out. Zaereth (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• This person is perhaps not even worthy of a list addition never mind a wikipedia biograpny. There is no notable life story reportable, nothing of note at all except he went to the olymics, he didn't win a medal and has no additional notability of any description. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't bring this here to discuss the notability (which this person meets in anycase), but the BLP issues that have happened of late around the subject's death. If anyone has any info on this being true, please drop me a ping. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple. No source; no change. If there is never an obituary, then we may never know for sure until he's 120. But when you bring an article to BLP you're likely to get all BLP issues addressed, even ones you didn't bargain for. I think that when an article doesn't have a single RS to support notability, then notability becomes a BLP issue. There's just nothing out there about this person. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing issues in Billy Mitchell biography (3)

Billy Mitchell has a publicly witnessed and verified Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million from November 24, 2018. Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography claims that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004". When Wikipedia's cited source was published on February 3, 2018, it was reporting the non-neutral, disputed position of the Donkey Kong Forum rankings. Even if it had been reporting a neutral fact, that outdated source obviously wouldn't support Wikipedia's claim today. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We really are not in the least bit interested, Mr. Mitchell. Please go away. Guy (help!) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the IP, there's a valid point that the wording is not quite what the source says. But the IP is very close to crossing the WP:TE line here, having not taken the advice given in the past. --Masem (t) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well this is something I can work with. The source, which is used three times in the article, seems to be well interpreted in the article. For example, the line in question actually says, "In 2004, Mitchell had achieved a Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 in front of multiple witnesses at the Midwest Gaming Classic.[6]" Is there anything incorrect about that statement? We never use the word "only" or "single". The other two times this source is used it simply talks about the investigation done by Young and Copeland, which also happened, did it not? The source looks reliable to me, and I see no evidence of misinterpretation.

If there was a subsequent, publically-witnessed game in which he scored over a million, it simply has not been added to the article yet. As far as I can tell, Twich is something like Youtube, in which case it's not usable as a reliable source. I don't know about the other source because my internet filters are blocking it as a "high risk site". If we have a reliable secondary-source verifying another, publically-witnessed high score, then we can most definitely add that to the article as well, but lacking such a source we can't. If anyone's feeling brave enough to lower their firewall and look at the EGMnow.com site, perhaps we can verify the info and end this once and for all. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I just edited the article. Originally it said what IP said which was "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004", which is not necessarily true in relationship to the "single publicly witnesses" part- the Ars Tech article didn't support it, and this discounts any other prior attempts that may have been witnessed. It was necessary to establish the 2004 score as what the newcomer Weibe was challenging (as documented in King of Kongs) so what I rewrote placed the score in that context, and does not say if it was Mitchell's only witnessed score. --Masem (t) 01:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to check the history as I guess I'm is a hurry to put this to bed. True, the source did not support "single", so thanks for fixing that. I'm still not sure about the purported new score, or whether that site is reliable or not, but if it causes this much sensation I would expect it to be reported somewhere. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have not researched much beyond what was already in the WP article and the EGM source. There may be more coverage, I just haven't spent any time. I will say , as I said in the past related to this article, Mitchell is a controversial figure and we do have to be careful how to present him - we're not going to act like the stripping of his records were wrong and present that side in favor of Mitchell. But there's several other allegations that fall into BLP problems that I am purposely leaving out as they're not necessary and mostly conjecture of what is going on. --Masem (t) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, this was what I came up with from EGMNow [15]. I didn't make the change myself or even make a proposal because 1) I wasn't sure if EGM Now was a RS, while I'm not challenging it, I also wasn't willing to endorse it by adding it. 2) I didn't take that much care to avoid close paraphrasing. 3) Frankly this seems to be a minor thing, while it can probably be mentioned, there didn't seem a great deal of urgency. (Likewise the 'single' part when I only thought it was a dispute over whether to count EGM Now.) 4) I was really hoping to convince the OP to do something more useful than open more BLP threads. Still anyone is welcome to work with it if they want.

For my mind, the key issue with the live streams is they don't really seem to add much to the dispute. The fact he can achieve these now doesn't provide much evidence that the previous disputed scores are fine. More to the point, I don't think concentrating on the live streams is really the right angle. The fact that (per EGM Now), his live streamed scores seem to be accepted even by those who disputed his earlier scores is the more important point. But I didn't deal with that because the OP/IP didn't seem to care about this.

As I understand it, the disputed claim is that modified hardware, maybe even MAME, was used for the earlier records. Live streaming from a public venue in itself doesn't easily disprove this. You first need to establish it was a genuine live stream, did he interact with his chat for example? More importantly, the hardware in this 'public venue' could easily have been modified when no one was around, or heck even when people were around if none of them knew what was going on. 300 people watching a live stream doesn't say much about whether the hardware was modified. Even if the game's code was substantially modified in such a way that was obvious to anyone sufficient familiar with the game, these 300 random people might not have noticed. But the other problem is that if you are modifying the game code you can likely give yourself a reasonable advantage that even experts have trouble spotting with detailed statistical analysis and very careful viewing of the footage.

That's why IMO the more important point is that experts don't seem to dispute his latest scores, rather than it being live streamed (apparently to 300 viewers) from a public venue. But there may also be little interest in challenging these scores anyway. It sounds like they aren't going to be recognised in any significant records, at least not unless Mitchell successfully challenges the earlier removals since he's no longer trusted by the parties involved. So to some extent even the lack of challenge of his latest scores may not mean that the parties are particularly certain his scores are "above board", but instead that they don't have obvious evidence they're not and they don't care enough to look.

But they also didn't tell EGM Now this when it seems to me they could have without risking defamation or whatever. Instead whatever they said lead EGM Now to say "(No one I spoke to, not even Jeremy Young, said they had reason to doubt these new games were above board)" so it's probably fine to mention that they don't question these latest scores or something similar, although the only person we know for sure this applies to is Jeremy Young. (I don't think we can safely conclude the statement means anyone quoted in the story was asked about the live streamed scores.) Hence why I'm not opposed to adding something about the live stream. But there doesn't seem to be any great importance from a BLP standpoint. So someone who actually cares like the IP, is going to have to deal with it.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. This seems to demonstrate the problem with the OP's approach. If they had just made a simple edit request asking for removal of the word "only" since the source never claimed it was the only publicly witnessed high score, it's likely this would have been actioned without needing these 4 different threads at BLPN. If they had really felt the need to bring it to BLPN, concentrating on the fact the source never actually claimed it was the only publicly witnessed high score would likely also have worked. Heck even without an edit request, a simple comment on the talk page concentrating on the key issue rather than rambling on about how removing something sourced to Twitch was wrong because there was another unused source which also mentioned the same thing. Instead we had all these threads about how evil other editors were and even now the editor is still apparently unwilling or unable to make a simple edit request and even their comment here sort of misses the point, attacking the use of Ars Technica rather than clearly pointing out all it actually said was it the highest confirmed score on the site and it never claimed it was the person's only publicly witness high score. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, it was like pulling teeth. I'm guessing part of the problem is that independent record-holders such as Twin Galaxies and Guinness have apparently removed him from their sites and refuse to accept any new submissions, so even if he did have a subsequent record they still may not be "official" in some circles. So even if we do find independent records, we may have to make clear that they may not Guinness records or what not. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Think about it a bit more, it was actually a bit obvious that the claim was problematic. Billy Mitchell isn't a recluse so it's a bit weird that there is no other publicly witnessed score especially since there were talks of him visiting various stuff as an invited guest. (Although I don't know what he played.) Without needing to check the source, I probably would have realised if I'd thought about it more that it's unlikely the sourced said it was his only (or single) publicly witness high score. I probably would have figured what the source was most likely claiming is it was his highest witnessed scored, not his only witnessed score. Or maybe his only witnessed score above a certain amount. If this had occurred to me, I expect I would have checked it out myself to fix the article, and then found out what the source actually says is it's his highest recognised score on some official record. Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hindsight being 20/20, sure. But that single word that might have serious connotations to one person may go completely unnoticed by another. I just wasn't seeing it in that context until pointed out. All of this could have been so much simpler if that's all this is about. Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A similar situation arose in September. The IP went on for days about the awful BLP and NEUTRAL violations that needed to be undone without discussion. I told him he needed to make a specific request or provide a WP:DIF of what change was problematic, as many edits had been made. He refused, and just went on with generic complaining. So nothing happened until the protection expired and he did it himself. Come to find out, all he wanted was the word “former” removed from one of his professions. And I believe his change is still present in the article. That could have been done weeks earlier had he just articulated it. It’s pretty amazing he hasn’t learned that he just needs to make more specific requests yet... Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Double standards

Reliably sourced information that presents Mitchell in a positive light seems to be removed and excluded from his Wikipedia biography at a much higher rate than information that presents him in a negative light, even when the stated reason for removing it is merely an unsupported claim that it isn't relevant. Multiple commenters make false accusations against me in this section, but I've decided not to specifically address them, at least for now. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than vague complaining, please submit constructive and specific requests for change on the talk page through the WP:EDITREQUEST system, or here, if it’s a BLP related issue. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions for administrator

@Masem: Rather than correcting Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million from 2018, you appear to have completely removed any mention of his personal high score from the article. Would you disagree with this assessment of your revisions? (Per Electronic Gaming Monthly, "Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores now. But he hadn’t outlined a clear defense to prove he’d achieved them at the time of the original submissions.") 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You did check the next immediate edit I did, where I moved it to a relevant section AND improved the wording to imply it wasn't the only publicly witnessed high score, just the one best documented? I will admit that I was skimming the back end of that EGM article - most which is where there's a lot of speculation and potential BLP landmines that are best avoided, and missed the very last conclusion section about contiuing to show he can do high scores, and will add that. --Masem (t) 22:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd checked your next edit and thought it was a net improvement, but 933,900 is no longer Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score. Per Electronic Gaming Monthly, Mitchell has proven he can earn these scores. You appear to have completely removed any mention of his personal high score from the article. Would you disagree? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I already told you, that was moved to a different part of the article in its chronological timing (just before the filming for King of Kongs), and added mention of high scoring results in 2018. You are clearly not reviewing the edits made and assuming bad faith on editors, which is not acceptable behavior. --Masem (t) 22:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Your accusation that I'm assuming bad faith and not reviewing the edits is untrue. You moved Mitchell's 2004 score of 933,900 to a different part of the article in the "next edit" you'd cited above, and as I'd noted in my reply, I thought it was a net improvement. You didn't move Mitchell's personal high score in that edit because, as I'd also noted in my reply, 933,900 is no longer Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score. The "two specific things" in the diff you point out below are Mitchell's 20th-anniversary perfect Pac-Man score and his first-place finish at this year's Australian Donkey Kong championships in Brisbane. What "mention of high scoring results in 2018" are you claiming to have added? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I will point out this diff that adds the two specific things EGM notes in its final section. It doesn't point to any Twitch streams, so it would be inappropriate to use those as primary sources. (And I did look to see if anyone covered them otherwise but didn't see them). We are hitting on the points you want in a broader sense, we just cannot put exactly what you want in there. --Masem (t) 22:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO we could mention that he made live broadcasts from public records where he achieved the scores now in dispute as I suggested before. We could even mention Twitch. But especially with your additions it doesn't really seem to add anything though. As I said before the key point about these live broadcasts seems to be lost in what the OP is proposing anyway. We can't use Twitch directly and I'm not sure if we should even link to the videos considering no specific video was mentioned in the source. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

From Electronic Gaming Monthly: "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware. It declined to make a determination on the 1.062 million score from Boomers, citing a lack of direct evidence... In the year that followed ... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son [Billy III], eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues..." EGM is obviously referring to these scores, and suggestions to the contrary strain credulity. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We can mention from EGM he continues to showcase high scores over Twitch, but as we can't source Twitch directly, and his scores remain unrecognized by TG, that's all we can say. We have to clearly watch for unduly self--serving claims here. --Masem (t) 03:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: According to Electronic Gaming Monthly, after obtaining scores of "1.047 million" and "1.050 million" while "streaming on Twitch" in 2018, "Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores". Are you arguing that these livestreamed scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million aren't the scores EGM verifies? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes actually. From EGM, when they talk of the 1.047 and 1.050 m scores, these are specially the ones removed from TG's high score list. "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware." (King of Kongs was done around 2005, Mortgage Brokers around 2007). Now by happenstance, the two Twitch streams, which were generated in 2018, hit those same scores (+/- 1000 pts), but they are not the same score attempts specifically at odds as discussed in EGM. I can see how it is very easy to confuse these, but they are 100% different. EGM makes no specific mention of any DK high score from ca. 2018 or later for Mitchell, just that he is showing he can do it. --Masem (t) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: "... Twin Galaxies ruled that ... the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score ... were not played on genuine arcade hardware... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch ... eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed ..." Are you arguing that scores "equal to" 1.047 million and 1.050 million aren't scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million? (By the way, your claim that Mitchell hit those same scores by "happenstance", rather than intentionally, is ridiculous.) 216.249.244.88 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

First, I don't know if they are exactly the same score, because we're missing 3 (well 2) significant digits. They are equivalent scores +/- 1000 pts. (in fact: [16] is a 1,050,100 pt score, but his previous at Mortgage Brokers was 1,050,200 whole [17] is 1,047,500 while his King of Kongs was 1,047,200 - so yes, clearly not the exact same score. Second, the EGM statement, the way I read it, means scores "in the same 1+ ballpark" as his former scores. While they may be referring to the two specific Twitch streams mentioned, its not clear if they mean these or earlier ones. The current statement in the article Mitchell has also gone on to demonstrate his ability to get these records at witnessed events is a completely accurate and fair statement based on the lack of explicitness of EGM or any other RS to say that Mitchell has gotten into the 1m+ scoring range rivaling his past scores, without explicitly acknowledging but left implicit that at the current time TG will not be accepting any of his scores in the immediate future. It's a neutral statement. --Masem (t) 00:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course, even if editors felt these were the videos referred to, we couldn't add them for WP:OR reasons. This is clearly not a WP:CALC case, deciding precisely which videos EGM is referring to clearly requires significant analysis. And I still have no idea why the IP is so desperate to include links to specific videos anyway, instead of accurately conveying the information from EGM about them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: On August 16, 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.047 million while streaming on Twitch. On November 24, 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch. On September 30, 2019, Electronic Gaming Monthly verified that, after obtaining Donkey Kong scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch in 2018, Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores. Determining which livestreams EGM has verified doesn't require a violation of WP:OR. It barely requires literacy. Your accusation that I'm "desperate" to include the links to Mitchell's livestreams is untrue, but I definitely believe including them would improve Wikipedia and benefit its readers. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The critical line from the EGM article is this During this time, he began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son, Billy Jr., eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues. As I have shown above, the new Twitch scores are not exactly equal to his former King of Kings and Mortgage Brokers scores. Thus, EGM's statement here should use the interpretation of "equal" being "within the same 1M+ point ballpack that says he can get close to or greater than his earlier scores. But because of this vagueness, we do not known which of the numerous Twitch videos of Mitchell playing DK they mean, so no we cannot include those scores without a different third-party source. --Masem (t) 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would note that we can't even be sure the videos EGM refers to are still there. Nowadays, Twitch normally doesn't allow VODs of livestreams to be kept more than 60 days. I guess Billy Mitchell managed to convince them to treat his channel differently (live streams of e-sports events are the same), or maybe these are just reuploads I don't know and don't really care. (The story was date September 30th, but it's quite likely that it was being worked on for at least a few weeks if not longer, and we have no idea when whoever wrote the story checked out the channel. So we really have no idea what was on the channel whenever it was checked out.) But even if Twitch didn't automatically delete the videos after 60 days, we have no way of knowing what the channel owner chose to keep and what they chose to delete. I do find it funny that the OP insists they aren't desperate to include these videos, when they prove the opposite in their very comment such as by making dumb claims about what is and isn't OR. But whatever, I think I'm really done with this discussion now especially since with OP's continued misleading claims such as the one about "not being desperate", I'm having strong doubts that their statement that they do not have a COI is true. While you're not required to declare if you have a COI, people are often reluctant to work with people who have undisclosed COI, and especially reluctant when the person claims they don't but this doesn't seem to be true. Being upfront about such things tends to make people far more willing to help you than when you're evasive or outright misleading. We are required to AGF, but ultimately AGF can only go so far when a person's own comments show the opposite. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Twitch apparently dates videos based on UTC, so it can't be used to determine the exact day in Florida, but if you follow this link, scroll down through the listed videos, and hover the cursor over the words "last year" on Mitchell's 1.050-million and 1.047-million Donkey Kong livestreams, you should see a pop-up that verifies their respective upload dates of November 2018 and August 2018. Twitch obviously didn't delete those livestreams after 60 days, and Mitchell obviously hasn't deleted them, and they were obviously on the channel when the EGM story was being written. Your ongoing insinuations that I have a conflict of interest and that I'm desperate to include the links to Mitchell's livestreams are untrue. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Considering that you linked to the WP:OR policy in the comment right before you do a bunch of unverifiable speculation based on your own original research makes you seem sort of desperate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You seem to be suggesting it violates WP:OR to find a source and read it. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography creates false impressions about Mitchell's personal and professional life because unaccountable administrators like Masem and Sergecross73 concoct ridiculous lies to exclude reliably sourced information that presents Mitchell in a positive light. This discussion has been less productive than I'd hoped it would be. Thanks to anyone who's taken the time to follow along. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you use the words "ridiculous" and "lies" as links to your own posts. I get the impression there's an unconscious message in that. In addition, those posts are just a bunch of rambling collages of bits and pieces taken out of context, and if that's the way you read information then it's no wonder we have such a communication barrier here. From what I've seen, everyone here, including administrators like Masem and Sergecross have gone out of their way to try and help you out, and given you much more time and leniency than I would have, and I applaude them for their patience. You said once that you didn't come here to make enemies, but you're combative behavior says just the opposite and is not going to win you any friends, that's for sure. Actions speak a million times louder than words, and if you continue assuming bad faith and making unfounded accusations you're likely to end up being blocked.

Wikipedia is not a hall of records. We're not concerned with monitoring the highest scores or keeping up with relationship statuses or stuff like that. We summarize what we find in reliable sources, and if the sources aren't reliable enough or they don't say exactly what you think they say, then we simply don't add it. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is out to get you, and Masem spent several hours improving the article and trying to fix content you were complaining about because they are part of the grand conspiracy of Wikipedia. The other alternative is that you have just been wrong and largely wasting everyone's time, but of course that would be ridiculous! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

We have been discussing this since last July. At multiple venues. And not a single other participant has called me a “liar”. I’m pretty sure that’s a telltale sign of what’s really going on here. Please stop wasting the community’s time on all this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd take a lesson from the Red Baron, whom, according to his own account, in reality scored 82 victories. But his first two occurred over enemy lines and could not be officially verified, thus he was happy to settle for 80. As far as I'm concerned, if Guinness doesn't recognize it, it doesn't count. All we need are good RSs, though, to add the numbers. We need some standards lest we open the door to every Youtube hacky-sack savant and bowling-ball stacker that comes along to set the new record. Zaereth (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: In August 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.047 million while streaming on Twitch. In November 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch. In September 2019, Electronic Gaming Monthly verified that, after obtaining Donkey Kong scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch in 2018, Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores. Your suggestion that we don't have good reliable sources is obviously untrue. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You've repeatedly abused semi-protection to impose a de facto block and ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for his anti-Mitchell revisions and apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations, and you've cited a false pretext for doing so each time. If anyone here has wasted other people's time, you have. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t make any sense. My page protection wasn’t an abuse, no one besides you has accused me of such, and no one has spent any time arguing about my page protection. My page protection hasn’t wasted anyone’s time. Are you really going so low as to “No you are” type childish comebacks? Someone please archive this nonsense again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: To answer your question, no, I'm not resorting to childish comebacks. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is so long it's very easy to come to while scrolling at BLPN. Anyway I just wanted to point out yet again that this is neither WP:RFPP nor WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM the former which would be the place to ask for a change in protection status and the latter two which would be the place to complain about admin abuse. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks. That's what I thought, but your comment is still reassuring for an editor who's never been in this situation before. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Elting

This is a resume. I am not sure I understand why this is considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. -GTB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.37.116 (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Should John Kasich be described as Republican-in-name-only?

Per this edit-warring[18] from the editor GlassBones (formerly BattleshipGray). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans Why are you posting this here? This is a topic for the article's Talk page. GlassBones (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You misrepresented the edit which says, "However, others have characterized him as a Republican in name only due to his stance on issues such as immigration, climate change, and gun control." There is a critical difference between reporting the opinion of a minority and reporting it as a fact. Also agree with GlassBones. You have not presented any BLP issues. TFD (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The added content was not supported by the cited source, and therefore a violation of WP:BLP. It is the same content that has been added multiple times by IPs, which caused the page to be protected in October. I already removed it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only is the content unsupported by the source, but the "others have characterized" leaves it unclear who is describing him like this: is it RS, academics or are these accusations by fringe wackjobs? Imagine if Obama's lead would summarize him as the "American attorney and politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African American President of the United States. Others have characterized his presidency as illegitimate and his rule as a communist dictatorship." You do realize that you don't have to disagree with me on every single issue? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a silly pejorative, who has called who a RINO really has no place in anyone's Wkipedia bio. ValarianB (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter Handke

Please explain to user Jingiby how bad of an idea it is to associate a Nobel laureate with nazi associations, a page already frequently vandalized, such as "born in the Third Reich" nonsense. CapnZapp (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see there's a second report on the same article below. CapnZapp (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Julie Bailey

Julie Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Uncited and probably libelous personal information today added to Julie Bailey by User:Fact checkers12345 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Bailey&oldid=930705888. I have reverted the text. I request that the history of this text is deleted, User:Fact checkers12345 is blocked and Julie Bailey protected to prevent any more inappropriate edits. Ms Bailey is the centre of attention at present as a TV program about her is being transmitted on Channel 4 in the UK on the 19th December https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2019-12-11/the-cure-review-channel-4/. --91.85.198.64 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Everett Stern

First I want to disclose that I am the subject of the article. As of December 11, 2019 an edit by Sportsplex03 had the article in a state that was easy to read, accurate, and well sourced for references. That same day Primefac started making massive changes to the page, another user started bringing up political views. Primefac has been trolling the article for the last 6 years. I do not believe that any of the editors are currently acting in good faith. Instead, the page has become a two-sided battle to win. I just want the page to be accurate. The intro line has been completely transformed and sources have been removed. I have tried to discuss my concerns on the talk page, specifically regarding what my company does. We do not target financial institutions. I have avoided editing the article directly and submitted request for edit and RfC appropriately, but the admins that are already editing the account decline and close the request. It seems as if I am not given a voice because I am the subject of the article. I agree that I have an obvious COI, but I just want accuracy. I'm not using the page to advertise my company, but it should accurately reflect my life and my company. I'm just looking for an unbiased set of eyes on the article.

Please observe the differences in these two versions. Thank you!

December 11th version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930248600

Current version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930434324 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The current version seems much better. The previous version had a lot of WP:UNDUE material, and none of the current material seems to be unsourced or a WP:BLP violation. Considering that the DRN thread you opened was closed already [19], it is probably better to keep this discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Everett Stern Article or the article's talk page, unless there are specific BLP violations that you can describe. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:WallyfromDilbert, thank you for commenting on the BLPN in response to my post. I do want to request that you reconsider, only because the current version has some major inaccuracies and the current version has had 14 sources removed. What are your thoughts? Thank you again! Everettstern (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A few points. One Sportsflex03 been reverted by multiple editors, so I don't think making your case by only faulting one editor helps you any way. Two it is correct that generally the WP:Lead should only be covering stuff that is already on the article so there is minimal need for sourcing. It is true we sometimes do it anyway for a variety of reasons and there are a bunch of articles which do it even though if improved they may not need it. But since you're in a dispute, you're going to have to establish why you feel there is a need for so many sources in the lead. Is it because there is an attempt to mention something in the lead but not in the article, which is sloppy writing? Is it because there is an attempt to add sources which aren't needed to establish something? Given that according to you, these sources were removed, this means they were not used in the article proper which seems to say something. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick read of Sportsflex03's version and it's easy to see sloppy non encyclopaedic writing likely to turn off regulars. E.g. It starts off with that weird "(private intelligence agency)" bit and then later has "(site access restricted in some countries, VPN may be required)". I don't think you are going to easily convince people the version you prefer is better so I suggest you instead focus on whether there is stuff that can be readded. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that I said all the above, before knowing Sportflex03 had been checkuser blocked. Which makes my point even more acute. I really don't think you want to be asking us about Sportflex03's work, nor making this to be a case where you were unfairly harmed by other editors. I appreciate that you aren't happy about the article, but I see no sign that anyone of the regulars is "trolling" or otherwise acting or bad faith or even unfairly biased against you. We all just want a decent encyclopaedic article about you. Since it concerns you, it's going to be difficult for you to have the necessary neutral perspective, but do understand a good article is likely to be very different from what you would write about yourself, or some PR agency would write about you. Instead of promoting the work of questionable editors (and I'm putting aside the obvious issue of how those editors came to edit the article), concentrate on working with the regular editors who are involved. As said, if there are any inaccuracies, please identify them. If you're unhappy because you feel some of you work is insufficiently covered, you can provide sources and suggest it is covered, but editors may very well feel your proposals are WP:UNDUE and your sources insufficient so you're going to have to accept it may not be covered. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In my article it states "Stern founded Tactical Rabbit with the intention of "exposing wrongdoing" in financial and corporate institutions.[27]" This is not true and it hurts my business as I am trying to do business with financial institutions and corporations. I requested for this line that is only supported by a "press release" to be removed but my request was denied. Furthermore numerous sources that were removed states that Tactical Rabbit is a Private Intelligence Agency. It was even in one version of the edits. Readers digest and many other sources that were removed show what my company is but why were those sources removed? Why not state what is factual according to the press? Removing well established sources is concerning to me.Everettstern (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there is merit to mention Tactical Rabbit is a private intelligence agency. Frankly I personally DGAF. My point was that even if there was merit to mention it, we definitely do not do it in brackets next to the company in the lead. Whoever wrote that clearly has no idea how to write Wikipedia articles. So anyone reading the version you highlighted is immediately turned off by an obvious problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As for the exposing wrongdoing bit, well I'm not entirely happy with a press release being used as the source but it does clearly support what we say. And I'm mindful of the fact that it press release you must have approved, effectively an WP:ABOUTSELF case. The fact that you now regret the press release, well in some ways is neither here nor there. You may be lucky that one RS actually cared at the time to discuss your founding of the company so maybe we can't discuss it either. OTOH, if we are going to mention your company, we need something. You've been asked to provided sources discussing your company on the article talk page. I suggest you do so there. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this topic should be addressed on the article's talk page in the thread you started: Talk:Everett Stern#Edit request. It can be hard for other editors to dig around to find information you may want, so you should try to provide direct sources on the talk page for each specific change you think needs to be made. You should also find sources that make more than a passing mention of you or your company. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne I want to discuss my page and provide sources but I am being threatened by a biased user. – wallyfromdilbert I am concerned and not sure what to do. I thought I was following the right rules by discussing this issue on a notice board. Please see the following discussion and advise. Everettstern (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The other discussions you have started are already linked above. There is no reason to copy and paste others' comments to this noticeboard, and repeatedly accusing other editors of "bias" and bad faith goes against our core policy of WP:AGF. The advice you have already been given is to go discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page and provide sources to support your claims. Also stop making any comments about other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

– wallyfromdilbert My apologies, but I am not an expert Wikipedia user. I am just concerned with the accuracy of my page. If want me to take this conversation on my talk page then I will. I am not trying to "call out" any users, but I thought it was appropriate to post the conversation as I got nervous that I was being threatened to be blocked from my own page. Please understand that someone who is not used to Wikipedia would be scared by that comment from another user. I am not trying to cause harm to another user... I am just trying to protect myself by bringing it to the users on this board. I did not mean any disrespect to anyone.Everettstern (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Simply focus on content and do not comment on other editors. Also, just to be clear, I meant the talk page for the article about you: Talk:Everett Stern, where you should continue the discussions you started. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Sanders

Not familiar enough with protocol, but this entry needs to be updated and reclassified. Cameron Sanders died Feb 8, 2019, at the age of 60. He endured a years-long battle with cancer. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.169 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any online obituary we could reference? As you can likely understand, we are very cautious about declaring someone's death without a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Chip Fields

How is it even possible that no images of the lovely Chip Fields are included? How shameful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.250.222 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Van Drew

Repeated vandalism due to recently being in news. Probably needs semi-protected status for a few days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.224.224 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Tejasvi Surya

Should this article have separate section namely Allegations of abuse when it was not scandal and just trivial things.

• It didn't have LASTING effect and nothing conviction or other thing happened after that.
• Person is not known for only this event.
• I tried to merge it under the life section by looking at Vivek Agnihotri which was also addressed with the help of this noticeboard. But it is getting reverted and even name reception has been changed into the allegations of sexual abuse.
• It shows fan-POV and resume style while it is not and other editor is not pointing specific issue but demanding complete overhaul? Can someone check and confirm whether it is NPOV and encyclopaedir or not?

Regards,-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

After being caught openly lying on the article talk page, Harshil169 makes a thread here and makes a second blatant lie. Hershil merged the contents to a section named "Early and personal life" as can be seen here in this diff as well as the edit summary and not to "life" as he is claiming. And this incident that was/is investigated by Womens commission and was taken up in High court of Karnataka is anything but personal life. When I asked this question on the article talk page that how can it be called personal life, instead of answering there, he opened this new thread here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I already answered that similar section was included with help of BLPN in Vivek Agnihotri’s career but you brought Similar Stuff Exists essay in between. My stand is still same that it’s about his life and to point out negative details in one section is violation of NPOV. WP:CSECTION even says that. I opened a thread to seek opinion of others.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The section is not named as "Controversy" as you are falsely claiming, the section is named as "Allegations of abuse" which is what this section is about. If you have a better suggestion for the heading you are welcome to propose it on the talk page. But this is certainly not Reception as you tried to add into the article here. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Vivek Agnihotri, the "Allegation of sexual harassment" and "Twitter" sections are still there. WP:CSECTION is about sections focused on criticism or controversies and especially those as section names. In the article here, the header "Allegations of abuse" is a factual name of the event, and I'm not seeing the issue with it. It also does not seem appropriate to have it in the "Early and personal life" section since the event also involves his political candidacy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, Is H2 heading is okay for? Read comment of Masem below. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

As to whether the allegations should be covered, I think there is enough there (between the injuction and the summons) to at least be discussion, and what is there is about the right level of detail. What I would be concerned is making the section an H2 alongside the other major headers. I would find a way to make that a subheader of his period in the Parliament, since the accusations appeared to start right after he took office. Making the allegations H2 does bring them out too much. --Masem (t) 22:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem, Accusations came when he filled nomination. It’s not related to parliamentary career. Thus, I included it under life section. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr

Removal of NPOV tag without discussion and overall whitewashing complete with 5 judgments/determinations that "conspiracy theories" are behind any and all criticism of the Subject. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Ohr are common, but they've all been debunked. Claiming that he's some sort of "deep state traitor" is the violation of BLP which needs to be watched for here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We use RS. We don't sift through primary sources and fill the article with direct quotes from them, in particular when it's done with an intent to lend credence to what RS have characterized as conspiracy theories about the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Drive by removal of the NPOV tag without resolution should be sanctioned, imo.

Also, NorthBySouthBaranof at the discussion page helpfully suggests something should be added about the OIG's criticism of Orr, yet nothing has happened.

Mainly though, there is absolutely some sort of paranoia and groupthink epidemic ( or maybe its just plain old propaganda, I don't know which ) underway in the USA about so-called "conspiracy theories", and when some of said theories are shown to actually have some merit, it is baffling, at the least, to leave those "don't even think about this" terms ( e.g."debunked conspiracy theories" ) in the related article, especially 5 times. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bob Bland

• Bob Bland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Still ongoing issues here. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive265#Bob Bland. I have requested semiprotection. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerrit Cole

There is still an issue with him being listed as a "Free Agent" when he has cleverley signed a 9 year contract with the NEW YORK YANKEES, Per the whole world and espn This matter needs to be fixed immeadetly because It is unfare to classify him as a "Free Agent" when clearley he is not. If he were still a free Agent then the San Diego Padres would be able to sign him. People keep reverting the page back to say Free Agent when clearly he is a NEW YORK Fn YANKEE. I don't know what more else to do on this matter and It needs to be fixed asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmusic2 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Gerrit Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

References

It might be better to ask for assistance at WT:BASEBALL. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter Handke (2nd take)

There is a debate going on at Talk:Peter Handke on whether his birthplace should be listed as "Nazi Germany" [20]. Note that this group of editors is only interested in Handke, though this would normally apply to anyone born in Austria in the period after Anschluss and before the end of WW2. Khirurg (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Note: The second current report on the same article. I've edited the section title. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think people there are trying to be a bit too literal. When looking for a birthplace, people are looking for an actual place, not the nation or government of that place at the time. We wouldn't say Jesus was born in Rome, just because Judea happened to be under Roman rule at the time. Likewise, we wouldn't say Israel either, because the land of Judea is well known. But if it weren't well known, then perhaps. For example, Achilles is called a Greek hero, even though the country of Greece didn't exist at the time, because calling him an Illyrian would just be confusing to the average reader. Countries, governments and borders change all the time, but the names of places tend to remain unchanged over vast periods of time. Regardless of the socio-political movements of the time, the actual land has been known as Austria for over a thousand years, and is going to be the easiest for the general reader to understand.

And I don't even know why being born under Nazi rule is relevant to the person's life story. It's not like a baby is going pop out and start giving chest salutes and waving swastikas around everywhere. It's a baby. Unless there is some significance of that to his life and notability, then it just seems trivial and is not really an accurate description of place. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

When we say that someone was born in a certain country, it should actually be true. We should give birth places in terms of the countries as they existed at the time, not as they are now or as we would like to pretend they might have been. The country he was born in was Germany and we should say so (also saying in more detail somewhere in the article text that it is now Austria and that when the German conglomeration was dismantled at the end of the war he became Austrian). It would be anachronistic to write that Charlemagne was born in Germany or Belgium (whichever one now bounds his birthplace); this is no different. I don't see it as any particular shame that he was born in an oppressive country or that his father was a Nazi soldier; those aren't things that can be avoided by choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually, that's what the article says, "Charlemagne's exact birthplace is unknown, although historians have suggested Aachen in modern-day Germany, and Liège (Herstal) in present-day Belgium as possible locations." It doesn't say France or the Frankish Empire. It gives actual locations that a person can find on a map. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not say "born in Germany or Belgium", and should not. It says, in the text of the article, that he may have been born in either of two cities, and that those two cities are now in Germany and Belgium. Similarly, for Handke, we should not say that he was born in Austria. He was not. He was born in a city that, at the time, was part of Nazi Germany, and is now part of Austria. We should say so in the text of the article, and if the limitations of infoboxes force us to specify a country, the country that we list in the infobox should be Germany. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question (my history knowledge is not great), but was Germany's annexation of Austria at the time recognized by the rest of the world? We have had many situations in history where one country claims it has taken another, but this is not recognized by the rest of the world and in such a case, we should use the world's perception rather than the claim of one country. --Masem (t) 21:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What I forgot to mention is that the reason I suspect this is happening is because Handke has strongly pro-Serbian views, which is not well-received by some of the people pushing for mentioning "Nazi Germany" as his birthplace. I don't think it's a coincidence. Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

How about we focus on the facts of the matter and not on the motivations of other editors, per WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The obvious compromise here is to leave the info box field empty and then in the text explain he's born in Griffen in present-day Austria. I would also find it acceptable to have the info box say "Griffen, under German occupation" (or similar). No "reich" or "nazi" anything would even be remotely acceptable.

Are we sure we don't have any other BLP articles where the subject was born in "anschlussed" Austria? CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Except we're not saying people were born in a country, we're saying they were born in a place. Plenty of Wikipedia births list just the state, or even the just the city of birth. Austria did not stop existing as a place name during the Nazi reign, it merely became a province rather than a separate nation. So while saying he was born in :"the country of Austria" would be problematic, merely saying that he was born in "Austria" would be fine, and would be clearer as to where he was born than saying "Nazi Germany". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hitler rendered Austria as Ostmark, but the place where Handke is was born, i.e Griffen is in the current state of Carinthia. That province still existed under Nazi Germany and was never dissolved (see map: [21]). A way around this could be to have it in the infobox as Griffen, Carinthia and like this it bypasses anything to do with Nazi Germany or whatever names it was known as i.e Third Reich, Deutsches Reich etc or the status of Austria being relegated to Ostmark.Resnjari (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody can choose, or change his biological parents, place of birth, native country, etc. This is simply destiny. May we change the destiny? Isn't this discussion an absurd? Retroactive change of somebody's country of origin or even hiding it! Jingiby (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I know where you’re coming from Jingiby, but it was Hitler's Germany. That's the problem. Having the Carinthia formula at least provides continuity of a geographical location.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Guys, thing is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has Nazi Germany listed as his place of birth for his infobox. The question rises, why for him and not for Handke? There has to be some consistency here.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything David Eppstein said, what Resnjari said, what Jingiby said, and also this. Austria is not a geographical entity like the Alps or the Danube, but as Anglophones understand it in the context of what country the place of birth is in the infobox, it's a political one, that has existed in 1919-1938 and 1945 to present. Adolf Hitler's infobox says Austro-Hungary. If Austria was an eternal "place" it would say "Austria". Our policy seems to be using the then-contemporary state entity, not the anachronistic current one. Our policy should not be "say Austria for current Austrians born under the Nazis, but not for Nazis from Austria". However, in any case, the simple fact of what government someone was born under, which they have no control over, is not under the purview of BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? but not for Nazis from Austria? Are you implying Handke is a Nazi? Did I read that correctly? I will have you know that BLP applies to talkpages and noticeboards. Regarding the birthplace, Griffen, Carinthia, as Resnjari suggested, is an excellent suggestion, and I support it. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you did not read correctly. Adolf Hitler was a Nazi from Austria. Handke is a currently living person, born in Austria under the Nazis. And no, Carinthia is incomplete information, and people often don't even know where that is, so no I do not think Resnjari's suggestion is sufficient, sorry Resnjari.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Its ok, Calthinus. The word Nazi is what it is. I was thinking. Maybe Griffen, Anschluss Austria. Like this it refers to WW2, the status in which Austria was under and internationally recognised (let’s not forget the allies first acknowledged the union before they disavowed much later). Like this it avoids the words Nazi or Germany, but is still factually correct. (pinging others involved in the discussion: Jingiby , NatGertler, David Eppstein, Masem, Zaereth, Khirurg).Resnjari (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have been aware of this content dispute for awhile, but I am not interested in it. For those interested, IMO, there are many ways how this can be solved. After all, the first section of the article already says that Handke comes from a family with Nazi background, sth that makes it obvious that Austria at the time was in a way or another part of Germany's influence. That part of the infobox is just a small detail. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Well Ktrimi, as Fut Perf once pointed out, infoboxes cause some people to not read teh actual article, and for this, they should burn in hell. Jokes aside, Resnjari I have nothing against "Anschluss Austria" but in terms of usage, you search it and what it comes up wiht is "pre-Anschluss Austria" and "post-Anschluss Austria" and not "Anschluss Austria"; still at least it is recognizable and accurate. There's also a simple option if the word Nazi is really such a big issue-- "Germany". --Calthinus (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is about specific remedies, I have provided my opinion on the talk page: Talk:Peter Handke#Austria or the Third Reich? and not here. Unless there's more BLP-related issues, I feel the visibility of the Peter Handke infobox has been raised, and we can conclude the specific issue there to avoid having two discussions on the same thing. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

J.E. R. Staddon

J.E.R. Staddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What, exactly, needs fixing with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner111 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Rayner111, like it says at the top of the article, it lacks inline citiations, very obviously in the first two sections, but not only there. The "Research and Writing" seems to be mostly based on the subjects own writings, and that is not how it should be on WP. Such a section should, for the most part, be a summary of reliably published sources independent of the subject, writing about his writings. If there are no such sources, the article should not mention them. WP:BLP may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Roger Schank

On Roger Schank (notable as an expert in artificial intelligence), Cog3.14159 (talk · contribs) is claiming that mention of Schank's widely-reported association with Jeffrey Epstein is a BLP violation, and has three times removed it, most recently in Special:Diff/930618467. Before the removal, this material was sourced to a 2008 article in Slate and a 2019 article in New York Magazine; I think these are reliable enough and that the spread of years adds to the justification of including this, but other opinions would be welcome. Relatedly, the article itself is somewhat promotional, I think because of COI edits, and could use de-puffing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The text additions used inflammatory language implying "guilt by association" that are not supported by the source articles. The New York Magazine article sourced was one paragraph that ended in the speculation that the BLP subject might have been helping Jeffrey Epstein prepare to "defeat evil robot machines". It is not a quality source. The additions are BLPGOSSIP that did not add relevant information to the BLP subject's contributions to multiple fields over decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cog3.14159 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The New York item has a silly remark about evil robots, but the Slate story is in-depth and entirely suitable. The content should be restored. XOR'easter (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the content and am stepping away from the article per COI (now disclosed on user page and the article). cog3.14159 (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Roy Johnston

Is this death notice an acceptable reference for Roy Johnston dying? My initial thoughts are that the notice does not contain any biographical information to enable us to confirm it is the subject of our article, but thought it prudent to obtain the views of others. FDW777 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a rather unusual case. I say no, it's not acceptable, because there's no link between the obituary and the material in the article. For instance, the names of his wife and children are not in the article so we can't infer that it's him from a match on these. I can't find any other reports of his death anywhere at present. We need to be careful about declaring someone deceased, so we need to err on the side of caution. Neiltonks (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

Could someone who knows about Islamic scholars take a look at this article. I have massively trimmed the academic content (which was largely based on his autobiography) but I don't really have the knowledge to do the same for his Islamic work. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are major problems with this BLP as well as its vast bloat One is that if it goes to AfD, the cites on GS appear to be large but in fact many are attributable to other scholars. Furthermore several of the links are dead. All sources need to be checked to see if they are RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC).

Suze Orman

I just ran into a worrying section in Suze Orman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): "The Creative Service for the Public Good, a self described citizen journalism group, created and published a critical expose documentary on Orman. The documentary alleges that Orman has no financial education or credentials, a Narcissistic personality disorder, had scammed the public, promoted exploitative financial products, engaged in unethical sales practices and taken advantage of the poor & middle class. The documentary shows a video of a young Orman saying she has a Master's in Social Work, which is false. It also shows Suze lie about teaching for the University of Phoenix, but then quickly admitting that she did a course "under the guise" that students can't take out loans if they can't afford it."

The referenced part was added by User:Andreldritch, the last unsourced sentences by User:Mbsyl. I would have simply deleted it, perhaps even revdel's id, but I'm involved in a dispute with Mbysl who believes that deleting anything is censorship and has (I think, he doesn't name names) called me serpentine lawyer, so I'm leaving this for others, sorry. I've looked at the source Andreldritch uses, the "Creative Service for the Public Good". It's run by Sharon Janis and Night Lotus Productions. Janis was interested in and involved in spiritualism but later, she says "another series of unexpected events led to my seeing some of the corrupting forces that are destroying the United States and our world, with a mafia like web of complicit media and government officials being controlled like puppets by the likes of Anita Dunn, Hilary Rosen, and the way too powerful political lobbyist media broker psy-op strategists at SKDKnickerbocker (and God knows what corruption is behind and using them), who were recently named the third most powerful players in politics by Politico. Note their mission line, "Where powerful Democrats plot the anti-Trump agenda". I can't find any evidence that would leave to to think his is a credible source for a BLP. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• The youtube video claiming a scam says it was authored by Sharon Janis who is not an authority on anything. This source (The Motley Fool) calls a similar video by the same author "The Dumbest Criticism of Suze Orman I've Ever Seen" (however, Motley Fool also criticizes Orman, although nothing like "scam"). I removed the undue and very poorly sourced criticism section, but I'm pretty sure it will return so other opinions would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh, I actually thought she was an SNL-character. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That YouTube video by Janis has over 2 million views, which makes it notable. I think mention of the video should be made in order to make the entry thorough. And the Motley Fool does note that the video makes some valid points, although not that Orman caused the Great Recession. Since the video is mostly about the credit card, I vote to include it. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, number of of views does not make it notable (or to use WP-terms, WP:DUE). Attention to it in reliable independent sources could. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Both the Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-suze-orman-ive-ever-seen.aspx) and the Financial Times' newsletter (https://financialadvisoriq.com/c/1091583/114713/suze_orman_stop_bashing_advisors) discuss the video, and cite concerns about Orman. Since they are both reliable sources of financial info, that bolsters the argument for referencing the video. There are dozens of other wealth management sites that discuss the video, although none with the cachet of these two. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If you think that a source calling the video "The Dumbest Criticism of Suze Orman I've Ever Seen" bolsters the argument for using said video, then there's no point in discussing this further with you. --Calton | Talk 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

looks to me like that article only criticizes one very narrow piece of the documentary and ignores the rest. i would love to see someone dispute the myriad of claims in the documentary, rather than focusing on 1 tiny piece or on who the documentary maker is. the part that i added to the Orman wiki article is taken from Politico Solving for Y and is almost an exact quote from Orman.Mbsyl (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not all in on the video's claims, but Calton should note that the Motley Fool article primarily takes issue with the video's comments about her causing the recession, while saying that it does have some salient points ("While there were some valid concerns"). So yes, that does bolster the claim that the video has attracted attention for some of its claims. Nice of you to parse the word "bolster" without reading the Fool article. And nice show of collegiality in trying to rectify this. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sharon Janis writes about Spiritual Happiness—her opinions on that topic might be usable somewhere. However, Janis has no qualifications that warrant her opinions about Suze Orman being recorded on Wikipedia. A youtube video is a self-published source and fails WP:RS (with certain exceptions for identifiable authors who are provably expert in the area in which they are commenting). Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

if you watch the documentary, i think you will see that Janis is an expert on Suze Orman. the production quality isn't great, but it is clear that she did a TON of research for this. And Janis also goes over how she helped Suze get started in the entertainment industry, showing pictures of them together, further evincing her qualification to make an accurate documentary about Suze. Mbsyl (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not what WP:RS says. Janis has no qualifications relevant for a commentary about Orman and her opinions are not usable per WP:SPS. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Motley Fool "article" is actually an op/ed column. So is the Financial Advisor article, which is written more like an advice column. I don't know about the documentary, but from reading the website's lead-in --and the very fact that it's a documentary-- makes me believe it's likely literary journalism and filled with the author's opinions and editorials, thus none of these would be reliable sources for anything but the author's opinions. And to my knowledge, youtube is never a reliable source. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

so a video of Suze clearly lying - even admitting to it in one example - isn't reliable if its on youtube?Mbsyl (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Videos are easy to fake, and youtube has no editorial oversight to ensure their videos are legit. Once we open that door Wikipedia will be fair game for every so-called expert and mythbuster or champion looking to show how things are "really done" or that they are indeed world-record setters despite being banned by the record holders for cheating, etc... A reliable source is one with editorial oversight and a good reputation for fact-checking, so we don't have to, and should be as objective as posible. The problem with documentaries in general is that they try to give factual information in a fictional way. The goal is to invoke emotion because that is what makes a story interesting, but that can only be done subjectively, and it loses objectivity. If multiple reliable-sources pick up on it and decide to investigate the story themselves, then we can include it. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You know, as an example, I saw an episode of House yesterday. I really hate this show, not so much because the lead character is a jerk, but because it follows the same exact formula every episode. (ie: A guy collapses and ends up in front of the famous Dr. House. They muddle over the problem then inject him with a bunch of drugs that only make the condition worse, all while the great doctor does his best to insult everyone around him. Then they switch to a bunch of different drugs that nearly kill the guy and destroy his liver, and just when everyone is about to call it quits, Dr. House has an epiphany and realizes it was an ingrown toenail all along.) In this particular episode, someone is doing a documentary on the doctor, and he does his level best to come off as an uncaring, narcissistic a-hole. But in the end, when he views the finished product, she had cut and clipped all his interviews in order to match her own narrative that he's this loveable doctor with a heart of gold and gruff exterior. And he nearly gets sick and vows to "stop this travesty before it airs".

While most documentaries I believe try to get it right, the writers always have this narrative of good guys and bad guys, and heroes and victims, etc., that really keep the story interesting. They are great things when done right, but they shouldn't be mistaken for news. That's why news stories are short; because you can only hold a reader's interest for so long. We Wikipedians collect all the boring, objective news and assemble it into the long articles nobody reads. Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The documentary does not meet the standards of reliability. If similar claims are reported elsewhere in reliable sources however they could be added. Citizen journalism provides a useful service in drawing attention to stories ignored by the mainstream. In some cases they may draw the attention of mainstream sources to these stories, in which case we can report them. In other cases for whatever reason they ignore them and they cannot be included. TFD (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• BLP violation: poor sourcing and highly prejudicial claims which require high quality sources (emphasis on quality and the plural 's' in 'high quality sources'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Eric_Arnoux

Eric Arnoux poorly sourced with fake informations about namesake it's not an acceptable reference in wikipedia Proposed deletion - Sources don’t demonstrate notability of Eric Arnoux, secondary sources don’t be sufficient to establish his notability.

It's almost a WP:ATTACK page as it stands - entirely negative in its view of him. I'd look for something to give a more balanced view, but unfortunately sources are likely to be in French, and my French is very rudimentary! If a French-speaker can't find something to balance the article better, I'd say it should go. Neiltonks (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of Arnoux, but if an editor thinks it should be deleted, they should send it to AfD. It's not going to be deleted by disruptive users re-adding prods that have already been removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is at AfD now. FrankP (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tony Hancock (footballer)

This article states that the subject played for Hyde United F.C. during his career, and cites an interview in the Manchester Evening News. I know this to be untrue, and the club's historical database confirms this. How do I correct this? I realise that, in the great scheme of things, this is minor, but surely we should attempt to be as accurate as possible, even if there is an inaccurate citation from a printed source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by QuiltedBunny (talk • contribs)

@QuiltedBunny: You could write on the article's talk page. It can be difficult to prove that a source is wrong (if that's the case here) unless there is another source that contradicts it, but maybe the article's creator or someone else notices your comment and you can discuss the issue there. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Prof L S Seshagiri Rao

Hi There, The renowned Professor passed away, so you may have to move this from under Living people category. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. BLP rules also apply the recently deceased, sometimes for as long as two years, so that's something to keep in mind. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Madhu Purnima Kishwar

One user is repeatedly adding defamatory content about Madhu Purnima Kishwar. It is already in politics and fake news section and still being added. I am not editing it again and again but I request to block the user. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/927078736, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926928158 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926928158.I am working for their website so I am not editing but one person told to complain here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:896:5648:D1E5:A66D:1E03:55F3 (talk)

Thank you for the report. It seems that the problematic edits were reverted and the article has been stable for a while. The bot didn't archive this section because it lacked a dated signature. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Kiwao Nomura

• Kiwao Nomura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs a review for neutrality, because the main editor, Hayimi (talk · contribs), may have a COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue at this page stems from a broader question about the general use of COI and AUTO tags, a discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#Correct_Use_of_AUTO_and_COI_tags — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankP (talk • contribs) 10:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No evidence has been offered of any COI editing. The article still needs review, and a review of Hayimi's edits is probably a good idea as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be some evidence of COI editing on the part of Hayimi, but nothing conclusive. They created the article, and at the time added a "biography" section containing unsourced info that only the subject or someone close to the subject should possibly know. And the fact that the user in question took the photo for the article, which is a rather close portraiture, seems to suggest some intimate knowledge of the subject. Aside from that, the user hasn't edited the article since 2012, shortly after creating it, and has done many useful edits on other article from 2010 to date. The subject does seem to be at least marginally notable, so even if the user is COI I'm not really seeing a huge problem with their edits. They may not be the best at keeping a neutral tone, as article does have some peacock and weasel problems, but that could just be a sign of a enthusiastic fan and should be easy for any exterminator to address. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch about the photo. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tanner Ainge

Yesterday, Utah County Commissioner Tanner Ainge's page was edited by a user regarding a recent tax increase. The edits in question are poorly sourced and opinionated in nature. Here is a LINK to the diff page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TK-379 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue, the edits in question seem to have been removed now. MPS1992 (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Janelle Monáe

Janelle Monáe

Janelle Monáe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janelle_Mon%C3%A1e&oldid=929953850

This is my first time submitting something here, please forgive the newbishness.

Please see the Talk page under "Year of Birth" for the links to information which I believe should be taken into account to at least bring the year of birth "1985" under question, and edit Monae's entry to a "?" year of birth--either 1985 or 1982. I understand that by Wikipedia's own standards, the evidence might not be considered valid enough to permanently alter the date of birth to 1982 alone, but I do not feel Wikipedia would be doing its own function any justice to blindly repeat an untruth, even one parroted by well-sourced & "notable" sources repeatedly.

Here are the links to the information sources cited in favor of a 1982 year of birth:

Monae's public people search entry, stating "Ms Janelle Monae Robinson is 37 years old and was born in December of 1982." : https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/ms-janelle-monae-robinson_id_G1815840038640576704

Monae's 3rd grade info sourced from one of her middle schools, teacher there quoted with the school year she was in 3rd grade: https://blog.thecurrent.org/2018/05/this-is-janelle-monaes-third-grade-photo-from-her-time-at-minneapoliss-hale-elementary-school/

Monae's high school's web page, article about her, stating year of graduation: https://kckps.org/about-us/reasons-to-believe/previous-reasons-to-believe-honorees/janelle-monae/

Monae shown attending her 10 year anniversary, with video captioned "2001" for grad date at beginning, as well as sign on the wall showing visible "01" at 1:00 minute mark, and an attendee stating "Class of 2001" at the 5:54 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwu7RxvBEx4

Monae stating the astrological positions of the moon and horizon at the date & time of her birth: https://twitter.com/JanelleMonae/status/1203402334304387078 -which match only a year of birth of 1982 on Dec 1st as can be seen here: https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Mon%C3%A1e,_Janelle

-and not a year of birth of 1985 on Dec 1st as can be seen here: https://astro-charts.com/persons/chart/janelle-monae/ -(which puts her moon in the sign of Cancer, and not Gemini, as Monae states on her Twitter account) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CF00:410:A1EC:C22F:25E6:D6CD (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Ok, wow. Where to begin. First, thanks for bringing this here and taking the time to explain your position. The problem is that this is what we call original research. What you've basically done here is the work of a private detective to bring us primary sourced evidence in order to prove some truth that either she's lying or the sources got it wrong. Not only is it original research, in many cases these types of sources may contain private and personal information that we don't post for safety and privacy reasons. That's why we don't use things like birth certificates, school records, blogs from former teachers, etc... We rely on reliable, secondary sources to do the research themselves and provide us with the birthdates. Not to mention that, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we need to find that date in multiple, reliable, secondary sources, in order to demonstrate that the subject is fine with us publishing the date.

It's not our place to try and expose her private information. We simply publish what we find in reliable, secondary sources. If she lied to them, that's really none of our business and we still go with what the sources say. If she lied about her real age, then that shows that she does care and we should definitely not publish the originally researched date.

And finally, going to the lengths of piecing together her astrological information is above and beyond extreme. Few of us here are astrological experts, nor are we even going to attempt to verify that you are correct. That's taking original research to a whole new level, upping it into synthesis. No, we should just stick to the sourced date and leave well enough alone. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately it is what I expected, as I have learned things in this process, about Wikipedia, that I never knew before. And as an information consumer, I am so disappointed in what I've learned. It forces me to take anything I might find in Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt, and to teach myself not to go to it primarily as a good source of information, unless I want a distillation of whatever is repeated the most often by whomever, no matter how true or untrue the bit of info might be. It is not unlike those who repeat a lie so many times, and get their friends to repeat it, until the mass populace at large believes it. Wikipedia is an outlet that grants a megaphone to such things. So much of this has to do with protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits in this post-truth world, and I can see that. So disappointing. But Wikipedia should at least have the integrity to not reprint a demonstrable falsehood, and to leave her birth year blank.

I regret my monetary contributions to Wikipedia now, extremely modest and occasional though they were, and had I the ability, I would rescind them. I didn't know what I was supporting. :( Seriously, this is depressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CF00:410:35BC:123:4A3E:94CB (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your past donations! I am glad that this has been a learning experience for you. Of course you should take anything you find in Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt! MPS1992 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry, it was not my intention to upset you. I can tell you're very intelligent, so I will try to explain, if you'll bear with me here. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable in secondary sources. As a tertiary source, we like to keep ourselves three-times removed from the primary sources. We let the reporters do the investigating and we trust them to get it right. Does this mean they're always right? Most certainly not, but the way to deal with that is to find equal or better secondary sources. We're all anonymous here, so we can't expect readers to trust in our expertise, nor should we expect them to have their own expertise in deciphering the primary sources.

Scientifically (and journalistically) speaking, there is a difference between what is verifiable and what is true. Verifiable means I can show you evidence. Truth requires me to take that evidence and create a theory (opinion) of how it all fits together. For example, someone showed up at the potential energy article and posted what was their own theory of gravity and energy. It was all very well sourced. A little too well, if you know what I mean. What they had done was to take little bits and pieces from many, many different books and assembled it into a band new theory of gravity. Now this person may have been a genius and may be trying to show us the truth of gravity, but they're no Einstein. They were engaging in synthesis, and until their theory becomes accepted by mainstream science, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it.

See, this is really no different. You've brought us evidence and then asked us to do the science ourselves to come up with the correct truth. None of us here rely on the expertise of anyone else. All we ask is that people provide sources, and the real experts will have those sources. If no sources exist, we simply leave it out. For example, I have expertise in the art of Japanese swordsmithing. I know from personal experience that the notion that the soft-iron core of a katana helps prevent it from breaking is a myth. It doesn't prevent breaking anymore than the soft-steel jacket already does. What it really does is prevent ringing, like a bell that wasn't homogeneous when cast. Such a sword is easier to use because it doesn't hurt your hand as much, plus it tends to strike without recoil, like a dead-blow hammer. While I know this to be true, that's a far different thing from finding it printed in reliable, secondary sources, because few of their authors have ever held such a sword, let alone tested it in use in comparison to homogeneous blades. Until someone actually prints that info in a book somewhere, it simply stays out of the article.

With things like birthdates, while it is useful biographical data, it's borderline trivia and not really germane to learning about who this person really is. But it is personal and sometimes private information that people can use to cause real harm, so we err on the side of caution and give the subject a lot of latitude in control over their own information. I hope that helps explain. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex Konanykhin

I'm no fan of these two, but User:Wikireadia2020, a new user with what seems to be a lot of warnings about and issues with BLP pages and otherwise on his talk page and other parts of the site such as 1,2, or 3-and has launched similar attacks against Silvina Moschini and Alex Konanykhin, including on Kon's talk page. Thought it was something to look at, and possibly revert? Kon's page reads weird as it is-we're using a Wikipedia debate to cite something in the lede of the page about his feud with Wiki that never appeared in any RS. Trust me, I hunted for one for a while tonight. Surprised nobody picked up on it in the media, seems like a serious thing. Odd they’ve been able to so successfully push their conspiracy theories to the point these two are wrapped up in things, not that following the impeachment talk pages isn’t enough to drive us all crazy! 2605:8D80:422:7ACA:F1D0:97A0:21A0:921D (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

One of his companies being banned from Wikipedia editing is not appropriate for the lede of the article about him if there's not coverage of it in reliable secondary sources indicating its significance. I've moved it further down. I can't comment on impeachment talk pages, whatever they may be, as I have no knowledge or experience of such things. MPS1992 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't cite Wikipedia, it's user generated WP:NOTSOURCE. Bacondrum (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no attack on this guy, he's a known scammer and media manipulator that hides his tracks well. For his side of the story, read https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/08/18/from-russia-with-chutzpah/a37d4fb3-c0ae-443d-b2ee-72c8cb154cb5/ for the 'other side' you won't find anything online and it's all in Russian language. There is an active bot protecting him, the first modification from his page used material from this above Wapo story and was reverted, as it wasn't in line with what the editor wanted. I'm just shocked how inaccurate wikipedia is, and trying to contribute based on what i know. --May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikireadia2020 has been CU blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Werthein Group

Werthein Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) negative BLP content added then removed. Content added sourced to finleaks, removed as misinformation here. Readded and removed subsequently. I don't believe the source is adequate.-- Deepfriedokra 19:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Zuleyka Rivera

"She is also the first winner from Puerto Rico to have noticeable mixed (African and Indigenous) heritage features, different from her four predecessors (Marisol Malaret, Deborah Carthy-Deu, Dayanara Torres, and Denise Quiñones) that have distinctly European features."

This is EXTREMELY speculative, unscientific, and incorrect, as several of the other winners are also of (obvious) mixed ancestry. Editor also doesn't define "mixed" and is likely basing his/her assumptions from colorism.

This sentence should be deleted, or radically reworked to be more accurate, cleanly defined, and not disparaging of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltacobot (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for her heritage? If not then I agree it should be removed, we're not playing the ethnicity guessing game. Also, unless there's been a debate about race/ethnicity in the awards I don't see the point of mentioning it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)