Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive225

Buddy Murphy

Matter is closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After some editing issues that have been noted as not disruptive on both sides after being reported as an edit war, it was recommended that this issue be brought here for scrutiny. The issue concerns the use of the this link to prove that Buddy Murphy started his career at the wrestling promotion concerned and to disprove that the WWE Performance Center has not trained him at all. BLP prohibits contentious claims through poor sourcing, and I consider this to be a controversial claim that needs independent verification. It is common AFAIK for a promotion to at best stretch the truth in order to attract new wrestlers to train and work for their promotion. This is the case here. Yet two IP's and GaryColemanFan insist without proof that the source is reliable. The page is presently fully protected to my edit, and I maintain that even without a source that the Performance Centre is correct - based in the assertion that all wrestlers who have developmental deals with WWE and work on the NXT roster (Murphy is one of these wrestlers as I believe is shown on the page and sourced) are training there. As an additional point of proof re controversial claims, I pointed out another controversial claim here which is related in that the same three wrestlers are named and a similar promotion line is used. It isn't exactly the same, but it doesn't need to be - it's still stretching the truth and promotional. The edit war started as I used the right under BLP to remove contentious claims without question (I think that's the wording) and they refused to listen. Some help is needed here and I hope this isn't too long as these reports require. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) 1 If the WWE Performance Centre is added to Buddy Murphy then by the logic Curse of Fenric is using it needs to be added to all NXT performers, past and present. 2 The 2nd claim CoF is trying to use doesn't mention where the current (as of the link) MCW trainer was at the time he trained the three named individuals, just that he was involved in their training, so if anything strengthens the referenced edit. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC) The above proves my point. This IP is not paying attention to the real issue - promotions making claims based in promoting their product and not verifiable fact. For the record, if the training done at the Performance Centre is less substantive than elsewhere (as would be the case with those who've trained at Ring of Honor like Owens et al) then it's not appropriate to add it. It is with Buddy. It's there with Emma as well, and I'm sure others. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC) It's a sourced edit, and the only thing you've shown to say it's not a fact is WP:OR ("I know he didn't in real life") [1]. Nowhere have you shown that the PCW site is unreliable, the MCW site (your link) makes no mention of where Carlo Cannon trained them, so it doesn't make the sourced edit wrong. If the Manchester United site said that Nicky Butt was trained by Eric Harrison at Manchester United, then the Newcastle United F.C. just said he was trained by Eric Harrison and makes no mention of Manchester United, does that then make mean that the Manchester United site is unreliable? Of course it doesn't, which is the thing you're trying to claim with your MCW link in regards to the sourced edit. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Oh dear. Now trying to compare an elite level soccer club with a grass roots wrestling promotion to cover for a continuation of missing the point. As far as the onus is concerned, BLP says; The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. This is not me. As I said at the start, there must be proof that the PCW website is reliable for BLP claims. Or get an independent source. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) I have provided evidence with a reference, something you've failed to do everytime you put the Performance Centre in, and you've failed to prove why the refernce isn't acceptable. Just saying it isn't doesn't cut it, else anyone could say "oh, I think site X is not acceptable" and any article with that in will need it removing. WWE.com is just as "kayfabe" as the PCW, so I suggest you start removing it from any and all WWE wrestlers, past and present. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC) WWE is under severe mainstream media scrutiny making them draw a strong line between kayfabe and real. Local promotions are under no such scrutiny. I don't have to prove the source is unreliable. You have to prove it's reliable and you are yet to do so preferring to attack my editing. All promotions withOUT mainstream scrutiny are subject to suspicion. This doesn't apply to WWE, TNA, Ring of Honor, New Japan and others who have the scrutiny. No promotion is Australia has it. Training in pro wrestling is highly controversial in Australia with a history of controversial claims. It is very much an ego driven business and without controls in place claims such as this are inherently controversial. It's why Australia hasn't had a major nation wide fed since 1978. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC) A few things here, CoF: (1) BLP is about contentious (i.e. potentially controversial) material. Whether a little-known wrestler was trained here or there is hardly controversial. Invoking BLP to justify edit warring about a trivial detail is an abuse of the policy. (2) You have cited your personal knowledge (WP:OR) to justify your preferred version, essentially asserting WP:OWNership of the article (compounded with your ALL CAPS hidden note ordering other editors not to change your preferred version). (3) The promotion is a reliable source, as the writers are clearly experts in professional wrestling (that is, they are employed as writers in this specific field). (4) Replacing a reference with an unreferenced statement isn't supported by BLP, even if the policy is relevant. (5) Continuing the edit war after being reported to WP:AN3 is bad form, at best. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (1) It is controversial and I would hardly call the reigning NXT tag team champion "little-known". (2) I am not relying on OR. That at best is simply my back up to my core point. It is not my preferred version. My preferred version (and everyone else's) would be both with a reliable independent source to confirm the first. That's why I put the note not to remove the Performance Centre. He trains there. We all know it. (3) The promotion is NOT a reliable source and writers are NOT experts! Sheesh you are giving them WAY too much room to spout lies if they want and get away with it. That goes to show that as I said above to the IP, the onus is on you to prove it is reliable. Speculation like that is not proof. (4) As I have said before, contentious sources can be removed without question. That is in BLP and that is what I am doing. The reference is not allowed because it needs independent back up. (5) Darkwind has stated that everyone in his view is acting in good faith so your accusation there is out of line. He recommended that the debate be brought here and that is what I have done. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) My suggestion to bring the discussion here was intended to have someone outside of the dispute assist in providing a viewpoint about the reliability of the source being used. Since nobody but the participants in the dispute have contributed as of this point, I don't particularly see this discussion as likely to go anywhere useful. That being said, GaryColemanFan (t c), I do want to clear up a few misconceptions you appear to have about WP:BLP. First of all, contentious material means material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. That has happened in this case, therefore, the location where he trained is, by definiton, contentious or controversial, however you want to phrase it. See WP:BLPSOURCES. In regard to your point #3, the only source I saw being used to support that he was trained by PCW Academy was PCW's own website -- which is a crystal clear violation of WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." (emphasis mine) In the context of the BLP policy, it is not a reliable source. The last sentence of WP:BLPSOURCES also applies: "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." My personal opinion is, if you cannot find a reliable, third-party source to support where he was trained as a professional wrestler, then leave the field blank as required by BLP. —Darkwind (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) I disagree that these are misconceptions. While the source has been challenged, the spirit of the BLP policy is to protect living individuals. Whether people think a little-known (yes, I said it again) minor league professional wrestler trained here or there has no bearing on the individual in question. The material is not controversial, potentially libelous, or even important. With that said, one needs to ask whether the letter of the law (yes, even though it is trivial and unlikely to be challenged, someone has challenged it) or the spirit of the law should be the primary consideration. Further, your dismissal of the PCW website as a self-published source is concerning. This is not a source written by someone creating a website and claiming to be an author. This is a source written by someone who was hired to report on behalf of a company, and whose work goes through an editorial process before being published. Therefore, this writer reporting on a wrestler is clearly not a self published source. Therefore, in the context of the BLP policy, it is an acceptable source. To draw a parallel, the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners uses the Nobel Foundation as its source. The Nobel Foundation obviously wouldn't be considered a self-published source, even though it is writing about its own organization. Likewise, on a much less impressive level, a professional wrestling company writing about its own organization is not a self-published source. If I was to start writing about PCW, I would be a self-published source, as I am not an established expert in the field. Of much greater concern is the fact that CoF has engaged in an edit war, and even continued to the edit war after being informed that he had been reported to 3RR, based on his insistence that his personal knowledge/original research trumps a published source and that he has the right to dictate what is allowed in the article in a clear violation of Wikipedia's ownership policy. Thank you for your reply. However, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of BLP and your misinterpretation of SPS. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC) @GaryColemanFan: BLP exists in part to protect the self-interest of the subjects of biographies, including how they may feel about particular information in their article. We have no idea how important Adams/Murphy considers the information about where he trained, and thus it is not our place to decide whether or not it should be supported with a high-quality source. If at least one Wikipedia editor considers it contentious, it is at least plausible to assume that the subject of the article might also find it contentious. WP:V and WP:BLP are very clear; all contentious information anywhere on Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source, but especially on articles relating to living people. Regarding the PCW website, I'm not sure where you are getting information that it is written by a professional writer with editorial control. PCW is not a news organization or publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and/or editorial control. From all that I can see, it's probably written by a webmaster who publishes what he is told to publish. This is a website run by an organization which uses said website to publish information about itself, which makes it, by definition, a primary source. Furthermore, the page people are trying to use as a source is an advertisement/recruitment page trying to convince people to sign up to wrestle by impressing them with the names of supposedly important people who have trained there. That is not a reliable source for information under any circumstances, even if we don't apply BLP here. It is not a news article, it isn't even a blog, and it completely fails WP:RS. —Darkwind (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC) While Blogspot is clearly not a reliable source, this interview suggests that Murphy did initially train at PCW, and was then trained by Carlo Cannon. Claims of Murphy being trained by Cannon are backed up by this site which was originally posted by CoF. I would recommend that we simply list Murphy as being trained by Carlo Cannon, since there seems to be clear evidence for that, and cite the MCW page as a reference. The current listing of "WWE Performance Center" is clearly unsuitable as Murphy/Adams was wrestling for over 5 years before the Performance Center was opened, and the fact that we have sourced content which is being removed simply because someone is claiming that "the source is wrong" is frankly absurd. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC) It's not absurd at all. What is absurd is that you're accepting promotional material designed to attract wrestlers as kosher. That is the core reason why the application of BLP as I said at the start and was confirmed by Darkwind means that you have to get away from both the PCW and the MCW websites. They are suspect as is every other website of little promotions seeking attention and the money of youngsters wanting to be a professional wrestler. Hence the need for a reliable third party independent source - such as the one I just requested to be added to the article to back the WWE Performance Centre (even though I didn't need to because there is no controversy over it unlike this PCW stuff). That at least is reliably sourced. The blank in the previous years is caused by the simple fact that no one can come up with a source that fulfills the requirements of BLP. And I know this - a reliable source will get it right and it will say that he did not start training with PCW. PCW was merely the promotion he did his first show with. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The interview I posted literally says that he started training with PCW, unless you think that that's also some sort of fabrication or "promotional material". Yes, it's not verifiable, but neither is your unsupported accusation that the PCW website is 'wrong'. I don't consider the use of PCW/MCW to be controversial and you seem to be the only one who has an issue with it being used, based solely on WP:OR. I'm not sure what kind of sources you are expecting for this sort of information other than the schools themselves, the only way I can imagine anyone could realistically have an issue with their use would be due to WP:COI. This seems to be a clear case for WP:IAR regarding the primary sourcing policy relating to BLP, since this is clearly not what the rule was intended for. Either way, do you have any objection to the fact that Murphy was at some point trained by Carlo Cannon, and we can add that to represent his training in Australia rather than the blanket listing of 'WWE Performance Center' which, again, is wholly inaccurate and misleading given that he was wrestling for years before the Performance Center opened? 94.174.101.121 (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) You said it yourself. It's a blog, and therefore it can not be used as a source no matter what. I expect a source independent of both the promotion and the wrestler. That is plain as day on BLP and you can't skirt around it. Yes I do have a issue with Carlo being used because they started training in this business at the same time IIRC. Carlo only got good after he went to train with Lance Storm, which IIRC wasn't until 2008 - after Murphy made his in ring debut. As you would have seen, I have found an independent source confirming Murphy training at the Performance Centre - independent even of WWE. So the onus is on you to do the same thing with the PCW claim. Darkwind in an admin and his interpretation of the BLP rules are correct in support of what I have said all along. There is no case here for WP:IAR. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC) One thing I do want to point out is that the fact that I'm an admin really isn't supposed to lend my voice any additional weight (beyond the fact that it implies I have extensive experience interpreting and applying Wikipedia policy). What should lend more weight is the fact that I have been a Wikipedian for over 12 years, and I can guarantee you that neither the PCW nor the MCW websites are reliable sources. Exactly as Curse of Fenric (t c) said above, these websites are "promotional material designed to attract wrestlers ... They are suspect[,] as is every other website ... seeking attention and the money of youngsters wanting to be a professional wrestler." You said yourself, 94.174.101.121, that you agree that the information contained on PCW/MCW websites is not verifiable, which means it fails WP:V, not to mention BLP and RS. Editors do not need proof that a source is wrong to call it unreliable. —Darkwind (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The statement was about [2], an interview with the wrestler in question, who stated in the interview that he trained at PCW Academy. The IP response was stating that, although the statement came directly from the wrestler himself, it would probably not stand up because the publisher would not be considered a reliable source. The statement was not about the PCW/MCW websites. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) As GaryColemanFan says, that comment was a reference to the Blogspot interview I posted, which clearly would fail WP:V as a standalone source, but I posted it simply as evidence against Curse of Fenric's contention that the PCW and MCW websites were "wrong", which was based entirely on WP:OR. Again, I feel that the dismissal of the PCW and MCW websites is asinine; the fact is that Murphy/Adams trained to be a wrestler in Melbourne, began his career in those promotions and is listed on the schools of those promotions and no others. Additionally, while not a verifiable source in Wikipedia terms, the Blogspot interview that I posted would suggest that claims made on the MCW/PCW websites are accurate, and in this interview he explicitly states that he was trained by Carlo Cannon (4:42). The fact that there isn't a third-party website that provides this information is redundant, since the nature of the information is so specific that it's unlikely to ever be covered by a traditional third-party source. As stated, I feel that WP:IGNORE is wholly appropriate here, especially given the relatively innocuous nature of the claim being made. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Carlo Cannon never trained anyone at PCW for a start. He was an independent trainer with no affiliation, and like I said also elsewhere Carlo didn't train anyone until he was done with Lance Storm, which wasn't until 2008. That all aside, this is about a source that does NOT fail WP:V as Darkwind said. Both the PCW and the MCW websites do fail, because they are primary and promotional. That's an automatic fail on WP:BLP, whether my OR is accurate or not. Bottom line - you MUST have an independent verifiable source (as I do for the Performance Centre claim even though I didn't really need it). Until then, no PCW Academy on the page. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Did you miss what I just posted? In this interview Murphy explicitly and concisely states at 4:42 that he was trained by Carlo Cannon, verifying the legitimacy of the information on the MCW website. To not include this information because of a misappropriation of the BLP primary sources rule is pure WP:BURO and I'd question why you are so vehemently against it. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A podcast is a reliable source under WP:V? Talking of WP:BURO........ Curse of Fenric (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A podcast in which he states in no uncertain terms that he was trained by Carlo Cannon is enough to support the validity of the claim on the MCW website. To ignore this information based on an overly-strict and illogical interpretation of the rules is absurd. Based on your user history I'd suggest you have a clear WP:COI here. I'm not sure why this debate is even continuing TBH. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A podcast from Wrestle Radio Australia, which is run by professional wrestling commentator Josh Armour and professional wrestling manager Todd Eastman (i.e. both insiders and experts in the relevant field). Looks like a reliable source to me. That definitely trumps "IIRC," which is textbook WP:OR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think the ownership of the podcast is particularly important, IMO the fact that Murphy himself confirms the validity of the information contained on the MCW website should be enough to justify its use as a reliable source in this case for this specific information based on WP:IAR. But yes, the podcast itself could (and probably should) be considered a valid source in its own right, although I'm not sure of the standard procedure regarding non-text sources. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC) The SOP of non text sources IIRC is text back up is required, so we're back to the same problem again, 97. And Gary, you're being uncivil again by the way. Explain how Josh Armour and Todd Eastman are experts in the field in Australia - a small area thereof. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) We have text back up in the form of the MCW website. The information contained on it has been validated, and I think invoking the BLP primary sourcing rule to prevent this information from being displayed when we have clear evidence that the information is reliable would be a case of WP:GAME. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC) No text back up is required. If it's a podcast run by industry professionals, it's a reliable source. Stop trying to make up new rules. And no, it's not uncivil to say that "IIRC" doesn't trump WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Can we end this discussion then and have Carlo Cannon listed as Murphy's trainer? 94.174.101.121 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) No, because there isn't a reliable source available to confirm it. The podcast doesn't validate the MCW website because the podcast is not reliable. The podcast is not run by industry professionals and I intend to prove it as well. Gary, aggression is uncivil Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Okay, I can now prove it. Josh Armour and Todd Eastman are nothing more than two fans who happen to work for Riot City Wrestling in Adelaide, Josh as a ring announcer and Todd as a manager. This fact disqualifies WrestleRadio as a news source because it is not run by a news group independent of the business - and is therefore self published and as per MCW and PCW unreliable under BLP. Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) You cannot use WP:ORiginal research to say, "The source may say one thing, but I know better." Sources do not have to be independent of the business. Wrestling Observer, Figure Four Weekly, Pro Wrestling Torch, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, WrestleView, and many more are used to source wrestling articles. That's just logical. The source is two people knowledgeable about the business, interviewing the person in question directly, who directly states that he trained with Carlo Cannon. You cannot just say, "I'm more knowledgeable than people in the business and Buddy Murphy about where Buddy Murphy trained." Buddy Murphy says that he did not wrestle untrained for 7 years. He says he had a trainer. The trainer has been added, alongside your information. Problem solved. Let's all move on with our lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC) WrestleRadio is not anywhere near any of those in terms of reliability and verifiability. Those two people are not independent of the business - they are involved as I have stated, and it's not OR. Here is Eastman and Here is Armour. You must find a truly independent source that is reliable to back up your edit. Until you do, it is not possible under WP rules to add his trainer prior to the Performance Centre. That's just the way it is, and you continue to ignore the rules of BLP - heck you even questioned an admin who was involved in this. Your edit has been reverted in good faith and the onus is on you to get a proper verifiable independent source - like I did even though I didn't need to. I am entitled to challenge the primary and not verifiable sources no matter what the reason, again as per Darkwind. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Experts or not, 'insiders' or not, the source literally features Murphy stating in no uncertain terms from his own mouth that he was trained by Carlo Cannon. Once again, to not include that information based on some spurious claims of unreliable sourcing is utterly asinine, and it is becoming increasingly clear that this is deliberate WP:GAMING on your part. At this point this is bordering on disruptive editing. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Ignoring Darkwind on the subject of what is needed for BLP compliance is what is "asinine". Your gaming assumption is false. I am applying WP rules as confirmed by Darkwind. The podcast's reliability is being checked and you need to wait for a ruling on it. If it is cleared, then I'll allow the edit as it will be proven verifiable and therefore would fall within BLP. As long as this is not confirmed, I'll keep it off per BLP. Pure and simple. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I think a solid secondary source would settle the issue. Podcast isn't a strong source and probably isn't reliable. If it is important to include, just get a source that isn't disputed. This didn't need to be a knock-down-drag-out gauntlet match. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC) In what way is it "not reliable" if it literally features the article-subject stating the given information? The only way that could possibly not be reliable would be if you're suggesting that the voice of Murphy that appears on the podcast is an imposter, which frankly is ridiculous. Do you understand what the purpose of the reliability requirement is? It's there in order to prevent inaccurate or disputable information from being reported as fact. When the information is coming directly from the subject himself then there's not even any question of it. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC) It is probably reliable for a line attributed to him that states he made that claim. Trouble is article features contradictory sources and it looks like the fight is over one word in an infobox. So here are the options, as I see them: 1) Get some sources that won't be challenged that he trained at X and not at Y, 2) Get rid of that line altogether from the infobox and explain it in body. 3) or put both in properly attributed to their sources. Just looking at what's been presented it appears the guy just trained/received training from two places. That is a common enough occurrence in the wrestling world, so a compromise shouldn't be out of reach. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC) You wouldn't think so, would you? One side has proposed including both. CoF deleted the information, stating that he would not allow it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah, option #3 was implemented but Curse of Fenric kept reverting the change, which is why I've suggested that this is now bordering on disruptive editing on his part. Personally I feel that the WWE Performance Center aspect is a pretty pointless addition, since everyone in NXT trains there, but I'm more than happy to allow it to be included as long as the relevant, sourced information is also displayed. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Option 3 can't be implemented because of what 70 said in the first place. You need a solid secondary source, and the podcast (at this point) is not it. I'm still waiting over on the RS Noticeboard for an admin to make a black or white call on podcasts being reliable or not in this instance. If the call is that it is, that makes it a solid secondary source and my objection to it will disappear. But if it's not, we need an independent, reliable and verifiable secondary source. The PCW source has definitely been knocked on the head on the RS noticeboard, which means that the MCW source is also no good. As far as the Performance Centre goes, I resolved that by providing the sort of source that the other claim needs - independent, reliable and verifiable. So there is no reason why it should be deleted. Incidentally, 94, do Samoa Joe and Rhyno train at the Performance Centre? Guess what - no they don't, because they are not on developmental contracts. Big difference. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bill_Cosby#RfC:_Should_the_allegations_of_sexual_assault_be_mentioned_in_the_lede.3F

I think more experienced eyes are needed at Talk:Bill_Cosby#RfC:_Should_the_allegations_of_sexual_assault_be_mentioned_in_the_lede.3F as there is an effort to loose put a "Rapist" necktie around Bill Cosby who has only been accused of such things. There are no cases, no trial, no evidence, etc. Just innuendo.

I also think the section of the article bring up all these accusations need to be trimmed back but I'm not sure what makes sense here? More opinions and ideas might be helpful. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to what's going on at the Dennis Hastert article. I personally wouldn't want to bet money that either of them is innocent, but there have been no legal charges in either case, and there has been a denial in both cases; no one is trying to limit info in the article bodies, but the lead should show some restraint.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

More help please, this is a bit ridiculous. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a current ANI discussion regarding this issue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

List of teenage princes and princesses

List of teenage princes and princesses. I'm not sure if this really violates BLP policy, but it struck me as, at least, being in bad taste to have a list of 13 to 19 year-olds like this. It's up for deletion. Borock (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It has already been deleted, but not on BLP grounds. Borock (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Valson Thampu

Valson Thampu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) To whomsoever it may concern,

On reading the biographical article on this person, any simpleton can note that the criticism section on the article is an attack one. It avoids entirely being neutral'.The edit neither stands the verifiability test and borders on No Original Research being done. If it is then it fails to mention the needed references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:e60:7000:100:7::1 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the content for now - source was very dodgy. It's been added and removed before so it wouldn't hurt to have a few more people watching the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently romoured

It appears that the British 2015 Dissolution Honours has not happened but the article gives a list of those "currently rumoured" to be in line for an honour. Attempts to remove the list of rumoured names as speculation and probably gainst WP:BLP has been reverted twice, once as being vandalism and the other because cited rumours are legitimate and not speculation. Looking for opinion on if these "currently rumoured" lists are not some sort of BLP issue, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Jorge Horacio Brito

Hello! I was looking at the biography of Jorge Horacio Brito and in my opinion it looks biased or not neutral and damages the reputation of that living person. I think it would be good if other users can take a look at it, because it seems that it has corruption allegations that have not been brought to a trial yet. At least, this is what I understand from the article, which is mainly sourced with articles from the media. It is known that media provides information about cases of corruption, but they not always finally probed. In fact, I realized that there was a conflict with this article, with a couple of users trying to make the biography more neutral by deleting the references of corruption Special:Diff/664463936/667671889. Is it right to have an article that has such harmful information here? I mean, maybe those charges are true, but should Wikipedia be more cautious in allowing this kind of information? I hope someone can give further details about this because apart from this article, I saw many articles about people, most of them relevant, that not only gives biographical information but also describes charges that still are on trial. Many thanks!--Tuquoquefili (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have stated before I would be willing to work more on the page and reach a compromise. In fact I will take another look soon. But any admins stopping by should take note of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive .

This may be another attempt by this user to make disruptive edits by abusing accounts. I will note that I had attempted compromises several times before on Brito's page with Sherlock only to have him immediately and flippantly undo any compromise and accuse me and other editors of all sorts of conspiracies. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me DaltonCastle, I believe that another users should give their opinion too, because you've been part of the discussion and the one who have made the editions that in my opinion looka biased and could damage the reputation of the guy. Don't you think that Wikipedia should avoid this kind of information until is fully verified. I mean, verified on a trial. Thanks for your reply and your explanations!--Tuquoquefili (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Im not telling anyone they cant give an opinion. Im just saying its a little suspicious that a user was blocked for disruptive edits and abuse of multiple accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive) on Brito's page. And now a new user has arisen, making the same arguments as this now-blocked editor. And I cannot stress enough how I had attempted a compromise that was only reverted again and again. This is all covered in reliable sources, and is notable. I write about political corruption a lot of the time. I will review the page and try to reach a compromise, but I hope we dont resort to disruptive reverts and allegations as seen before. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that the users have been blocked and I read many articles about Argentinean corruption and I have to say that they have loads of information and have plenty of sources but still, is Wikipedia the place to describe this? What will happen if all the people involved there are not condemned? This kind of articles are damaging their reputation. Maybe those people are likely to be guilty, but I believe we have to be cautious here and keep the articles more neutral. I found the biography of Brito but then I saw a couple of articles that have the same problem that Brito's biography.--Tuquoquefili (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When its covered in reliable sources and highly notable, then it can be in the page. When reliable news sources report on this kind of thing its not unfounded. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

But the article mentions Wikileaks. Is that a reliable source? In the other hand, I believe that the fact that a content is sourced it doesn't mean that it should be used in Wikipedia, specially if it damages the reputation of a person. The media sometimes have their own interests and involve people in cases of corruption that don't reach a trial. I'm not saying that those people are not guilty, but I think that Wikipedia should be more cautious with this kind of information. Again, I hope more users give their opinion about this. --Tuquoquefili (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikileaks itself as a source, within reference tags <ref>(Citation)</ref> would not be accurate. In the article, direct links Wikileaks are not within the reference tags. Stating that sourced content should not be included in the article is saying we should sugarcoat the subject of the article, leading to something along the lines of systemic bias. Just because Brito has not been proven to have committed this actions does not take away from the fact that he has been accused of them. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Tim Loughton

Please see the editing history of this article, this is subject to potential edit warring, one editor is now asserting they must be contacted before certain edits can be made, seen here. This violates ownership rules. Another regular IP editor is again calling cited information 'fucking lies" making threats this time of a legal nature to "sue" as can be seen here. Please can his be investigated and dealt with. Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you read the whole edit summary it from Black Kite it talks about BLP violation. You don't restore what is claimed to be a BLP violation without discussing it first. I have removed the material again. Please either discuss here or on the article talk page. -- GB fan 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read the material in question and do not believe that it belongs in the article. Loughton was neither charged nor convicted of anything, and the end, this is nothing more that a politcian's angry response to harassment by a constituent. In other words, a triviality, and including it (though well sourced) would give the matter undue weight in this biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be seen here is that an elected member of parliament was interviewed under caution, issued a harassment notice, the police were summoned to parliament, the police were found to have broken the law, the police were forced to apologies to Loughton for a breach of the parliamentary papers act and denied any wrongdoing throughout. The I.P. editor is the constituent involved with Loughton in the dispute and is in my opinion attempting to censor the information from Wikipedia. While Loughton was not charged, the police were found to have broken the law in relation to their actions against Loughton. The section is about Loughton and the police more than Loughton and the rude constituent. Also for any editor to say "i have a veto over other peoples edits" is not on as that is a violation of WP:OWN and goes contrary to WP:Consensus. 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The BLP claim is a very flimsy claim and incredibly trivial, Black Kite has made no attempt to explain the supposed and claimed BLP violation, they were in my opinion simply hiding behind it to remove the information and not be challenged. Last time I looked Undue weight needed to be explained and was not n the same category s something like Defamatory comments, which can be removed immediately..Sport and politics (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nina Hagen

There have been a number of minor not-notable or unsourced edits on Hagen's page today (6 July). If poss. could someone take a look as it seems to me that some or all could or should be removed. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted as unsourced - relationship stuff in particular must have references.--ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sloane Stevens - Personal area paragraph 2, last sentence vulgar entry

Personal area paragraph 2, last sentence has vulgar entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.91.80 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, somebody has removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between presuming a murder and presuming a murderer?

A bit of a hubbub today on 2012 Aurora shooting ("Murder?" talk section) and Charleston church shooting ("Categories" talk). Some people want to categorize it as murder, reasoning that calling it such before the trials are over doesn't equal saying the defendants are murderers, so doesn't violate WP:BLPCRIME.

I think it does, because both defendants have admitted the killing. In the Aurora case, he's going with the insanity defense, and the Charleston one is uncertain. If either convinces a court with their excuse, it's not murder. Just homicide. Can't have a murder without a murderer.

What do you think? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A person should not be described as a murderer in a BLP article, or categories for murder added, unless they have been convicted of murder in a court of law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Presumably BLP does not apply in cases of Murder–suicide? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT (a subsection of WP:BLP) covers this:

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

— WP:BLPCAT

It really couldn't be any clearer. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is far from clear to me. How does that deal with cases where the suspect is dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Both of the articles originally linked to deal with cases where the suspect(s) are alive unless I've missed something. FYI: WP:BLP applies to dead individuals as well, but I'm not interested in arguing a straw man. If you're interested, this topic is covered somewhat at WP:BDP (again, a sub-section of WP:BLP). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to present a "straw man", I was seeking clarification on the comment by User:ianmacm. That rule seemed too strict. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is a different case than the articles currently being discussed, but in any event in which the suspect is recently deceased, WP:BDP still applies. On the other hand, if the suspect is dead there will be no trial, so some other event besides a conviction would need to be used to trigger dropping the use of "alleged". Maybe the police investigation being closed? VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There are many similar articles filed under the same categories. Ken Harris (politician), Dolla (rapper), Richmond Hill explosion, Murders of Lucia and Leo Krim, 2012 Ingleside, San Francisco homicide, and many, MANY more to count. Yet every time I did something to reflect this decision, it's been undone. DisuseKid (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The trial of James Holmes for the Aurora shooting is ongoing and no verdict has been reached or sentence has been passed. It gives the impression that Holmes is a convicted murderer when he is not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The same goes with all of those other trials for the articles I just mentioned and all the others not mentioned, though. DisuseKid (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Two wrongs make a right now? Just because you find other articles erroneously categorized doesn't mean this one should be too. Policy is clear here regarding WP:BLP articles: we must tread extremely carefully. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that phrase is why we're talking about Charleston and Aurora today. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And now I've fixed four of the five "others" linked above. That Krim one looks like a lot of work. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a school of thought which says that nobody looks at the categories anyway (I rarely do). However, in this case, all we need do is to wait until Holmes is convicted for murder over the 2012 Aurora shooting, then add the categories. This would comply with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCAT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

These are articles about events, not people. They would be categorized as murder even if there was no suspect. VQuakr (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And these events have living people listed as suspects. Categorizing them as murders implies that the listed suspects are murderers. The word you should probably be using until a court decision has been made (and any appeals exhausted) is homicide (and Category:Murder is a child of Category:Homicide). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; an event can be a murder (An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human) without casting any negative implication on the accused. Maybe there is justification for mass renaming of the subcategories from murder to homicide, though, for clarity of the common vs legal definitions of murder? This thread is being used as justification for mass removal of categories from scores of articles. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. We need to distinguish between "murder" (description of a death) and "murderer" (description of a person). This is a BLP issue only when we are talking about an accused person - say in a biographical article about the suspect ("murderer" allowed only after conviction), or in an article about an incident or victim when talking about a suspect (we should use "alleged" or "accused"). But in an article about an incident, such as a shooting, or about a victim, categorizing it as murder (or homicide if you prefer) is not a BLP issue; it's factually reporting what the government (coroner or medical examiner) has concluded about the incident. Identification of a death as "murder" is valid even if no suspect has been identified, or is ever identified. It would be ridiculous to say that no matter what the coroner concluded, a death cannot be categorized as murder until someone is convicted of it! And yet that does seem to be the argument being made here.
Meanwhile I notice that User:DisuseKid has been going around removing the category "murder" from dozens of articles about incidents or victims - and deleting it a second time (with the edit summary "mass removal") when it is restored. DisuseKid, I believe this is inappropriate, since you do not have consensus to do this. You mentioned a "decision" above, but no decision has been reached, except for biographical articles about the suspect; there is general agreement that we can't categorize a biographical article about a suspect under "Caregory:murderers" until they are convicted. But there is no consensus that an article about a crime or a victim can't be categorized as "Category:murders" or "Category:People murdered". I think you should stop this mass deletion, not keep re-deleting (you don't want to get into an edit war), and wait to see if consensus to remove them is developed here.--MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you have written. My concern is that an article, about either a death event or an alleged perpetrator, should refrain from using the term "murder" while the matter is still before the courts. Such labeling is potentially prejudicial and a breach of BLP. It is not always necessary to obtain a conviction in order to use the term "murder". There is no doubt that John F. Kennedy was murdered (assassinated) although no-one was ever convicted of that crime. There was, instead, a judicial finding of murder. Accused persons such as Dylann Roof, James Eagan Holmes and Yoselyn Ortega are entitled to a presumption of innocence without the world's largest encyclopedia prematurely labeling their action as murder. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I put up examples of such articles and the categories were removed from them. That was enough consensus for me. Talk to InedibleHulk about that part. DisuseKid (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that Inedible Hulk has also been aggressively removing "murder" categories from articles about victims or incidents. Hulk, removing these categories is your opinion but does not yet have consensus here - and this is the BLP board so this is the place to get consensus. BTW if none of these things should be categorized under "murders", how do you think we should categorize homicides where no-one has yet been convicted? The "Category:Homicide" is about the legal term, not about specific incidents. Should we start some kind of new category, and what should it be called? Or do we just leave articles about violent death uncategorized, as you have them now? --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Dolla, we could categorize it as self-defense. That one's been through the courts, and buddy was acquitted. For those yet to be tried, "homicide" categories could work. I jumped the gun a bit on removing those cats, but consensus was at least temporarily leaning that way. I've no problem waiting, but the guy who didn't murder Dolla might want that insinuation gone sooner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-removed them from Dolla, but left the rest for now. He's a different case. The only suspect and admitted shooter was acquitted. Per double jeopardy, he won't be tried. The official ruling of "no murder" isn't just possible here, it's been made. This one has nothing to do with presuming innocence. It's just plain wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, a little heads up, unwarranted efforts were made to rename and tweak the Murders of Lucia and Leo Krim article by WWGB in addition to removing the categories, despite a consensus not being reached yet. A rectification is in order until the official decision is made, but I am unable to do so. DisuseKid (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WWGB moved it to "Stabbing of..." which was not a good title. It is now at "Killing of..." which is is probably an acceptable title, and the redirect from "Murder of..." remains. So I personally don't think this is in need of urgent reversion, but anyone else who does think it should be reverted, please go ahead. However, a comment to User:WWGB: as with the others I have spoken to, please do not go around imposing this kind of change when consensus has not been reached. And please refrain from using inflammatory edit summaries such as "disgraceful breach of BLP to describe this incident as murder when no trial has been conducted". This issue is still under discussion, and there are many people here who do not feel that this kind of long-standing categorization represents a "disgraceful breach of BLP". --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. DisuseKid (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This is a discussion page and nothing here has been "decided" yet. At the very least, a correct course of action is needed if the decision is to remove the category from these pages. For example, it's far easier to curate a list of pages in Category:Murders and re-categorize them into another appropriate category (Category:Homicide for example) than it is to not have that list to begin with because you removed the categories completely. When there's a consensus here then action can be taken. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Locke, I see that you have restored most of the categories. Thank you for that; I think that is appropriate pending the outcome of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Article title describes it as mass shooting, referring to it as murder is unnecessary. Label may change pending outcome of trial. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The label doesn't need to be changed. It is what it is, a mass shooting... DisuseKid (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument here isn't what to call the article ("shooting" is fine). It's what categories the article should be placed in. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a homicide. It isn't a "murder" until a jury finds it so. Not all homicides are crimes and until there is a verdict, it's not a murder. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we will have to completely overhaul our categories in this area. We currently have no place other than "murder" to categorize incidents and deaths that are called murder by the authorities, but have not resulted in a murder conviction. I trust you all do realize that you are talking about re-categorizing thousands of articles, most of which have been stable for years. This is not something that can be done by half a dozen people at a noticeboard. It would require at the least a well-publicized RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, hence people's problems with it. DisuseKid (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To see the scope of the problem, as well as its logical and logistical difficulties: take for example the category "unsolved murders", one of the smaller "murder" categories. This category has 50 subcategories holding about 700 pages. None of these cases have resulted in a conviction, so by the argument presented here they should all be retitled something else. But why? They are not violating BLP since there is no suspect. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! There are just as much problems with this proposed massive rehaul as there are so-called benefits. It's completely unprecedented! DisuseKid (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about those with no suspects, or dead suspects. Nobody's reputation is at stake. It may still be inaccurate, but not harmful. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: but the problem with that is that an article about an event, with a category describing the event, becomes inappropriate if and when a suspect is named. To me, we should either select a category name that describes the event and does not need to be updated to avoid a BLP issue as the case develops, or recognize that these categories do indeed describe the event and that there is no BLP violation. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If a suspect comes up, we could delete it then. Or before. It's just not as important when there's nobody to blame. Same goes for anonymous killers/composites with nicknames. No harm in categorizing The Zodiac Killer as a murderer. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. Shouldn't it be accurate, first and foremost? DisuseKid (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. verifiability trumps truth. But if what's verifiable and what's true match up (and they often do), it's a win-win. Before a killing becomes a murder, it needs to go through the courts, to make sure it wasn't justifiable or excusable. Then a reliable source picks up the verdict, and we reflect it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I wish to wait till a consensus is made before we take care of the editing process. DisuseKid (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We already have a category Category:Deaths by person which includes articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Articles that are categorized as unsolved murders that reflect negatively on a living person should be recategorized as "Deaths by person". Cases that are very old or have no suspects or don't reflect on a living person, it doesn't matter. The proper response to BLP problems with a category isn't "it's too big a problem." That leaves the door open for simply removing the articles from that BLP violating category. --DHeyward (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We're still talking about way too many articles, though. If not removing, then changing categories will still pose a problem. I would also like to bring into the discussion incidents where suspects have died in the commission of a crime without being confirmed as the actual perpetrators. The kidnapping of Hannah Anderson article comes to mind; DiMaggio is still considered a suspect in the murders and abduction despite his death at the hands of police. Yet, the article is still filed under the aforementioned categories. No doubt there are others like it as well. What of those? DisuseKid (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are we talking-up changes to "thousands of articles"? This issue was raised about articles concerning homicides and individuals who are currently before the courts. Some editors want to categorise an article as "murder" when it happened yesterday. We just need less haste and some common sense when it comes to BLP. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a bit of an exaggeration (I do not know the actual number), but I am confident there are many such articles to consider, as well as the articles I mentioned above. We still have ongoing trials that go as far back as 2012 (and I'm not talking about Aurora) as far as I know. DisuseKid (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia recently switched over to lowercase common animal names (grey fox, not Grey Fox). That change affected thousands, or tens of thousands. But it got done. Plenty of editors, plenty of time. Script bots often help. This is nothing compared to that, as far as a workload. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If we were to agree that "murder" is poor word choice for the category because of its two common, distinct definitions, it would not be particularly difficult to rename the categories. That is done routinely and there are semi-automated tools to get through thousands of articles in a sitting. So, RfC? CfD? how do we want to go about getting enough input that what ever consensus we reach will stick through the renaming of or removal of categories from a large number of pages? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would lean towards an RFC (with notices posted in the appropriate discussion pages (VP, BLP, centralized discussions template, etc) to solicit opinions). I don't think CFD is geared towards these kinds of broad changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In kidnapping of Hannah Anderson, the suspect is dead. I am not too concerned about labeling the dead. It's living subjects that face trial. It would have been a mistake and BLP violation to list Trayvon Martin as a murder victim or in a murder category. We face the same problem with other articles. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, it is problematic to have murder categories in a BLP article when a trial is ongoing or has yet to take place. In some jurisdictions, the defendant may be acquitted of murder but be convicted of manslaughter. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCAT both recognize this problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: it is strange to refer to these articles about events as "BLP articles". They are only BLP articles in the sense that WP:BLP still applies, and in that sense all articles are BLP articles. If the accused were found guilty of manslaughter, the event would still be a murder. See my post above. VQuakr (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Manslaughter generally isn't deliberate killing. Even the voluntary kind is usually just deliberate hurting gone too far. If a court finds a killer guilty of manslaughter, the event becomes a manslaughter (legally) and a homicide (generally).

Not all articles are BLPs. No people in blood urea nitrogen. But yes, many are. And it is problematic to have murder categories in any of them, when a trial hasn't finished. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Linda Hunt

The Linda Hunt linked to CNN anchors and reporters page is the ACTRESS and NOT the CNN reporter. I am that former CNN reporter Linda Hunt. There is no biography on me on your site. Please remove the link to the ACTRESS Linda Hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.226.189 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Done — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sacre page is vandalized

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

Robert Sacre page has wrong structures, exagerated PPG stats and mentions him having a big penis. It loos heavily vandalized and it is sad because he is a beloved person.

Looks to have been fixed. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I protected it. If all the vandalism is fixed (I don't have time to check, subject is not my field of expertise), feel free to mark this done. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins

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

Lots of background to this, see below, but the current situation is me trying to add this [3] to the article and User:Green Cardamom objecting with a vague wave at BLP. Here is the text and reference:

Bellingcat's use of Error Level Analysis in its report was criticized by Jens Kriese, a professional image analyst.

References

I started a separate talk page discussion for this edit Talk:Eliot Higgins#Discussion of Kriese criticism addition. Previously, I started a RfC on June 23 Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is Spiegel interview sufficient to include criticism of Bellingcat report? Green Cardamom has not answered my arguments why BLP does not apply (or other WP:VAGUEWAVEs he has tried Talk:Eliot Higgins#BLP, WEIGHT, PRIMARY, and EXCEPTIONAL, also posted on June 23. He has refused to make an constructive effort at a compromise text or any other attempts at working towards consensus. It is just no. Please help. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

First off it's not just "Green Cardamom", it's about 7 people who disagree with this material including User:Volunteer Marek and User:VQuakr who are all experienced editors. You started an RfC but then continually edit war for days against multiple editors. You stated that the "RfC isn't end-all be-all of editing" so you have every intention of ignoring the RfC and moving ahead other ways. Now you are WP:FORUMSHOPing because you can't wait for the RfC to cclose and/or don't like its current results. -- GreenC 19:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I also have trouble understanding why this is the best forum for a content dispute, especially considering the ongoing RfC on the article talk page. As noted at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." The material under discussion pretty clearly doesn't meet that standard. Agreement from the BLPN of the same is not the same thing as consensus to include the material, which is being discussed for a number of reasons that are unrelated to BLP. VQuakr (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, you can request closure of the RfC if you like. VQuakr, I am at a loss as to where to go. "Generally" means "generally". If you have another suggestion, please tell me. The RfC didn't get much outside traction, although User:Hrothulf made some very good points. Speaking of which, perhaps you could join our discussion of whether the proposed text violates BLP. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sherman Silber

Dr. Silber travelled to China to perform ovarian transplantation surgery in 2012 but not 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyun Liao (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Vyapam scam

Vyapam scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've not looked into this one in significant detail, but an initial glance makes me wonder about the application of WP:BLPCRIME to all the named people for whom convictions have not yet been secured. The case is of course big news. --ℕ ℱ 00:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Elman biography

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

I am the subject of this page (Jeffrey Elman biography). For several years, there was a back-and-forth debate about material that was included in this page that I felt was poorly sourced, contentious, and in many cases factually wrong.

The issue was, I thought, resolved and the disputatious material was removed in the Fall of 2014. My understanding was that a number of Wikipedia editors agreed this was the right thing to do.

However, user Nomoskedasticity on 5 July 2015 reverted back to an earlier version. I would like to ask that this material be removed, once again, and that my page be frozen. The alternative would be for me to include additional information and correct assertions that are incorrect. This will have the unfortunate result of turning this page into a debate. And in that case, I would ask that the page be removed entirely.

Can you advise me on how best to proceed? The documentation regarding all of this can be found on the associated Talk page so I won't repeat it here. But I would be happy to amplify and provide more information if that would be helpful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk1892 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kk1892: If you haven't already, please read WP:COI - if you are, or have a close relationship with the subject of the article (which I think is what you've suggested above) then you really should not be editing the article directly, as you did quite recently. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the previous BLPN discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kk1892:, assuming that this is the edit you're suggesting is problematic, can you specify what exactly is inaccurate or inappropriate about it? The sources given ([4][5]) both appear to be reliable sources, and to back up what Nomoskedasticity added to the article. It would be helpful if you could clarify what the issues with these sources is. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to provide more details, although I will not refer to individuals by name. Much of what I will say is also found in the earlier history in my talk section.

The incident that is reported involved a professor (A) who came to me complaining about harassment from a colleague (B). Professor A felt he was being defamed by B, and this claim was substantiated by Professor A's department chair. I consulted the Executive Vice Chancellor at the time, who advised me that I should warn Professor B that he Professor A felt he was being defamatory and that Professor B was creating a hostile work environment. Professor B reacted by claiming he was being "muzzled." He took his complaint to a committee of the Academic Senate. That (three person) committee did not do an investigation but did in fact conclude that I had no right to do anything that might impede Professor B's freedom of speech. The committee took it to the larger Academic Senate and presented a resolution -- without naming names or giving specifics -- saying that the administration was interfering with faculty freedom of speech. In fact, the Academic Senate late did carry out a formal investigation several years later. Two claims were investigated: infringement of Academic Freedom and a claim of retaliation under Whistleblower laws. Grievances were against 5 individuals (the current Provost, prior Provost, Vice Chancellor for Research, Chair of Sociology Department, and myself. The Academic Senate concluded there was no evidence of retaliation and dismissed that grievance. The claim of infringement of Academic Freedom was subsequently withdrawn by Professor B and the matter has been concluded. I can produce the legal documents, but there was no press announcement to this effect and so there is no public sourcing available. Note that the news article in the SD Union Tribute was hastily written, incorrectly named me as the guilty party (when in fact the Senate's initial action did not name me or any specific individual, and did not involve any attempt to verify the facts by contacting anyone in the administration.

Subsequently, the San Diego Reader (frankly, not a reliable source) requested email from the campus relating to the hiring of Nathan Fletcher (a former Assemblyman who had been hired by the Political Science Department as a Professor of Practice) and discovered an email from me to my Assistant Dean in which I jokingly used the term "money laundering." Fletcher had been paid incorrectly on a fund that was not the right one, and when I discovered this I told my Assistant Dean that we would need to move the expense to a legitimate fund source. I joked that we were money laundering, though in fact, we were correcting an earlier error. (So much for email jokes.) The Reader reported this, out of context and leaving out the salient fact that the joke was made in order to fix a prior error. Later, when I decided to step down as Dean after 8 years (I had planned to serve for only 5 years but was persuaded to stay on for 3 more), they reported that a "Dean in money laundering scandal" was forced to resign. There was no scandal, apart from the one article the Reader published in their attempt to create one. A few days ago, I noticed that this was being used as the source for my stepping down as Dean, so I replaced it with an authoritative source, viz., the public announcement from the University.

All of these facts have been previously aired in the Talks page and that the consensus from prior editors is that the disputatious material should be removed. Failing that, I suppose I could ask that a summary of the above should be included in the entry. But this would significantly distort the balance of material in the biography. More importantly, the bottom line will be that all claims regarding infringement of academic freedom and whistleblowing retaliation have been rejected by subsequent investigations and then finally withdrawn by Professor B. The more appropriate outcome will be to restore the page to its state as of 5 July 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk1892 (talk • contribs)

Removing all mention of "money laundering" would be in conformance with Wikipedia policy WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing about any of that in the article right now. It seems like the "academic freedom" dispute is the primary issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that the "laundering" part of those accusations was a quote from emails that Elman himself wrote - he wasn't accused of actual money laundering, that's just a word that he used in discussions over how to pay for a (controversial) new professorship. That's why the article in question puts the "laundering" in quotes in the headline. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only is the "laundering" topic not currently in the article -- no one is proposing to put it in. No need to discuss that one, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. So I would like to return to the academic freedom issues. This issue was discussed at length earlier. I believe the wording is at best incomplete (leaving out that when two charges were filed, the only official investigation by the Academic Senate committee empowered to carry out investigation of faculty grievances dismissed one of them, and the complainant withdrew the other), and at worst contentious and defamatory. The sources are all derived from a short article in the San Diego Union-Tribune which did not involve any fact-checking nor attempt to verify information from anyone in the administration or the complainant's home department (which in fact had asked me for help in the first place). In principle, if the material were left in, then I would ask that the additional facts be included (i.e., that my initial letter was written at the request of the complainant's colleagues, the finding of no basis in one claim, and withdrawal of the other). But this seems of no real value and certainly distorts the biography in odd ways (e.g., should all the things I accomplished as Dean be included, to flesh out a fuller picture? Probably not.) After considerable discussion, the most recent resolution was on 16:04 28 September 2014 by Lithistman, who reverted the article to revision 627348309 by Malerooster. Nothing subsequent to that has happened, except for my possibly imprudent edit on 5 July 2015 when I replaced the source for my stepping down with the campus announcement. This is what appears to have triggered the reintroduction of the old material. I ask that Lithistman's edit -- reverting to revision 627348309 be restored. Kk1892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.63.115 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

John Lynch

Re information about John Lynch, Actor, from Northern Ireland. Just after seeing his film "Holy Water" on television and this is not mentioned in his credits on your Wikipedia site. His sister Susan Lynch was also in this film and has it notated in her body of work. Please rectify. (P.S. Good film!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.156.183 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, but not really a matter for this board. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Eelco Gelling dutch Blues guitarist

The Picture doesn't show Eelco Gelling. Definitly not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.150.129.27 (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Which photo are you talking about? I'm assuming that it's one of the two photos on his article, File:Eelco Gelling 1968.jpg or File:EelcoGelling27062009.jpg. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Petrino

Bobby Petrino has some data which is harrasing an indivisual what to do to remove it.--Nocompromise16 (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that its harassment, although I do think that this could and probably should be re-written to sum it up a little better. I do think that the sentence in the lead should be re-written since the term "inappropriate relationship" (which is put in quotation marks in the article) is a little WP:POINT-y and doesn't really encompass all of the reasons he was fired. Plus this article gives off the impression that they were in a relationship prior to her getting a job, which makes the sentence inaccurate. I've rephrased the sentence and put in the words "with cause" (with quotations, as that's how it was put in the news article) since that gives a better overview of what looks like it was a dismissal over several allegations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• In other words it's not really harassment, more just that people were adding things as it came up in the news, which can lead to a section being longer than is warranted. Since this is widely reported on it will need to be in the article somewhere, just summed up a little more tidily. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Brillantes

Editors are repeatedly inserting/removing this edit. I don't think that the sourcing is strong enough to support the allegations against this subject, who is 12 years old. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no compelling encyclopedic reason to include unsubstantiated tabloid speculation on the possible private sex acts of a BLP subject. If this subject later proves to affect the arc of her biography and begins to be covered by reliable sources then it can be revisited. GraniteSand (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The material in question is flagrantly inappropriate for a Wikipedia biography, much less the biography of a child. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The article needs full protection, and the material revdelling - I have seldom seen such a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wildly unreliably-sourced speculation of a highly-personal nature against identified minors. In fact, it's borderline suppressible. I've gone ahead and revdel'd the offending edits and would have protected the article only someone else got there before me. Accusations of this nature need major, multiple reliable sources and these ones certainly don't - Alison ^❤ 09:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-English article

ബോബി_ചെമ്മണ്ണൂർ This article is spreading wrong news especially rumours from local newspaper as reference. This is creating wrong image about Boby Chemmanur in online world. Please remove as soon as possible. www.bobychemmanur.com really long URL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binojk123 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binojk123: - this appears to be outside the scope of en.wikipedia.org. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bracketed really long URL -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

See Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The criminal record included in this bio is incomplete and misleading. It requires editing to reflect the complete recoerd 1974-1983. The criminal record was not robbery and the subsequent expungement of the criminal record by court order is not included.

This portion of the bio should correctly read as follows:

In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, but later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing. He was sentenced to probation. The next year Ross was convicted for the felony conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] He again plead guilty, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. Arizona Superior Court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]

The word "expunged" can be linked to Expungement in the United States

PDF documents are online from the probation department and court.

See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html

Also see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html

Full restitution reported by Tony Ortega in Phoenix New Times article.

See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159

The criminal record cannot fairly and objectively be reported by selectively choosing some information and excluding other information. The complete record should be reported from 1974 through 1983. The description " robbed a jewelry store" has a range of meaning that includes a violent crime. There was no violent crime committed and no violent crime could be expunged. The crime was "conspiracy to commit grand theft' not robbery. And the guilty verdicts were vacated in 1983.

Please confirm the edit.

Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Phoenix New Times piece appears to be a reliable source, but the primary court documents copied at the culteducation web site are not. And the New Times piece does not mention any expungement of Ross' court records. Can you provide a reliable source for that, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The PDF documents online are directly from the court record and issued by the court. The Adult Probation Department record is also an original official document. They reflect the historical facts. I have the original documents issued to me in 1979 and 1983. I am willing have these documents physically inspected to resolve this. The Phoenix New Times article reports that I returned everything taken in my possession making full restitution. Everything I have stated is recorded in the public court record at Arizona Superior Court. What do we need to do to correct the incomplete and misleading account of my 1974-1983 criminal record? Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: Heather Bresch on West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy

This page has come up here at BLPN a few times. I wanted to invite folks to participate in an RFC here about whether the page should have a dedicated sub-section about a controversial event described in greater detail at West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Quinn (actor)

Daniel Quinn died on July 4, 2015. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0703809/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm> <Also death was posted by Kristoff St. John (actor) on Facebook showing what appeared to be a memorial program dated July 7, 2015> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne77grad (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Wayne77grad:, we need a better source such as a news story or an obituary notice. IMDb can be edited by users and we really can't use social media posts as an official source that someone has died. Reason for this is basically that people have been tricked in the past and sometimes even celebrities have been tricked. I found a blog post on The Wrap, but I'd prefer something a little stronger since this is a big BLP claim and can be a big issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I found a guest blog at The Wrap which indicates that he died. I'm not quite 100% sure that's enough. I assume that The Wrap would engage in basic fact checking for a guest blog, but, still, there must be some kind of obituary somewhere. I checked the official website, and there's nothing there, which cast further doubt in my mind. When I reread the Wikipedia article, I noticed that it was basically an unsourced copy-paste copyright violation of the official website, so I replaced it with a well-sourced stub. It's not terribly easy to locate information on him, but since he starred in Scanner Cop , I'd say he's notable. That's not something that I ever expected to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Joe Francis

Hello chaps. I removed a section from the lead regarding his legal problems as not being of primary interest and a couple of bits were not reproduced in the section detailing everything in the article. It's been restored - rather than get into a back and forth can I get some other eyes on this? Thanks awfully! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nat Gertler

I request that the name of my child, still a minor, be removed from Nat Gertler, the article on me. (The editor who recently added it is claiming that because the child's name was mentioned once in an interview, that her name is "significant" enough for WP:BLPNAME; what he believes it to signify is not clear.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has now removed it. Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Information added with questionable relevance to the BLP not following recomendations of BLPCRIME

Alejandro Betancourt López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I would appreciate extra eyes and help to settle an issue with the BLP of a president of a Venezuelan power plant construction company: Alejandro Betancourt López.

The issue is over this edition The content is referenced by an article published by the WSJ which is of course a very reliable source, El Pais, a Spanish newspaper also quoted the WSJ article as it source and reproduced its contents, but I think the information should not be included in the BLP so I posted the following reasons on the talk page of the article:

• The primary source are anonymous people that according to the WSJ are familiar with the matter. There is no claim it was checked with authorities.
• Those anonymous sources claimed in the article that Derwick Associates, not the BLP was under preliminary investigations back in august of 2014.
• They also claimed that an actual investigation on the company might or might not be launched.
• WSJ also published that a lawyer on behalf of the company denied having been contacted by any authorities.
• The information could be misinterpreted to assume that the subject of the BLP, who is not a public figure, is under an investigation so it should be removed per WP:BLPCRIME
• The information is already included in Derwick Associates's page where it's more relevant.

I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.

In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)

More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.

Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published. I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's.

I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points.

• Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies."
• And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials."
• And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials."
• And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars."

Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached.

Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company.

• Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing.
• The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation.

You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP.

It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it.

I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators.

I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment on subject's mental state at Talk:David Icke

I redacted it (maybe I need to rev/del) and explained to the editor why. Now along comes an IP to reinstate it. Am I off-based in saying that diagnosing the mental state of a BLP doesn't belong on the talk page? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears to have been settled, but no, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate on medical issues that the subject of a BLP might be having, beyond discussing what already appears in reliable secondary sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC).

Gajendra Chauhan

Gajendra Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) last edits in the article have been reverted twice undoing relevant additions and general clean-up.

@Journojp and Honi02: if you both have a content dispute, then perhaps discussing the matter between yourselves at Talk:Gajendra Chauhan would be the logical solution. Besides that is dispute resolution advises us on how to proceed this matters like this. Try and reach towards a mutual agreement on the content. Sometimes compromise works best all-round. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Leonardo da Silva Moura

This football player's biography has clearly been vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.26.16 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 14:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Evelin Banev

Could someone please take a look at Evelin Banev? The article fails WP:NPOV on all counts; I tried to clean it up in March but was swiftly reverted. Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• We need some experienced BLP eyes on this article, with some time to review and address the multiple BLP, NPOV, RS and V problems that the article has experienced since January 2015. This is anything but a typical "content dispute." Multiple editors have attempted to add "convicted drug trafficker" or "money-launderer" to the lead and/or text based on ostensibly reliable sources, while User:DisqSquare has repeatedly removed text related to multiple criminal indictments and convictions, and substituted such respectable-sounding characterizations as "businessman, entrepreneur, and a published author who was formerly accused of criminal activities." A simple review of DiscSquare's article edits since the beginning of 2015 (all of them to this article) show that this SPA user has repeatedly attempted to remove or confuse reliably sourced descriptions of the subject's alleged criminal activities, indictments and convictions. Reliable source references such as the BBC have been deleted. A quick review of these SPA edits suggest that this editor has repeatedly attempted to whitewash the article content. This may not be an attractive subject for a mostly English-language group of editors, but assistance is required to help clean up this mess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I see that User:CorporateM has edited this article to be more concise and better referenced, but user Alakzi still deleted and made it incorrect. To state the facts, there is no reference that the subject has been convinced in Romania or Switzerland or that he is a fugitive because - these are simply incorrect statements. Further, these are tabloid "news sensations" - which makes me wonder how suitable they are for Wikipedia. Clearly, Alakzi has a strong opinion (vs. a neutral one), which all I have done is attempted very civilly to tone down. Thanks to user User: Swarm and the other admins for the involvement. DiscSquare (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• • User:Dirtlawyer1, I see you made a reverse of the edits I made, but the "fully sourced version " is not so. For example, the very first reference to a NY Times article does not support the false staments that the subject is a "fugitive", it goes to explain that he is "a real estate entrepreneur who is under investigation for money laundering". Also, in the version edited by User:CorporateM -- 670717102 all statements are sourced and I removed the unsourced ones - there are clear explanations of the conviction in Italy, which is not "obscured" as you state in your comments, but is also ongoing. Also, the "sourced" info that he is a fugitive comes from an article that reads: "...reports in Bulgarian media claimed that Banev’s whereabouts were unknown and speculated that he might have fled the country. If that was the case, he..." - Clearly this is a speculation - it is not a fact... As such, you see for yourself the controversy around such elements of that Eastern European country, let's work together on making the article accurate, not another vehicle for Eastern European media propaganda. DiscSquare (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fugitive is sourced to the SG article, further down. The NYT is the only one which says he was a "real estate entrepreneur", which is not mentioned in the body of the article, hence why the reference is placed in the lead. Alakzi (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

*No, CorporateM made a tentative effort to begin cutting through the confused language that you have attempted to use to obscure the present status of the criminal convictions in Bulgaria and Italy, and the criminal indictments in Romania, in an effort to make the subject look like a legitimate businessman and to suggest that the criminal proceedings against the subject in several countries are somehow illegitimate. It is past time for objective editors -- other than you -- to begin to review the status of each of the criminal cases, and to eliminate the unsupported text that attempts to obscure the criminal conviction in Italy and misrepresent the present status of the criminal conviction on appeal in Bulgaria. Furthermore, no one has suggested that the subject has been convicted in Romania, but he has been indicted (formally charged) in Romania. As for your statement that "tabloid" sources have been used previously, the Sofia Globe (English language newspaper), Invinite.com (English language news agency) are not tabloids:

• "Bulgaria high court overturns money-laundering acquittal against ‘Brendo’", The Sofia Globe (27 May 2015)

• "Milan Court Upholds 20-Year Jail Term for Alleged Bulgarian Drug Lord", Novinite.com (18 August 2014)

• "Italian court rejects Bulgarian drug trafficker appeal – report", The Sofia Globe (18 August 2014)

• "Sofia court agrees extradition of money-laundering convict to Romania", The Sofia Globe (21 January 2014)

The reliable sources (see WP:RS) verify that (a) the subject has been convicted in Italy for drug trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in 2013, (b) the Italian conviction was upheld in 2014, (c) the subject was convicted of money-laundering in Bulgaria in 2012, (d) the Bulgarian conviction was overturned on appeal by an intermediate appellate court, (e) the national supreme court reversed the intermediate appellate court's decision on further appeal and remanded the case (sent it back) for further proceedings in 2015. The subject's conviction in Italy is in full force, and the conviction in Bulgaria is subject to further action to be determined. Romanian prosecutors have been trying to extradite (legally deport) the subject for criminal trial in Romania on drug trafficking charges there since 2013. Attempts to remove these facts from the article are unacceptable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

*DearUser:Dirtlawyer1: Given that you are listing some "reliable" sources, then you need to remove the very first word "fugitive" as it is not so - the person is not wanted, as stated by the Interior Minister himself:

• "Brendo is not declared wanted", Vesti (22 January 2015)

Further to your points above, the subject conviction in Italy is NOT in full force, but still under appeal, pending a review of the Cassation Court:

• "Brendo appeals his sentence in Italy", "Nbox News" (23 June 2015)

Keeping the BLPs guidelines - which clearly state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives;" how accurate is the article as it stands now, given that information about the subject's personal life, public image, law suits, and controversies have been removed? It now reads as an unverified criminal record of a living person, and nothing more.

With this in mind, as the article stands right now, with all the original information removed, it primarily puts in question the very existence of the article in Wikipedia - as it violates the BLPs guidelines and lacks notability by definition.DiscSquare (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My advice to those involved is to take it one step at-a-time. The edit history shows continuous, large, sweeping changes, overhauling the article day-by-day, without discussion. Being that there are multiple editors involved and disagreements over the article's content, at this point edits should generally be discussed before making them to avoid edit-warring and conflict. Start a discussion about something very specific, provide sources to support your viewpoint, give other editors time to respond, then make edits that are representative of the discussion. There is WP:NORUSH. CorporateM (Talk) 18:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

*Dear User:CorporateM, I agree with you - I pointed out above the inconsistencies in the article as it stands now, but no responses have been made; I also pointed out that listing someone's criminal record is not a notable enough reason for wikipedia, but my tag for proposed deletion was reversed by User:Dirtlawyer1. As such, I edited the latest version of the article to reflect the latest news, i.e., that he is not a fugitive, that the Italian case is pending, and also I detailed the kidnapping as it was before, because it was well described with various points of view as of several years ago. The last change I made is correct the headings to be per the common headings in WP. Nonetheless, I still think that Admins should put this article for a deletion review - with all the business, controversies, and history information deleted - this person is not at all worthy of being in WP. Thanks for your involvement DiscSquare (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dirtylawyer ased me to look into some of the Bulgarian sources and I must say that the third footnote (Брендо не е обявен за издирване) should be removed. The heading says that Banev is not currently under investigation, yet this is used to support a sentence that says he has been convicted. The article goes on to say that Banev is required to notify the police if he changes his address. The minister of interior maintains that this is not "probation" and is not a form of punishment. (Which is weird because he isn't being investigated....) This source doesn't prove any of the claims made in the preceding sentence and should be removed. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The English language reliable sources regarding the status of the criminal proceedings against Banev are quite clear and definitive:

(1) The 2013 Italian conviction for drug trafficking stands. It was upheld on appeal in 2014. There is apparently another appeal pending, but the conviction stands. Unless and until the 2013 trial court decision is overturned, Banev is a convicted criminal in Italy, new appeals notwithstanding.

(2) Banev was convicted in Bulgaria for money-laundering related to drug-trafficking. The conviction was overturned on appeal by an intermediate appellate court. The national supreme court subsequently reversed the intermediate court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings, which are still pending. Bottom line: the case is still pending and Banev has not been acquitted or exonerated.

(3) Banev is still subject to extradition to Romania for pending drug-trafficking charges there.

This has already been explained to DiscSquare on my user talk page and elsewhere. DiscSquare attempted to use the PROD procedure to delete this article; I removed the PROD template, per standard PROD procedure. In my not inexperienced opinion (nearly 600 RfAs, with a 94% correct rate), Evelin Banev is indisputably notable under the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), with significant coverage of the criminal proceedings against him in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- in English, Bulgarian and Italian mainstream media sources.

I have requested User:Kndimov to review Bulgarian language sources as they are posted on the article talk page, and to be available for further consultation. On the recommendation of administrator Dr. Blofeld, User:Alakzi has also requested the assistance User:TodorBozhinov for the same purposes. Because none of us have a grip on the reliability of Bulgarian-language sources per WP:RS, we will have to rely on Kndimov and Todor's assessment of the reliability of Bulgarian-language sources as well as their correct translation. No offense intended, but it is self-evident that DiscSquare's command of English is not perfect, and his understanding of criminal legal process is incomplete, at best. If anyone wants to argue with the three enumerated bullet points above, or posit conspiracy theories about the reasons behind the criminal proceedings against Banev in at least three different European countries, they need to post their sources on the article talk page, and wait for an evaluation of those sources -- especially Bulgarian-language sources -- before attempting to make any assertion in the article that contradicts the bullet points above, which are amply supported by reliable mainstream English-language sources.

I am not here to play games" with this bio. As I explained to DiscSquare, I am an experienced Wikipedia editor (6+ years) with a strong command of our BLP and verification policies, as well as our reliable source guidelines per WP:RS, and I am also a practicing attorney. I also have very low tolerance for the attempts to insert unsubstantiated allegations of criminal corruption of prosecutors and conspiracy theories. I am and will continue to be guided by our BLP policy and reliable source guidelines in these matters. I invite the participation of other experienced BLP editors, but please be patient with the interpretation issues presented by the Bulgarian sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Konstantin Shamray

Konstantin Shamray

No references or citations. Is a cut and paste from his promotional biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrmus (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The article does have what seem to be valid citations, however they need to be properly formatted. I have inserted tags into the article about that and about the promotional language to give the editors involved a chance to improve it. I have also added the article to my watchlist, so if there are no changes in a few days I will try to address the issues in the article myself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations

While I tend to think that Cosby is likely guilty and should be jailed, we're dealing with a BLP matter and must get it right. I've got some serious misgivings about careless editing, OR and SYNTH violations, and use of poor sources, so I have raised the matter in this section:

• 1990 "barbecue sauce" content a BLP violation?

We need more eyes there (keep it there so we don't split the discussion). -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

For reference, there was a recent post about a similar (the same?) issue here, and there is an active post at AN/I about the same issues. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is about Bill Cosby, but on a specific situation not mentioned previously. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nithin

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

Hello. I am posting to the BLPN regarding the Nithin article, which has been subject to the addition of varying amounts of unsourced material, primarily contributed by a specific editor. For the past month, I have attempted to communicate with the editor responsible, Samrajya S.R.A (talk · contribs) but all attempts to discuss have been ignored.

I am requesting assistance vetting this article in its current form and how to best approach the editorial concerns with Samrajya S.R.A as well. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Yamaguchi先生: I have added the first source I could find to the lead, since the only external link was to IMDB. Most content is still unsourced though. I have added the article to my watchlist. I will also try to revert any future non constructive editions by Samrajya S.R.A (talk · contribs).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Serena Williams

I added content to her introductory paragraph noting that commentators, analysts, and other athletes consider her the greatest athlete of her era. I cited 7 references supporting this fact. The writing was balanced, stating that his was the opinion of several authorities. However, someone continuously takes it down and took the references and put them in a reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what you actually did, but did you add this content to the body of the article first, before adding it to the lead? If not, they were justified in removing it, but should have moved it to the body. Get that fixed and write a very short sentence in the lead to that effect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wes Moore's birthday - December 12, 1978 or August 12, 1978? Please correct error in his biography. Contradictions are there in his biography.

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

I saw errors in the biography of Wes Moore. Is he born December 12, 1978 or August 12th? Thought you might like to know this in order to correct it. Thank you so much. Sharon Akins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.243.33 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted simply the birth year, for now. If you have a reliable source that says the month and day, then please let us know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This report is untrue and malicious.

This report is not true. The source for this statement is me. I am Keith Thompson. I was a member of Mosley's Union Movement 1960-70, I have never had any association with Mr Gable or Searchight magazine. I have never sold information to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.206.57 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't say what fact. You apparently meant this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Thompson_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=671136703 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OP seems to be challenging a couple statements rather explicitly. "I have never had any association with Mr Gable or Searchight magazine" and "I have never sold information to anyone."

The article refers to him in the lead as 'a "paid Searchlight informant"' and goes on to say 'Between 1979 and 1982 Thompson sold to Searchlight magazine hundreds of documents relating to the League "including membership and subscriber lists"'. These statements cite only Searchlight Magazine itself, and cite two entire issues of the magazine (not citing page numbers). I think there's easily enough cause here to temporarily remove the challenged statements, which may even be WP:UNDUE to begin with, until we can verify the statements on WP:BLP grounds. I've done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@86.150.206.57: More context would be useful, though. Blanking a page rarely gets anyone anywhere. I've removed a couple of the statements you're challenging until we can sort things out, but we need some additional information. Are you saying the Searchlight Magazine sources cited do not verify what was written or are you saying that Searchlight Magazine does verify the statements but is incorrect? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Isnt that rather irrelevant? We wouldnt state in a BLP the subject sold information to Searchlight and use Searchlight as a source/reference even if it was printed in the magazine. Apart from being a primary source for (depending on jurisdiction) claims of illegal behaviour, unless it was reported elsewhere it would fall foul of undue as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Gautam Gulati

Gautam Gulati

There is a wrong mention of Gautam Gulati's age. His age is 27 but there is 30. Its a request to editors to correct it

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saba zaheer (talk • contribs) 07:52, 14 July 2015

• Can you give a source that gives his birth year? I'm slightly leery about using the source you provided as a definite confirmation of his age since the year is not given. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the following two articles found in Google news it seems that he is currently 30. Birthday 27 November 1984.

• Gautam Gulati Birthday Special: Bollywood calling for the Bigg Boss 8 contestant?
• Gautam Gulati birthday special: His ‘bare bodied’

--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas D. Taylor

I'm a little concerned about the use of poor sources for a dedicated Controversy section on this page. Citations 6-9 are used in this section. 6 is a wordpress blog, 7 is just a 1 paragraph notice from the publication, 8 is a [www.omicsgroup.org/editor-biography/Douglas_Taylor/ primary source], and nine appears to be a personal blog. CorporateM (Talk) 03:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the non-reliable sources, you're right they were crap. The retraction is legit and a big deal (clearly notable) though, so I've left it in and re-sourced it to the actual retraction. The fact that the paper co-author is his wife or that the U of Louisville was the institution that investigated alleged misconduct can't be reliable sourced as far as I can tell so I removed that. The Beall's list thing is tricker - it is a blog but it's very highly regarded by academics, and is pretty much the authoritative source on such matters. I think that should stay in personally. I did change to note that he's not the editor though, merely on the editorial board according to the journal's site. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm troubled that CorporateM seems to think that this is a "personal blog"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It IS a personal blog, the home page of that website shows that as such, further there is no editorial oversight ,no staff, it's the postings of one person on a wordpress site. It's a blog. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Murad Saeed

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

Whole profile lacks credible references especially about education and profession. A general impression is that it look like self styled portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.195.154 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little, and tagged sections without refs and a deadlink, here. More work needs doing. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Bella and the Bulldogs - comments solicited

Hi there. Bella and the Bulldogs is an article about a children's television program. There is an RfC at Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs about whether or not a film made by one of the series creators, and a resulting internet controversy, should be mentioned in this article. Some BLP concerns have been raised, which is why I am inviting comments at the RfC. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Donald Gary Young

A new editor, User:AdinneB, recently created an article about Donald Gary Young, who is the founder of Young Living, a MLM essential oil company. From past discussion on Talk:Young Living I knew there was a lot of very contentious BLP material on this person. Some of the sources are reliable but obscure (old newspaper articles, mostly). I added some of that material, such as a couple stories mentioning his arrest for practicing medicine without a license in 1983. Since he was making medical claims and running a clinic in Mexico, this seems pertinent, but the whole thing has a lot of undue potential, so I would appreciate additional input. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve Brine

The original article seems to be autobiographical, regarding a current UK Member of Parliament, Steve Brine [6] In May 2015 a peaceful protest occurred outside his office, and his staff complained to the police. As a result one of his constituents, a Fathers4Justice campaigner was arrested and imprisoned. He was assaulted in prison, stabbed, then was found dead in his cell on 15th July. I added this information to the page in very succinct form, including direct reference to the Fathers4Justice site reporting his, and the pages with the original material. Quickly after posting it 185.53.224.150 deleted it. This may be associated with Steve Brine as it traces to Optimity Ltd in London.

The material should be protected from deletion by the politician involved, or his aids.

I did include the information on the talk page.37.152.196.188 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thats... such a big coatrack Aslan is wandering out of it. Completely Undue and irrelevant to Steve Brine. At *best* the link is 'person who participated in protest outside office dies in prison'. The only way it would be relevant is if there was some direct link that Steve Brine was in some way responsible or involved in the death. Which he obviously is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

green maps

advantage of green maps

1. REDIRECT Big text

Heading text

green map can be cut. hi dumbos this an be called a brinjo endertint 122.169.83.232 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)íĦÌÍïĽĦťû read this

Even Timothy Q. Mouse cannot make heads or tails or ears of what this is about. Especially in relation to BLPs. MarnetteD|Talk 15:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nitish Mishra

This article Nitish Mishra is clearly written by the subject and reads like a C.V. I believe that it should be deleted. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've pretty thoroughly gutted it for fluff and readability. Not sure what to do with it beyond that: the person appears notable, but the article lacks any sources at all at the moment. I was going to BLPPROD it but apparently can't do that for articles created before 2010. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Joe Stretch

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

Regarding article on Joe Stretch, English writer at Joe Stretch

Look at the article history and the editing history of the article's author. Most of this article has clearly been written by the subject himself. The uncritical tone of the article leads me to draw the same conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.255.116 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at Shane Hurlbut

Jesse96 (talk · contribs) has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page at Talk:Shane Hurlbut, choosing instead to revert, repeatedly -- with zero talk page discussion. Please see DIFF 1, DIFF 2, and DIFF 3. This disruption of a WP:GA quality article is inappropriate.

The account Jesse96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for both (1) Socking and (2) Vandalism.

Could use some help here.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby - POV railroading ensues still

We are gleefully reporting how he likely raped dozens of women, absent any proof of course. Any the NY TIMES covers his deposition with Cosby's own defense that the acts of casual sex were consensual - which has been edited out.

More experienced and neutral editors please help here. Georgeivs vid (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's a bogus description. We are reporting what RS say and being careful to leave the question of actual guilt open. If he is convicted, that will change. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Not including that Cosby defended his casual sex encounters as consensual is blatant NPOV violation. Indefensible reporting by Wikipedia. Georgeivs vid (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Have we even gotten that far yet? Take your concerns to the article's talk page, not here. Instead of griping and making accusations, make constructive and very specifically worded proposals for addition/change etc.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia responds VERY POORLY to breaking salacious content. Cosby is just yet another victim of the scandal mongers and WP:RECENTISM -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many inexperienced users and editors seem to think that we should be the first place people can find information. Well, that's not how we work. We base all content on what reliable sources have previously written, so that means we are always behind the curve. Yes, for totally uncontroversial facts, like who won an Oscar, you can read that here within seconds after it's happened, but when it comes to BLP content, we are much more careful. We don't rush, but we still get there, even if the actual content is extremely negative. We don't cover up or whitewash negative information if it is found in RS, but we are very careful how we word it. Patience is the word. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should respond slowly, but it does not. It dives head first into the sleaze pit right along with the tabloids. In another 2-3 years the Cosby article may be edited back to appropriate perspectives, but it will be a terrible mess for the foreseeable future. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is endemic on Wikipedia - the "News of the World" seems something not to emulate in my opinion, but invariably at certain seasons massive amounts of nugatory edits aimed to directly or indirectly defame persons or groups (often with blogs of various ilks as sources) get made. Again, IMHO, such misuse of Wikipedia should be stopped utterly and entirely, and we should await measures and impartial coverage of any "real material" about people. Collect (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

IMTIAZ DARKER

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

imtiaz Mobarik or Darker was in my class at school. She is not 61. She attended Hutchesons Firls Grammar School from `961 to `1968 from the age of 11.I suggest you contact Hutchesons Grammar school in Glasgow to confirm this. At the time we attended it was in Kingarth Streetin Glasgow. It 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)81.152.171.39 (talk) –is now a co-ed school.

The Guardian says she was born in Lahore in 1954. I just checked Gale's Contemporary Authors as well, they also say she was born in 1954. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually many sites give no year of birth, and those that give a birth year all appear to say 1954 - but very little else at all. It is likely that if it is not the correct year, it is nevertheless the year she gives to others. She appears to have moved to India by 1970 on her own, which would lend some credence to a belief that she improved her age, as is not all that uncommon. [7] and OUP [8]("Imtiaz Dharker was born in Lahore, Pakistan, in 1954. She has an M.A. in philosophy from Glasgow University, and has lived in Bombay since the 1970's") says she holds an MA from Glasgow University which presumably made her about 16 when gaining that degree. Possible - but we tend to allow people to fudge birth dates where no other sources give a contrary date. Collect (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bender, Todd K. (1936-) professor of English emeritus University of Wisconsin-Madison

BA Kenyon College 1958, PhD Stanford University 1962, Diploma French Language and Literature University of Nancy II, France. Fulbright scholar: England 1958/59; University of Athens, Greece, 1979/80; University of Nancy II, France 1989/90. Pioneer in the earliest applications of computer technology to editing and analyzing natural languages. Editor of thirty-seven volumes of concordances, such as the set of concordances to complete works of Joseph Conrad. Also author of volume entitled Literary Impressionism and volume Classical Background and Literary Reception of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Numerous scholarly articles. 97.88.242.90 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Who's Who in America, University of Wisconsin-Madison web page, Computers in the Humanities, Individual prefatory material in 37 volumes of concordances to Joseph Conrad's works

@97.88.242.90: If you were trying to request that someone create an article on Bender, you should repost your request at Articles for Creation - just follow the instructions here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

agim hushi

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

this article seems to be a self promotion. reading it the person seems to be the best and the greatest. it is also indicative as the whole text can be found on his website (www.agimhushi.com). please sombody review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.53.241 (talk • contribs)

I thought this was copyvio too, but the content was apparently ripped from wikipedia rather than the other way around. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP - Koch brothers vs Shepard Smith

So, if only unreliable sources make controversial claims, can we discuss them on talk pages?

As I see it, in order to be consistent, we need to

• A)delete two level-two sections of Talk:Shepard Smith and perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive175#Shepard_Smith or
• B)revert this.

Which is it, or what am I not seeing that makes the apparent inconsistency consistent?--Elvey^(t•c) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking of another option:

• C) replace the two problematic sections of Talk:Shepard Smith with: (under the heading "Controversial claims about a living persons"):

Per the policy at WP:BLPTALK, this talk page has been refactored. Be sure to respect that policy. This link has the un-refactored discussion. Discussion regarding controversial claims regarding gthnicity, gender, religion and sexuality that can only be sourced to unreliable sources can be found there. For more information, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shepard_Smith.

Will make it so if I don't see objections soon.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages are for good faith discussion of content. As long as users are discussing content in good faith that can be found in reliable sources, then it should not be removed. Unsourced and poorly sourced (e.g. Daily Kos) controversial claims about living people do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Common sense and good judgement apply.- MrX 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages are for good faith discussion of content. As long as users are discussing content in good faith that can be found in reliable sources, then it should not be removed. Poorly sourced controversial claims about living people do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Common sense and good judgement apply. Taken care of w/C.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that Elvey is not entitled to determine that other editors are prohibited from discussing an issue of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The OP has a bit of a problem lately with judging others and refactoring other editors' comments, so, not surprising. As for the Shepard Smith and his sexual orientation, y'know, this isn't 1965; being gay is not a scurrilous, career-ending thing that it was once viewed as. Obviously we shouldn't wildly speculate about BLP subject's orientation with recklessness, but merely bringing the subject up in good faith should not be regarded as a damaging, BLP-violating act, to the point that an entire threaded discussion must be deleted. The Koch thing is a bit different, as allegations of Nazi sympathies is a damaging and sensitive accusation; that discussion should be handled with care, and IMO a Daily Kos sory alone isn't enough to justify that. Tarc (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's a BLP violation, anyone is entitled to enforce the policy. I'm not hearing any policy-based arguments. Policy says nothing about a living person's sexuality (especially of a conservative news host) being less sensitive than discussion of a living person's distant relatives' political leanings, let alone ok to ignore the policy over. I must insist that you base your arguments on policy, not personal opinion or ad hominem attacks, or straw man arguments about "your permission". Editors need to respect the BLP policy; no one, including Nomoskedasticity, Tarc or I can grant permission to violate that policy.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy is not an all-encompassing shield against criticism or things that the subject may not wish to hear. Shepard Smith and whatever sexual orientation he may be is a topic touched upon by the New York Times, Slate, and the LA Times. So while inclusion of any of that in the article body itself is a matter of debate, the simple matter of discussing it on the subject's talk page is not a BLP violation. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see RS do touch on it (only to say it's not newsworthy, so it's appropriate that it's not on the article page itself). That's one justification for the difference gone. Still, not seeing all the legs are gone. The policy states information about living persons ... must adhere strictly to ... this policy. It seems clear to me that The Grey Lady herself says "posting gay innuendo about ... Smith ... seems ... invasive". (source: Tarc's NYT URL, above.) Who are you to say The Grey Lady is wrong? The policy states Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It makes no exception for talk pages. You need to explain why the restored material (reversion of my implementation of solution C, -[refactor, thereby removing the gossip]) doesn't violate that excerpt from the policy. Because the policy states: The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Shepard Smith discussions archived. Problem solved.- MrX 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Placing of any BLP violations in any space, including archives remains a BLP violation per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

True, but ultimately unless someone is going to revdel or oversight it (which seems unlikely given the current admin crop) thats about as good as it gets. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was not a BLP violation. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It was plainly not a BLP violation, and since it's archived, it should be of little practical concern to anyone.- MrX 19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I'll say again: The policy states information about living persons ... must adhere strictly to ... this policy. It seems clear to me that The Grey Lady herself says "posting gay innuendo about ... Smith ... seems ... invasive". (source: Tarc's NYT URL, above.) Who are you to say The Grey Lady is wrong? The policy states Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It makes no exception for talk pages. You need to explain why the restored material (reversion of my implementation of solution C, -[refactor, thereby removing the gossip]) doesn't violate that excerpt from the policy. Because the policy states: The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Since you have refused to do so, anyone may remove the restored material, as you have not met your burden. --Elvey^(t•c) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sez you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Sez" policy. Did I misquote policy or the New York Times? If so, please point it out. What do you challenge? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your view that you are entitled to determine that other editors may not discuss something. We've been over this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What part of that's a straw man do you not understand? I've never expressed that view. Anyone can remove content that violates the BLP policy, including, because the policy states: The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material content that does not meet that burden, which includes that content MrX archived. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you remove other people's posts, you (attempt to) prevent discussion. You may not have said it, but you've done it (and were reverted). Who exactly do you think you are? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes enforcement of the BLP policy requires removal of other people's posts. Do you dispute that? If you think that policy is wrong, you're free to express that. But it doesn't change what the policy is. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll say again: The policy states information about living persons ... must adhere strictly to ... this policy. The Grey Lady herself says "posting gay innuendo about ... Smith ... seems ... invasive". (source: Tarc's NYT URL, above.) Who are you to say The Grey Lady is wrong? The policy states Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It makes no exception for talk pages. If you don't explain why the restored material (reversion of my implementation of solution C, -[refactor, thereby removing the gossip]) doesn't violate that excerpt from the BLP policy, the policy encourages anyone to remove the material. Because the policy states: The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Since you have refused to do so, anyone may remove the restored material, as you have not met your burden.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't add strength to your argument. Before you remove other editors good faith comments from a talk page, you better be really sure that it's unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material and that most reasonable people would view it that way. A good indication of when you might be wrong is when other experienced editors object to your application or interpretation of policy.- MrX 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the same wall of text and hoping for a different reaction is a sure sign of insanity, to paraphrase a famous saying. The material in question on the Shep Smith talk page has been archived, it was all years old (you do realize that you inserted a comment into a discussion from 2010 there, right?), and that should be the end of it. Are you going to let that be the end of it, or are you pursuing/planning action to revert it from the archive as well? Tarc (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with archival of the disputed content being the end of it. Collect isn't willing to let that be the end of it. And that's my last comment, as long as archival of the disputed content remains the end of it. I don't see any experienced editors arguing that Smith's orientation status is not gossip. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be unwise for Collect to get involved; I'm sure he understands that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tawan Davis

Tawan W. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject appears to have written the majority himself and most citations lead to broken links or irrelevant website links such as the homepage for the City of New York (nyc.gov). While the subject has received some press this year regarding a possible scandal (which at this time has no merit to include as fact), it's quite clear he does not meet the general notability guidelines. Even if he did there are no real sources/support that I could find that back up any of the facts listed on the page with broken links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy.Jackhammer (talk • contribs)

I'm skeptical that this person passes notability requirements. Even if he does, the sources in the article are pretty dodgy, it definitely needs cleanup. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added some archived links, removed a bunch of unsourced content, and tentatively removed this paragraph about an alleged conflict of interest involving Davis, it does not seem well-sourced enough to include to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawan W. Davis.--ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alejandro Betancourt Lopez (not yet resolved)

The below conversation was archived before any administrator had the chance to take a look at it. Righteousskills (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate extra eyes and help to settle an issue with the BLP of a president of a Venezuelan power plant construction company: Alejandro Betancourt López.

The issue is over this edition The content is referenced by an article published by the WSJ which is of course a very reliable source, El Pais, a Spanish newspaper also quoted the WSJ article as it source and reproduced its contents, but I think the information should not be included in the BLP so I posted the following reasons on the talk page of the article:

• The primary source are anonymous people that according to the WSJ are familiar with the matter. There is no claim it was checked with authorities.
• Those anonymous sources claimed in the article that Derwick Associates, not the BLP was under preliminary investigations back in august of 2014.
• They also claimed that an actual investigation on the company might or might not be launched.
• WSJ also published that a lawyer on behalf of the company denied having been contacted by any authorities.
• The information could be misinterpreted to assume that the subject of the BLP, who is not a public figure, is under an investigation so it should be removed per WP:BLPCRIME
• The information is already included in Derwick Associates's page where it's more relevant.

I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above. In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section) More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again. Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published. I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's.

I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points.

• Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies."
• And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials."
• And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials."
• And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars."

Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached.

Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company.

• Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing.
• The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation.

You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP.

It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it.

I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators.

I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hart D. Fisher

Not a notable person; the entire article reads like an irrelevant biography of someone with no actual notability, written by the subject of the article. Self-publishing a parody comic or an independent film is not sufficient criteria for inclusion. No awards won, and not widely recognized in his field.

Ariana Kelly

Yesterday the Washington Post publicized that Maryland House Delegate Ariana Kelly was arrested a couple of weeks ago after a domestic dispute with her ex-husband. An SPA insists on having this information in its own section with the section titled as "Controversy", as opposed to mentioning it in the Personal Section. Are there any WP:UNDUE issues with such a section heading? Victor Victoria (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy sections are overused IMHO so I agree with your approach.--ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is some long-term consequence to the incident, it should be left out entirely as the encyclopedia is not a news outlet. Scr★pIron^IV 14:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. WP:NOTNEWS means that the incident is covered with one or two sentences as opposed to a complete article as in a newspaper. For one thing, it probably means the end of her political career, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

for a politician,I think it is well established here that anything relevant to general behavior is relevant to their career,because it is based on public trust. We wouldn't include this for almost any other profession. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The only question is whether it needs to be showcased in a section titled "Controversy" or can it be mentioned as part of their personal lives, as it was just a domestic dispute. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't include this for almost any other profession is a bit far afield from reality, as such information would be included for most any public figure, from athletes to musicians . I agree that the "Controversy" section is unnecessary and sensationalist, and have removed it. I also took the liberty of trimming some of the graphic detail of the event. I think stating what the charges were and a general descriptino of the act is sifficient; we're not TMZ, there's no need to go into lurid, exacting detail when the reader can get that from the source if so desired. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP:SPA is edit-warring over this. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Brown

Wikipedia Censorship Incident Report: The following factual information with news article reference in this article is repeated being censored by Jerry Brown supporters.

Jerry Brown went to Vatican city where he told the Catholic News service that the statue of Junipero Serra will stay at the California Capitol. Reference: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article27994771.html

This material really isn't positive or negative, so cries of "censorship by supporters" ring hollow. It was removed from the article because it doesn't appear to be relevant to browns biography, nor is it even a notable event, there's only a smattering of local coverage out there about it. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Routine axegrinding on a minor political flareup where the anon is even misinformed as to basic, noncontroversial facts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that that info is currently in the article should it stay or br removed?--76.65.42.44 (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have it removed it, all good now. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Laurence A. Rickels

Laurence A. Rickels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Nothing spectacular, just a longterm accretion of unsourced credits, long lists of non-notable publications, with likely COI issues. The subject is notable, but this has become a vanity resume. I'm hesitant to clean up for fear of throwing out significant as well as non-notable content, and can't easily discern the difference without sources. Assistance from wiser editors appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  I cleaned it up a little.- MrX 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Speziale

OK volunteers, I have a challenge for you. This is an enormous puff piece (well, it's a bit smaller now, but I got tired of cutting fluff) but the person is possibly notable, so I don't want to send it to AfD. What the article needs is a neutral editor (too many jubilant IP editors from New Jersey in the history) to rewrite, find sources, do it right. Note that there's no negative material in it now, though there was some a few years ago, and a quick perusal of the archives shows stuff like this (yeah, full-time pay for a part-time job: nice work!). Anyway, I removed a bunch of stuff, much of it the boss being given credit for everything, and some of it just obviously stupid, like an enormous section on him bringing a 9/11 flag from NY and speechifying over it. There may well be more useful stuff in the history, subsequently wiped clean by IP editors. And if there's nothing there, send it to AfD. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Willem Buiter and Heleen Mees

• Willem Buiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A WP:SPA is insisting on adding misleading information to these articles. They keep focusing on whether the sources are reliable. However, the central problem, putting aside whether the material belongs in both articles, is that the material the SPA asserts is not supported by the sources they use. I could reword it to hew to the sources, but I don't like the material, so I refuse to implicitly approve it. I can't keep reverting, so I leave it up to others to review.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault

There has been ongoing edit warring over this passage (sources included):

Both Sulkowicz and Sclove's activism has illustrated the challenges of schools investigating sexual assault and balancing between due process and the expectations of the accusers. After being called a rapist by Sulkowicz and the press, the man Sulkowicz accused responded by pointing out he had been cleared by the police and the school. He also provided months of seemingly friendly communications between him and Sulkowicz between the alleged assault and the accusation.[9] Once the Brown student newspaper outed Sclove's alleged attacker, he and his lawyer responded that Sclove has increasingly embellished her story; going from feeling pressured to have sex without protest while intoxicated in her early accounts, [10] to stating she was twice choked and then forcibly raped in her later public statements.[11][12]

Here's the passage in context [13].

Part of the BLP argument may be due linking to a digital copy of a Title IX complaint around the Sclove example. There is another source not previously included in the passage above that speaks directly to the accused's position rather than linking to the lawsuit text [14]

So two questions. Is there any BLP issue here? And if there is, what would alleviate it?Mattnad (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no WP:BLP issue that I can see, provided that the Scribd document citation and any text supported by it are removed. I also suggest removing "cause[s] celebre" from the previous paragraph.- MrX 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure there is - scribd is not a realiable source, and I don't believe the daily beast is either, so both would have to be removed and , if possible, replaced with a reliable source. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. So the scribd and related content (unless it can be sourced elsewhere) is a no go. User:KoshVorlon, what is it about the daily beast that makes it not a reliable source? It's listed as a news site and part of Newsweek, and it even won a webby award for news in 2013, and shares that with the NY Times. [15].Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is generally regarded as a reliable source.- MrX 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, just some context: there's been an extensive RfC on this content fairly recently, the RfC was formally closed with a decision not to include the edits because of a lack of community consensus. The primary concerns cited by other editors were:

• That the tone and sourcing of the paragraph are not balanced or state judgement in Wikipedia's voice (WP:BLPSTYLE)
• That several of the claims cite a legal document from an attorney involved in the case (WP:BLPPRIMARY)
• That the individuals involved are primarily notable for a single event (WP:1E), and the level of detail is inappropriate for inclusion in this particular article

No apparent effort has been made to edit the paragraph to address these concerns, or to re-open that discussion of this material on the article talk page, or even to inform other editors that this issue was being brought to a noticeboard. This seems perilously close to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nblund (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it is, this noticeboard is for determining if something violates our BLP policy, and that question has been answered. It was also answered in the RfC from a few months ago. My comments should not be interpreted as support (or opposition) for the specific content in the article, which is best left to those editing the article.- MrX 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hans Kung

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding contentious claims about Kung based on an interpretation of canon law without any reliable third party reference linking this to Kung. Despite being reverted a number of times the IP is ignoring this and as well as messages on his or her talk page. I would be grateful for administrators and others to keep an eye on the article. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please block this IP for persistent BLP violations. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

Adam Leitman Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is largely advertising. It may well be that the subject of the article created it himself, or had his employees create it, for promotional purposes.

Christopher J. Grisham

Christopher J. Grisham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You state in your article that First Sergeant Christopher J. Grisham was demoted from his rank of First Sergeant to Master Sergeant.

That is not true. Had he been demoted he would not have been allowed to retire as a First Sergeant. He went from First Sergeant to Master Sergeant (both are pay grade E-8) because he was no longer the senior E-8 in the unit.

Please correct your error as it may be construed to reflect libelously on First Sergeant Grisham's military career.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.47.236 (talk) 12:53, July 24, 2015

The source says that Grisham himself says he was demoted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

TheBlaze.com does not meet WP:RS for contentious claims about living persons. Meredith Jessup is listed on it as a "member" and the article is specifically labelled as a "blog."

In fact, Ms. Jessup writes " I’m sorry if my comments offended you. TheBlog is a place for opinion and satire, separate from the site’s news stories. If you’re looking for news, check out the front page; if you’re looking for conversation, click over to TheBlog. All are welcome! Thanks for your comments." In short not RS at all -- and stated to be not RS by the actual blog writer, who is not even paid AFAICT by TheBlaze, and is specifically not "fact-checked" by anyone.

John Sewel, Baron Sewel

This is a request for semi-protection and watchers. This chap John Sewel, Baron Sewel has appeared in The Sun, a gossip rag, and now in the Daily Mail wikipedia's article on him being subject to BLP vios is being mentioned, this is a very live story. The article clearly needs semi-protecting immediately. The story, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Worded more carefully now - the resignation is properly covered, the sensationalism is not. Collect (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And I have been accused of making up a false headline in edit summaries there - will someone kindly note that I followed the Telegraph page exactly - and the edit summaries are simply and purely ad hominem attacks on me personally. Collect (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Zakaria Botros

Page Talk:Zakaria Botros contains libellous claims regarding subject of article. (See edit [16]). 121.211.242.226 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The problematic material is about a film where the source (LAT) clearly states the person was not connected with the film. Removed. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User "Omar Amross" is accusing the article subject of illegal/immoral activities, without providing any sources for that claim (in section "False Information and Evangelical Propaganda"). His comment should be revdeleted. 121.211.242.226 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant) biased negative remark representing a tiny minority

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See [17] See [18] I have requested an edit regarding a particularly negative conclusion offered by a reporter expressing his personal point of view about my morality. The reporter states, "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best...'" Other articles about me, which I have linked to at the talk page from reliable sources, don't include such a judgement. This reporter's point of view represents a tiny minority opinion amongst the larger pool of more objective journalists and should not be included within the bio. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Stewart Jackson

Is [19] violative of WP:BLP? The claim in the edit summary is "this doesn't allege a named politician change, just that a party staffer has changed a range of articles call "Wikipedia biography changes" change language"

As the source does not in any way allege that Jackson did any editing, and is based on anonymous sources, it would be a weak source for any such claim in the first place. IMO, the placing of such an allegation not about Jackson, and not sourced to a reliable source for such a purpose, tends to be a contentious allegation by implication - which is not a proper sort of item for any BLP.

[20] is a poor source for anonymous innuendo at best - and "anonymous allegations" are generally not allowed even from major sources - "pinknews" is not in the category of a major reliable source for anonymous claims. IMO. Collect (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Heleen Mees and Willem Buiter

Editor Atlantacity seems to wish to include details of ongoing civil proceedings in the two WP:BLP above. Per WP:BLPCRIME I would suggest that this is inappropriate at this time and the editor appears to have a WP:COI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm for the background. Would welcome review from none involved editors. WCM_email 11:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It passes the threshold for being discussed in multiple reliable sources (NYPost. WT etc). While we try not to have ongoing news shoehorned into articles, that is (sadly) rarely a successful argument for not including content. WP:BLPCRIME is for accusations of criminal (illegal) acts. WP:COI is a guideline - not policy. Ongoing civil proceedings are not accusations of comitting a crime. The best argument for not including it would be WP:UNDUE - however that is a content dispute over NPOV, not a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Echosmith

Should the members of Echosmith have their full names and dates of birth published on their Wikipedia page if there are not a substantial number of sources to corroborate them? I have already reverted material on this page twice in the last day, so I can not change this again due to WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No and I've removed them with an explanatory note on the article talk page. Why someone thought song lyrics were usable as a source for a birth date eludes me.- MrX 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - @MrX:, should the dates of birth not be removed from the templates within the "Early life" section of the Echosmith article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should.- MrX 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply - @MrX:, I can not do so today per WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If the material is unsourced, its removal is usually exempted from 3RR. Don't take my word for it though. Read WP:3RRBLP.- MrX 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply - @MrX:, WP:3RRBLP says "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption", which is exactly what I am doing. The article NOW has both their ages as well as the month and day of birth, from which the year can easily be deduced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like someone has taken care of it.

BTW, there's no need to add Reply to your posts. The indenting makes is clear that they are replies.- MrX 22:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, this discussion should not be here without a property notification on the subject's talk page. I only found it by reviewing one of the above editor's edit history. Secondly The birth dates have been in the article for almost a year and yet, in one day, FOUR different editors have found it necessary to remove it from the article WITHOUT attempting to find proper sources. The last one coming after a discussion has been started on the talk page and has not reached a consensus. Almost all BLP's on Wikipedia have the subjects DOB in the lead sentence, for example Jimmy Wales, Taylor Swift, Lindsey Stirling, etc., etc. At WP:DOB I read Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject.... note the first five words: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth... The action should be to find proper sources FIRST and then only delete if they are not verifiable. And in regards to the 3RR rule, my actions have been to basically undo vandalism by FOUR different editors. See WP:3RRNO number 4. MrX above claimed exemption under number 7, BEFORE opening this discussion here which appears to me to be a violation of the second sentence of that policy. The sources that have been added, namely the VH1 source and the twitter posts that are linked from the band's website are clearly valid sources per MrK's own statement on the talk page. Furthermore, the link to metrolyrics was not added by me and was in the article form some time. Nyth63 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has yet again removed the information from the article which should not be done while the discussion is on-going. Nyth63 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The note your edit summary that and the four editors are probably on to something is nonsense. It's just as likely that all four of the editors are wrong. All the reasoning given so far regarding removing the dates of birth, would also apply to every BLP in wikipedia and you should therefore remove them all. The point is that if valid sources are given, then the dates can be included. I still have not seen a valid argument to remove the dates other than they were unsourced or poorly sourced and that has been addressed, except that now some editors are also removing the sources. Nyth63 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction, there are now FIVE different editors that have removed the same information. Nyth63 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Continued removed of sourced information without a consensus is disruptive editing. Nyth63 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP and WP:V are quite clear - removal of improperly sourced/contested content regarding a living person is the default position. The use must have the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that the policies are clear. The BLP policy very clearly states that DOB may be included if they are verified, which they are. So removing them without a consensus would apply to every BLP page. So therefore, on editor can remove the DOB on any random biography if there was no previous discussion and consensus to include it? That is rather nonsensical. Nyth63 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

And the is STILL no notification about this discussion here and the article's talk page. Nyth63 03:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fixed now. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

But the problem of editors piling on and deleting sourced material is not 'fixed'. Nyth63 10:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversial statement about an identifiable person

This edit by Superbootneck (talk · contribs) (and several similar edits in the article history) contains allegations and enough information to identify an individual at a school. It is supported by a link to a page on a website. That page is a long way from an WP:RS. The page appears to be the only page on the site and there are no contact details.

The editor's first edit on Wikipedia was in 2006, but is still making edit summaries sample and edits sample that go against our principles.

The edit history of the article shows a descent into an edit war. Any comments and advice on the way forward? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues aside, not even remotely a reliable source, so no inclusion until Superbootneck finds one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is unreliable about the source and how is anybody able to be identified? And incidentally, the treatment meted out at this school that I have referred to here resulted in one person I know who is now left scarred for life and another in a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill himself. I was under the impression Wikipedia is a resource that anybody can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbootneck (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 July 2015

'Anybody can edit' subject to such edits complying with our policies and guidelines.‎ It isn't however open to anyone to add anything they like, sourced only to random websites that could say more or less anything. Content needs to be verifiable in published reliable sources - which is to say sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - particularly so when covering controversial material. If such sources exist, cite them - and if they don't, the material isn't going to be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Sadan

Could use another look on the added information about his arrest in 2014. A brief Google search indicates the information is probably OK (per several mostly regional newspapers). 1) Should the information be kept without additional information and context? Per WP:BLPCRIME this seems problematic (I already removed a detail, which was even more problematic (diff) 2) Does any US-based editor have any update on this incident per chance? (a bit off-topic for the BLP request here, I know). Disclaimer: Without more information I take no stance on the factual correctness of the mentioned allegations. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)