Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive263

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

User:ASSASSINOFYOUTH/sandbox

User:ASSASSINOFYOUTH/sandbox I’m just not sure about this. BLP applies everywhere, do others think this complies? Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well... there's this. GMG ^talk 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about many of the sources. I don't have time to go through them and see how reliable they are, or how accurate the info is, but I'd check first for possible copyvios. The individual writing-style, verb usage, etc., changes dramatically from one paragraph to the next, so that seems suspicious coming from a single user. However, most of it seems to be nearly a direct copy (or way too-close paraphrasing) of this from Pitchfork.com (who I would not consider reliable.) Perhaps someone more familiar with copyright (like perhaps Moonriddengirl) should take a look.

Lacking that, the information itself seems relevant to the subject, but I'd say requires some good sources. As written, it contains way too much commentary --in the second-person-- and rather gratuitous graphic-imagery. A simple summary of the disputes is sufficient; we don't need a blow-by-blow account, and it's not censorship to provide the information using a more clinical approach. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, do you see a copyright issue? I agree with Zaereth on how to describe the dispute. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. If we have solid sources describing the dispute we can use them, but not soundbytes. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at this content when he added it to Oasis (band). It's a collection of quotations, not copyvio per se. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining in which way Pitchfork is unreliable or not a legit source? It's an online music magazine/newspaper that has been operating for more than twenty years. The interviews aren't soundbytes, these are interviews hosted by music journalists for their respective magazines/newspapers/journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASSASSINOFYOUTH (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

When assessing the reliability of a source there are several factors to look at, such as does the information agree with other sources? Is it written in a professional manner? Does it contain commentary or opinions of the author? Is the style persuasive, narrative, descriptive or expository? Do they have editorial oversight? All these factors and more come into play when determining the reliability of a source. It's not just a simple matter of saying 'these are well-respected people.'

For example, even respected news outlets like the NY Times or CNN have their opinion pieces (op/ed pieces, or persuasive writing) along with their real news stories (expository writing). The opinion pieces are not reliable sources, even though the actual news stories from the same sources are.

I only had time to look at the one source I linked above. There is a lot of commentary and opinions of the author, which makes it appear much more like an opinion piece than an actual news story. I didn't say Pitchfork.com is unreliable as a whole, but rather that I didn't check them out enough to be sure (hoping someone else would). I wouldn't consider that particular article from them to be. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I see what you mean. However, the article, although written with a humorous tone, doesn't seem to suggest the author's opinion on the subject other than the fact that he/she finds it comical. It's pretty much a list or a record of the Gallaghers' boyfight. Let me know your thoughts when you get to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASSASSINOFYOUTH (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The description of the Gallagher brothers' conduct in your sandbox isn't encyclopedic. Encyclopedic articles use short paraphrases describing what is presented in greater detail elsewhere, describing the Gallaghers and what they do which is notable (appear on stage at concerts and insult each other creatively, hit each other now and then, for example). That information ought to come from reliable secondary sources. Our article on Pitchfork, where most of your information seems to originate, refers to controversy about their journalistic standards. More and better sources for information regarding the Gallagher brothers would be very helpful in establishing a consensus in the press regarding their antics. While the Pitchfork article was entertaining, if I were writing that article, I'd want other sources of information. loupgarous (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael J. Saylor

As I've just posted at Talk:Michael J. Saylor, a very large edit was recently made to the Michael J. Saylor biography by an account with no prior history. It's duplicative of a controversy already mentioned on the article (as well as the article about his company, MicroStrategy), also contains some non-RS sourcing, and I believe should be reverted. MicroStrategy is a client of my firm, so I won't do it myself. Is anyone here willing to take a look and exercise their own judgment? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not AFD --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Carmen Elena Figueroa

Not a celebrity. She only participated in the Miss Universe contest 40 years ago. And didn't even win the title of Miss Universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Irma Dimas

This person is not a celebrity. Shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for notorios people, for real celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Alba Delgado

This person is not a celebrity. Shouldn't be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Patricia Murillo

She doesn't meet the criteria of a celebrity or notorious person. Shouldn't be on Wikipedia

Idubina Rivas

This person is not notorious and doesn't meet the criteria of a celebrity. Should not have a page on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Elena Tedesco

Not a celebrity. Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Larissa Vega

This person doesn't meet the celebrity criteria. Should be deleted from Wikipedia

Sonia Cruz

This person is not a celebrity or notorious person. Submitted for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ana yancy clavel

This person is not a celebrity. Not notorious. I am submitting it for deletion because it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for a celebrity status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Stefania Incandela

Submitting article for deletion. It doesn't meet the criteria of a notorious person or celebrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Charles Keating III

In the third table of contents^[1], of Mr. Keatings page^[2], it speaks about his son and his importance in life. I tired to do it myself but my account is not old enough. Is it possible to make a page for Charles Keating IV? I never knew the gentleman, but he died fighting for others and I would like to think he was special enough to have a page for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPieceOfGold (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating_III#Charles_Keating_IV
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating_III

@ThatPieceOfGold: Charles Keating IV appears to meet notability guidelines of WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG, so feel free to start an article about him. It seems improper and unbalanced to devote a third of the article Charles Keating III to his son, you might simply split that into a new article (see WP:PROPERSPLIT and WP:Copying within Wikipedia). Since Charles Keating IV is already a redirect, you can simply overwrite the redirect here. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Tobias Huber

The arcticle has templates on it which assert or suggest that Tobias Huber is involved in the process of undisclosed paid editing. It is true that the article's author was involved with (and got blocked for) undisclosed paid editing. However there is no proof that this is the case with all his articles. Where there are specific quality problems, it is of course appropriate to point this out. Author and subjects of his articles origin from Germany, and in de:wp we descided to concentrate on concrete quality-issues after some of the persons depicted in the articles complained in OTRS, they had never paid for articles nor did they even know the author. As the templates I mentioned don't have manuals or rules (they don't exist in de:wp) I don't know if they're placed correctly in that way, but I know they can do harm to people when there's no proof they're involved in paid editing. So my suggestion would be to replace them by appropriate templates pointing out quality problems (NOPV, Citation, ...) if they exist. --Superbass (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the norms for the paid editing template, but it does not say the person was in any way involved in paid editing. While the most common form of paid editing is the subject or someone connected to them, it could also be someone completely unconnected, e.g. a fan paying for the edits, or even a competitor. The COI template is a little different, but in the end same thing. A child or parent, sibling, close friend, domestic partner etc could edit an article on the subject, without the subject knowing, perhaps with the subject even being horrified if they ever find out. I don't know about people, but AFAIK with more general subjects COI can also imply someone with a strong connection to a competitor/rival etc. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In a theoretical way, you're right. An article about a living person could have a problem with paid editing or COI without the person concerned having anything to do with it. In practice, of course, no reader believes that.

The two tags deviate strangely from other quality-related tags: While the latter always target a specific problem within the article (NPOV, References, ...), the former point to a (presumed) author's problem. And this always casts a bad light on the person depicted, which is actually not allowed in the article Namespace. --Superbass (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI is more than an author problem. "It undermines public confidence" in the whole project. Therefore we do not "cast a bad light" on something good, but a good light on something bad. It seems that some people in de:wp still have to learn a bit on this issue. --Saidmann (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Idubina Rivas

Delete Not notorious, not a celebrity. It should not be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.22.215 (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Not an expert in this area, but there is no problematic content in our article on Idubina Rivas. Looking at the big box at the bottom of the article, all of the other Miss Universe 2015 contestants have articles, so she appears to be notable enough. Edwardx (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katsheron/Dr._Marvin_Tile

How do we remove this from Google? I created the article Marvin Tile, which is pending release to Google, and for some reason this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katsheron/Dr._Marvin_Tile is searchable instead. What did I do wrong? -Katsheron (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katsheron: You could simply delete the draft article at Simple Wikipedia. Marvin Tile on English Wikipedia has now been reviewed and will now be indexed for search engines (see details at New pages patrol). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity - Wrong School

Sean_Hannity is cited as attending Sacred Heart Seminary in Hempstead, NY. Sacred Heart Seminary in Hempstead, NY is an all-girls preparatory school.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Academy (Hempstead, New York) was founded in 1949. Sacred Heart Seminary in Hemsptead, Long Island opened in 1869 as a small boarding school for boys, called St. Mary's, in Flushing, Queens, and was renamed Sacred Heart Seminary in 1873. It later moved to Hempstead, and celebrated its centennial in 1973.^[2] The link in Sean Hannity is incorrect in any case, as it links to Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart_Academy_(Hempstead,_New_York)
^ Price, Jo-Ann (27 May 1973). "Catholic School Celebrates 100th Year". The New York Times.

Admin help at Al Franken

Seems to me this edit summary is a BLP violation and the edit/summary should be revdel'd. Could editors/Admins please have a look? [1] SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP violation, no. Might not be accurate, but I don't think it rises to the level of needing WP:CFRD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We now have the same editor repeatedly adding derogatory Categories to the page. The categories are not verified by RS and do not appear in the article text to describe Franken. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries don't usually fall under WP:BLP. Usually, edit summaries which involve contentious language about other editors are valid concerns.

Moreover, this particular edit summary says:

"(Added Template:Current ahead of potential resignation.)"

Sen. Franken has, as reported in The New York Times, announced on 7 Dec 2017 he is resigning. WP:BLP requires that any biographical statement about a living person be drawn from a reliable source. So, this edit summary, in the doubtful case it ever was actionable under WP:BLP, no longer is. There were plenty of reports in reliable sources before 7 Dec 2017 that the Senator was considering resignation, and that he'd been urged to do so by members of the congressional Democratic leadership. Thus, "potential resignation" was also covered in reliable sources.

Any issue you may have about "derogatory categories" added to our article Al Franken should be supported by diffs showing what you're talking about. I don't see that now, nor do I see evidence that a WP:BLP issue ever existed with this editor's work on Al Franken. As the complainant, you're obliged to supply diffs/cites showing us what's wrong. Please do so. loupgarous (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out that firstly WP:BLP applies to "adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Edit summaries are included in this, and have been rev-del numerous times previously when found to be a violation. Secondly regarding categories: This is certainly a BLP violation without a conviction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, and the example of the conduct under discussion, Only in death does duty end, and apologies, SPECIFICO.

However, the user summary you reproduced isn't terribly controversial; many usually reliable sources, including the New York Times have confirmed the "sexual harassment" part of the user summary comments, and Franken has publicly admitted to some acts of sexual harassment. The comments that Franken was also accused of sexual assault may be constructively WP:THETRUTH but I can't find anything in the reflist of Al Franken specifically calling his conduct "sexual assault". THAT part of the user summary and placing the article in the sexual assault category is probably WP:SYNTH. Any unwanted personal contact is an "assault" legally, but in wikipedia we need a good secondary source calling it that. loupgarous (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, however there is still no credible or widely vetted use of the term "sexual harassment", which in the USA refers to acts in the context of employment. I agree with your view as to "sexual assault" which, similarly, is a defined term. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources stating "there is still no credible or widely vetted use of the term "sexual harassment""? If you cannot find reliable sources to support your contention, then it's WP:OR. Many usually reliable sources, including the New York Times have confirmed the "sexual harassment" part of the user summary comments. In addition to the New York Times article I just mentioned, several other usually reliable sources are cited in our article Al Franken which support the statements with respect to sexual harassment in the user summary. I also don't think that editor intended to write a tendentious edit summary that Mr. Franken was accused of sexual assault; WP:SYNTH is easy enough for even experienced editors to do inadvertently. It's not, in my opinion, worth revdel-ing. That's a drastic remedy that I've had admins refuse to make when the issue was information that broke US Federal law on providing information useful in making WMD. loupgarous (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Aztec High School shooting - kiwifarms

An edit war brewing here at the article about a recent school shooting in the USA -- actually it is more a WP:BDP but certainly still sensitive. Would appreciate any thoughtful input. Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't even close to a question; kiwifarms is in no way whatsoever acceptable as a reliable source for anything. It really ought to be blacklisted like ED is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, if a connect to Kiwifarms is needed , here's the Daily Beast discussing that matter. But definitely avoid that as a source, period. Blacklisting would not be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 05:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Kyriakos Mitsotakis

The name of Mitsotakis' wife appears in the Paradise Papers. What I am trying to do is incorporate this information into his article just like it is already mentioned in the Paradise Papers and List of people and organisations named in the Paradise Papers articles. Botagozpope claims that this is irrelevant to the article and including this information would constitute defamation. I would like a neutral party to offer their opinion on the issue.--Catlemur (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick search for "Mitsotakis Paradise Papers" shows that this is getting widespread coverage in Greece. As long as we include something about her response to the leaked information, then there should not be a valid concern. As there are plentiful sources in English, please use those, rather than Greek language ones. I have added Kyriakos Mitsotakis to my watchlist. Edwardx (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If the paradise papers is entirely related to his wife, unless it impacts on him in some form it is irrelevant to *his* biography as it has no benefit to an understanding of the subject. An example of it impacting on him would be him quitting his political career because of the scandal etc and there doesn't appear to be any sign of that yet, or if there were suggestions she was a proxy for him etc etc (these are examples, not accusations). Also unless his wife is notable (for a reason other than being his wife) politician's spouses are almost always not considered public figures for the purposes of BLP - he is leader of the opposition but I still don't think that raises his spouse to the level that her financial dealings need to be mentioned on his page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

First of Greek politicians almost never quit or get convicted no matter how serious the scandals are. Mitsotakis has already been allegedly involved in the Siemens Greek bribery scandal and the court has yet to charge or acquit him. If you go to Putin's personal wealth section you will see numerous allegations quite similar to the one involving Grabowski. Alleged tax evasion through personal friends of no notability of their own. Should they all be removed since he denies them and refused to quit? The whole affair is actively being discussed in the Greek parliament, of course it has an impact on his party's exit poll results. As for Edwardx's request I have prepared a modified version of the paragraph.--Catlemur (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again... For some reason Catlemur has been trying to add a section about the fact that Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ spouse, Mareva Grabowski, is mentioned in the Paradise Papers leak to his biography page. Mareva Grabowski is a well known business woman who had a long and very successful career in the banking sector. Anyone who knows the slightest about investment banking is aware that banking entities operate primarily with offshore accounts. In the case of the mutual fund Mareva Grabowski co-managed, Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP was the trustee and JP Morgan London the cooperating bank, guaranteeing the fund’s legality. Long story short, this user is attempting to smear Kyriakos Mitsotakis by adding to his personal page a section about his wife’s financial activities to which he has no proven involvement whatsoever. Within the Greek political universe this non-issue is being maintained by a series of newspapers, websites and radio stations that either belong or are partially funded by SYRIZA, the ruling party that has every interest in somehow defaming the leader of the opposition. Catlemur should stop trying to propagate this completely unsubstantiated propaganda on Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ Wikipedia page. Finally, the Siemens Greek bribery scandal is being tried at the Greek courts, but this is irrelevant to Kyriakos Mitsotakis, as he hasn’t been accused of any illicit activities. And to answer Catlemur‘s statement that “the court has yet to charge or acquit him”, he needs to understand that in the free world one can only be acquitted of a crime if one has first been charged with said crime. Presumption of innocence applies even to the leader of the Greek opposition. This same discussion has taken place at the following two Wikipedia areas and this user still insists attempting to smear Kyriakos Mitsotakis:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kyriakos_Mitsotakis?markasread=123412523#Selective_Censorship

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring?markasread=123461540#User:Botagozpope_reported_by_User:Catlemur_(Result:_No_violation) Botagozpope (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything Only in Death said. There is no notability-by-association. Being the friends or family of a notable person does not automatically make them notable. In most cases, if the family member is not notable of their own accord, it is of no benefit to even name them (better to respect their privacy.) It also needs to give some better understanding of the subject. If it doesn't then it's irrelevant. I don't know enough about the specifics to judge for myself but there is a common tendency in politics to use one's family (even children) as pawns looking for the "gotcha" moment. (It's sad, but that's the mob mentality of politics, where in that groupthink it's easy to forget these are real people and usually still private citizens; actually anything and everything done to them seems perfectly ok, because "they are not us" and "everyone else is going along with it".) If it passes the former it belongs, if it is merely for the latter, it should go. Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Interesting position on the coverage of family members, well guess what Botagozpope just expanded the article's relatives section exponentially. Also really glad you wiki linked mob mentality and groupthink for us plebs, never would have understood what you mean otherwise. Meanwhile you conveniently ignore how Kathimerini and other independent news media were just branded as Lügenpresse without any proof whatsoever. I guess Mitsotakis' Linkedin page is a much better source after all, none of that criticism and independent review bullshit in it.--Catlemur (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Catlemur: Try not to lose your cool with people that just happen to have an opinion that's different to yours. When you state that I "expanded the article's relatives section exponentially" you mean that I added Mareva Grabowski as his spouse under the "Personal Life" section of the article? Cause everything else was already there. Also, the information taken from his LinkedIn page has to do with his education and work. I think even you can trust Kyriakos Mitsotakis to be truthful about where and what he studied and where and when he worked on his LinkedIn page, surely. Finally, no one (and especially not I) has branded Kathimerini as Lügenpresse. And you are trying to prove your point by linking the article that I used myself as reference that Ms Grabowski's mutual fund was legal? Some cheek you have. Now, let's end this debate here. The libelous and unsubstantiated section you had added to Mitsotakis' article was rightly removed and shouldn't be reinstated, unless there is hard proof of Mitsotakis' involvement in any relevant illicit activities in the future. Botagozpope (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom

I've just noticed that an article called List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom was created a few days ago. I vaguely remembered such a list existing before, and after a bit of searching found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't see the content of the latter, and I can't remember it either, so don't know if the new list qualifies for WP:G4. The previous AfD was also some time ago. I thought I should raise this here to see what other editors think. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The list was also deleted under WP:G5 in March 2013. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

As was LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom in March 2017. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That latter one was basically unsourced and as thus a blatant BLP violation. This has been created by a long-term editor (they've been here since 2007) with a clean block log. It's based on the first one you mentioned, with a large number of additional people added, images added, "Sexuality" removed, and some dubious claims like "known to be gay" also removed. A lot of the votes at the AfD were on BLP grounds. If this is to be deleted I think this needs a new AfD, personally. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Iczero/Ajit Pai

This userpage was originally created in article space before it was moved to user space (it was moved after I tagged it for speedy deletion). It is now tagged by the creator as a humorous page, but it contains WP:BLP violations about Ajit Pai. I looked up WP:BLPTALK and I'm quite sure we're not supposed to have BLP violations anywhere on Wikipedia, not just in article space, but I wanted to check here and see what should be done. Can I edit someone else's user page to remove BLP violations, or should I send a note to the article creator asking them to make the edits, or is there another recommended course of action in these types of situations? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

110% inappropriate and I've tagged it for speedy deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

Hi can some non-Singaporean editors look at this page and improve it? Please look at Talk Page and history too.

I have stopped editing it as I am a pro-establishment Singaporean. However this has not stopped anti-establishment editors from IMHO deviating from BLP policies and I don’t wish to engage in edit warring. I think both pro and anti Government editors have a COI, not only pro.

Historicalchild (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your former username "Juicebaby" (Calvin Cheng is the director of Juice magazine) and your pattern of editing reveals you are either Calvin Cheng himself or someone closely related to him. Conflict of interest on your part is clear. I am not sure what you mean by COI for other editors, who are not in anyway related to him. To assert COI on other editors and using politics as a bogeyman to prevent edits on a BLP is carrying it way too far. I wasn't even interested in the subject until some anonymous IP canvass for assistance on my talk page. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Because my former name has Juice in it, and Calvin Cheng is the director of Juice, I must be him or related to him? That’s too convenient isn’t it? You have a COI because you are anti PAP and your editing history shows so. Historicalchild (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have offered a few suggestions for improvement in the Talk page. -- Bistropha (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is clearly against WP:BLP. Most of the business section is now a detailed write up on ‘price fixing’. Most of the politics section is a detailed write up on a controversial facebook comment. It is not balanced. Historicalchild (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Larry Carpenter

I was asked to update this entry by the subject of the entry, using his login. I added more recent biographical information, fixed typos, and corrected some broken external links and footnotes. The subject received an email saying that the changes constituted vandalism and showed conflict of interest. While I understand that being acquainted with the subject could suggest bias, I feel certain that the changes I have made are minor, and are objectively, factually correct. I don't want to compound the problem by trying to remove the template message myself. Can someone visit this page to verify that it does comply with Wikipedia's content policies? That would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.102.17 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Lymari Nadal

An IP added information about her death, supposedly on "15.9.2017" in some sort of WWE wrestling match mishap (see [2]) I reverted it, but wanted to confirm.--Auric talk 15:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Reporting someone's death has to be backed up by a good reference and in this case these are none that I can find. Now I suppose she could have had a career change to become a wrestler, and subsequently died in the bizarre way described, and this could have passed unnoticed by everyone except this IP, but somehow I doubt it. And even if it had, we'd still need a reference! Neiltonks (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Anthony J. Hilder

The section "Controversies" has no date or reference, no supporting links/footnotes and makes statements that are potentially libelous and seem to have no corroborating links that I can find. It appears to be completely made up.

I am not a registered Wikipedia editor and don't want to delete a whole section on my own decision, but I think that is exactly what should be done, to delete the section.

@2601:645:4201:3a00:19e8:804:4bdb:e7e6: Is one of the IP editor that the Geo-locate is came from the state of Virginia, Herndon city who did it, I have reverted. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Leanne Sarah Holland

This article was flagged for attention here in March, when it was titled for a person who has been exonerated by a court. As I noted then, an editor saying he is that person had posted on the talk page. I and others have since improved the article as well as moving it, but inadequately referenced "updates" continue to happen: see edit summaries in the recent history. Could some of the experienced BLP people who watch here, particularly those with good access to recent Australian press to establish whether it is indeed out of date, please watchlist this? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm still watchlisting - keep on reverting the unverified accusations, Wikipedia:Pending changes would be a benefit imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Wyler

Should Jeff Wyler should go to AfD? Unsure and would like some input. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@JMHamo:, yes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Mayella Mena

DeleteThis person is not notorious and the article is poorly sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B00:CE0:7564:9971:9A69:7CF4 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of Sammy Yatim

While this article is about the death of a person in a police action, numerous non-notable witnesses are identified by name, including in the lead. Even if those witnesses are named in the references, what is the value of including their names in this article, and does this violate BLP? Seems undue to me to include their names. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely none. There is a lot of unnecessary name-dropping, including witnesses, victims, and even judges. I'd say it violates BLP on a few levels and any names not notable, widely sourced, and absolutely essential to telling the story should be removed on sight or replaced with generic descriptions. (I'd do it myself but am very limited on time right now.) We should respect people's privacy and avoid harming the victims anymore than they already were. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is unnecessary to include the names of non-noteworthy witnesses and incidental figures (nor to go into excessive detail with direct quotes), and have removed many names. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Marlon Brando

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Marlon Brando about which of his many children should be listed in the article. I don't think the editors there are familiar with BLP policy, as they have almost no source citations for any of the children, most of whom are still living, and some of whom have disputed parentage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Pink Tide

I would like the request the article of Pink Tide to be reviewed by third parties, especially the Pink Tide#Corruption sections. It goes into great lenghts to report corruption charges and accusations against Latin American politicians, all of them living people, and some of them still under trial or investigation but in most cases with no convictions yet but is still mostly worded as if they were guilty. Thank you in advance. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashkin

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

Recent activity on this article includes adding material sourced to "The American Spectator". It's clear to me this source does not meet WP:RS. I fully expect the editor will continue to revert -- so, additional eyes on the article could be useful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

- I fail to see how The American Spectator is an unreliable source. It may have a conservative focus, and the article cited is sympathetic to Rubashkin, but including conservative publications is on its face no less objectionable than including more liberal publications like Mother Jones, and omitting prominent conservative views would violate WP:NPOV. See also WP:BIASED. I note the article also cites sources like Yeshiva World News and Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which could also be inferred as having certain inherit biases (no source is without bias). The more salient issue, in my opinion, is how much [weight to give the report by Arnold Steinberg, per WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:BALANCE. The report contains a mixture of facts and commentary, not uncommon in longer form reporting like The Atlantic. Clear opinions like "Rubashkin is a kindly man" shouldn't be transferred to Wikipedia, but facts like "Six months ago Rubashkin’s lawyers sought a certificate of appealability"..." should stand on their own. The additions to Wikipedia based on Steinberg's report do seem to give undue weight to that particular article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Kenji Yamamoto (composer born 1958)

Article makes the claim that his music was "known by fans" to be plagiarized since to 2010, with an extremely dubious source, and the factual claim (attributed to a slightly better source) that his music has since been replaced as a result. Whether or not this is "true", I feel like the article has serious sourcing issues.

The source for the claim that "it was known" is just some fan site that makes the claim that there is plagiarism, and the fact that ja.wiki makes the same claim makes me suspect it is the result of whoever wrote that fan site piece trying to "take credit" as the "first" person to notice it. I say the Kanzenshuu source is slightly better because, while they seem to have some kind of editorial team, the article itself is clearly based on two sources: this official announcement from the animation studio that their show's music would likely be overhauled as a result of potentially infringing on the rights of third parties (it doesn't mention Yamamoto by name), and the "fans" for whom it was a "fun pastime ... to point out clear homages and references in Yamamoto’s music".

Not sure if blanking the article or taking it to AFD would be better. The problem is that with a lot of these kinda things, the fans who write our articles think the subject must be notable enough to have a standalone article, even if the only noteworthy things we can say about the subject are things we can't say because BLP demands better quality sourcing than we can find for a minor figure behind the production of a cartoon and some video games, who appears to have been quietly removed from said production because of possible copyright concerns with some of his work, and the only sources covering it are self-publishing fans adding their own spin onto vaguely-worded primary sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

...and it just came to my attention that the article was deleted in 2009. And it confirms what I said above about fans thinking the subject must be notable -- it was only 7-5 in favour of deletion despite the earlier version apparently also having BLP problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman)

Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman) needs significant attention as a WP:SPA seems to have created a hatchet job on the subject. I'm tempted to completely reduce it to a stub. Can others please look into this and address? only (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Alaska Thunderfuck

Need some additional eyes on this article - two editors are insisting on adding personal information with unreliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another problem was inconsistent pronouns - there are multiple switches. I've made it match the [philly mag source http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2013/03/29/girl-talk-gabbing-alaska-rupauls-drag-race/], but I'm not exactly sure if that's right for early life section? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Peter Rathjen

An article about someone who really has made minimal significant contribution to human society through his very short lived scientific career. The article reads like a resume or biography of a self-interested careerist and has no substance to it. I recommend that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.209.137 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide" is an absolutely clear-cut example of "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". There's no possible way we're going to delete this. ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

If the Queen is still alive and reigns on Monday May 27, 2024, then she shall become the longest reigning Monarch of a sovereign country in European history, surpassing King Louis XIV of France, who reigned 72 years and 110 days. <Wikipedia Louis XIV of France> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedr412YG (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is nice for her, but it is not really an issue. So not requiring discussion on this noticeboard, which is for issues (problems). MPS1992 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "We must get the article right", and I don't think the article can ever be right if it acknowledges the continuing existence of a hereditary monarch, so the only way to get the article right is to depose the monarch, IMHO. Must ArbCom agree, or is it sufficient to have consensus at this page? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI about RFC regarding living FBI official

FYI, there is an RFC happening here regarding FBI official Peter Strzok. The question is whether the lead should say that he rose to become the number two official in the FBI Counterintelligence Division. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Dulwich College Beijing

This edit might need scrutiny. I reverted pending post here. One source is the Mirror, but the other two might be reliable enough for this sort of content. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit was bit undue imo, looking at the sources, only one good one mentions the Dulich and only in regards to Neal McGowan, I expect the others did work at Dulich but the reporting is not focused on that connection so the addition as presented seems to me like a bit of an attack on the school. Disclaimer, I didn't click on the daily mail link. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Update - it's been replaced again (I have removed it) by a new user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1748283-021jfkldajfkldarourkeajnd,manfda has moved to talk page arbitration? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Note. I've fully protected this for a week to ensure some stability during this (and other) discussions. Ged UK 14:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have just created a page for Arjun Malhotra. But a salutation Shri got copied to the title by mistake. Please remove it.

I have just created a page for Arjun Malhotra. But a salutation Shri got copied to the title by mistake. Please remove it.

Shreyoshi ghosh (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Shreyoshi Ghosh

Shreyoshi ghosh The title Arjun Malhotra is currently salted as a result of repeated recreation despite several deletions and discussion. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Shreyoshi ghosh, and I suspect you know this. Please do not recreate the article again or you may be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Simon profile on Google from Wikipedia

Kirk Simon is married to Mina Farbood. Married in NY on 10/3/12. Wikipedia via Google states another person. Please correct. Can forward marriage certificate. Page is locked to me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F982:E700:5949:5E3C:7788:BE60 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's an issue with Google's cache, not necessarily us. It takes a few days for Google to update when things are changed on our end. (Our article, in fact, doesn't even mention his marital status, unless you mean a different Kirk Simon.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Simon and Karen Goodman have collaborated as filmmakers for many years. A 1989 New York Times article states that they were married at that time. That article is used as a reference in Goodman's biography which states she is married to Simon. Perhaps they are no longer married and he has married someone else. However, we cannot use a marriage certificate for this purpose, since that is a primary document, and there are many people named "Kirk Simon". We need something like a press report that says that Oscar winning documentary filmmaker Simon is married to Farbood. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That would explain the OP's complaint. I assumed it was an issue with Simon's article because she didn't mention Goodman what-so-ever. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, OP is complaining about what Google says. There's a feedback button at the bottom of the Google infobox on a subject that will let you tell Google that something is incorrect. That said, it's usually worth double-checking whether our coverage here on Wikipedia or on Wikidata is incorrect when there's a BLP concern. OP shoudl use Google's feedback form since it doesn't look like there's an error on our end. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

George Ciccariello-Maher

I looked up the subject because he was in the news due to his resigntion. I found an article that describes his as being influenced by Karl Marx and advocating for white genocide. I cleaned up the infobox and the lead a bit (diff), and I wonder if any interested editor could have a look at the article. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

He states that the "white genocide" tweet was a joke, but he certainly has a tendency to make inflammatory comments. I expanded the reference to today's CNN article on his resignation. More eyes would be useful since I am off to bed soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. He's been an on-again, off-again interest of mine for his access to various Chavista groups and I very briefly corresponded with him a few years back. A lot of nuance is lost in translation with younger academics like him who mix social media and contemporary leftist terminology. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Christine Talbot

Christine's stated year of birth (1969) is almost certainly incorrect, since she would then have been aged only 15 at the start of the NCTJ course in Preston in 1984, open only at the time to A-level leavers (aged 18) or graduates (typically 21). Therefore Christine's true date of birth will be between 1963 and 1966.

If we accept the section stating she was at NCTJ when it says she was, the DOB is likely incorrect. The source for the section on her NCTJ attendance is currently unavailable, and there is no source for the DOB, so I have removed the DOB pending confirmation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Gavin Andresen

"and by 2011 was designated by Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, as lead developer on Bitcoin Core"

No he was not. There is no evidence that satoshi designated Gavin as the "lead developer". Gavin took the source code and uploaded it to sourceforge after satoshi left and there is not a single post by satoshi claiming gavin is to be the "lead developer" of anything.

Please remove this line as its factually incorrect and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.118.131 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That sentence is sourced to an MIT Technology Review article. Are you disputing that the source supports the claim, or are you disputing the accuracy of the source? MPS1992 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Ford Jr.

Doug Ford Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This biography of Doug Ford, controversial former Toronto mayor Rob Ford's brother, has recently been edited by a few accounts that look like throwaways, removing well-sourced negative information for being "outdated" or "unconfirmed" (see [3]). It just so happens that Mr. Ford is expected to run (or has already announced he is running?) for his late brother's old seat in next year's election. Can someone take a look at these edits please and consider watchlisting this article? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Dean Dunham article

Look at the edit history and you will see what I mean. IP edit warring, and so on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted to October 31 stub condition. All the additions since then violate WP:BLP in one way or several. The article should prbably be deleted entirely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

J04n has removed the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I should not have deleted this as a BLP prod, references exist in a former version. Feel free to nominate for deletion or page protection as you see fit. --J04n(talk page) 12:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

During a WP:BEFORE search, I found enough to demonstrate probable GNG compliance, so I added four references and some cat's. It's probably enough to retain, but also likely not much more than a perma-stub. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor (86.132.130.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has continued negative BLP additions. They appear to be a SPA and I don't want to start edit-warring so I'd appreciate it if more eyes were applied. I've dropped a uw-biog2 warning on their talk page. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, thanks for your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently watching the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Restraining order, battery and sexual assault content at Shannon Sharpe article

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably best left off the page since they are allegations and he has yet to be arrested or charged. Meatsgains (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My take: I think it is too soon, however, we always push for NPOV which would be showing all sides, and according to the source, Sharpe decided to "step aside" as a CBS sports analyst. This is certainly noteworthy content and hard to just end on that note. The "can of worms" is national media attention as to the reason he stepped down. Regardless of the outcome of any other events.

What I see as a problem: The Wikipedia content "Bundy accused Sharpe of sexual assault and threatening her life, according to legal documents obtained by SportsByBrooks Bundy was allegedly forced to have sex with Sharpe". I can find nothing on SportsByBrooks at all, let alone to corroborate what the article states, only what is written by other sources such as the "CBS/AP" report and echoed by other news media. If included it would seem that the article content should be worded something like: A "CBS AP report states that "according to legal documents obtained by SportsByBrooks...", and the link to the CBS AP source. Otr500 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Gerald Caplan article has no sources, (both links given are broken). There is no indication of importance other than books written by Gerald Caplan.

The subject's Notability is not verifiable. Aside from Gerald Caplan's wikipedia, Any general google search brings up a myriad of other Gerald Caplan's, none of whom have a wikipedia.

Try googling "gerald caplan canadian politician" to see that finding any evidence for any of the articles claims are obscure, if they even exist.

At best he is an obscure journalist with academic credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmacmil (talk • contribs) 04:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I will nominate it for deletion on your behalf. Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush

Accusations of inappropriate behavior have been flying in the #MeToo affair and resulted in a paragraph on the subject that is longer than the one describing his CIA career. I've made a (contested) BLP-call and reduced the section to a mention of the allegations (i.e. not detailing them), mostly since an old man telling dirty jokes isn't the crime of the century and GHW Bush no longer is a public figure by our definitions. I also think the paragraph gave WP:UNDUE weight to minor incidents. This was challenged. Can I have a few eyes on the article and perhaps (an)other opinion(s). Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske, although I agree with you that the previous version was too lengthy and too detailed, I think that you have swing the pendulum way too far in the opposite direction. A Bush spokesperson has acknowledged that the incidents took place. If you really believe that a long pattern of uninvited groping of the buttocks of various women, many of them strangers, accompanied by the same crude "cop a feel" joke, constitutes "minor incidents", then I wonder whether you are capable of neutral editing regarding sexual harassment. I consider all living former presidents to be public figures. By the way, at least one allegation of groping took place when Bush was president. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I do differentiate between things like rape (major incident) on the one hand and 'inappropriately touching' and telling corny jokes (minor incident) on the other. If you can't distinguish between those two, I'm afraid I must return the compliment about "editing neutrally". Nevertheless, I welcome your comments on the talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeatedly touching various women's buttocks without permission is not "minor", Kleuske. It is sexual assault, and you initially characterized the behavior as "telling dirty jokes". What's up with that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: If it's "sexual assualt", as you claim, where's the police reports? Sexual assault is a felony, after all, and rightly so. This isn't. If I qualified every time someone touched my butt without consent as a 'major incident', I'd kill myself. And if you're under the illusion it's just the guys doing that, you're sorely mistaken. It's a relatively unisex behavior. Hence my qualification as a 'minor incident' and I stick with that. If only to give myself some room when discussing rape or actual sexual assault. Neutrality entails not over-dramatizing minor incidents, retaining some sense of proportion. Kleuske (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between touching and groping. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) How often have people "squeezed [your] butt, hard" (without consent). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well... You're the expert, apparently. To answer that I'd need to know what force (how many Newtons) you require to satisfy the "squeezed [my] butt, hard" part before I can specify each and every incident to satisfy your curiosity. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Consider that a search on "george bush" "heather lind" brings nearly no sources since mid-Nov (the accusation in October) tells me that this was seen as a non-story at this point, at least w.r.t. to Bush. (future articles on the #metoo movement do show him as an example of someone that wasn't knocked from a pedestal when the charges can to light, unlike say Spacey or Lewis CK). I think you can afford one or two more sentences, but one of those has to be Bush's acknowledgement and apology for it, and that's pretty much it. --Masem (t) 14:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't look like it affected his legacy or image or anything much, so can't have too much on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV

Hello, I just noticed that the Aga Khan IV is referred to as the fourth "Imam and Turd" of his sect, and I'm not sure if "Turd" here signifies something other than its meaning in the English language, or if someone thought it would be funny to add that in the English meaning. Thought I should warn you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.236.200 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Have removed "and Turd". Edwardx (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Jedwabne pogrom article

This article currently alleges that a Polish politician named Anna Zalewska has denied the commonly accepted reality that Poles participated in the anti-Semitic Jedwabne pogrom during the Holocaust. It would be scandalous if accurate, and would rightly damage her reputation. But to assert she made the denial, the article uses a reference to the newspaper Haaretz, which alleges the denial in its commentary. The newspaper quotes some of her rather contorted and equivocating statements, none of which specifically makes the denial, but it is the newspaper which says these statements are a denial. Per WP:NEWSORG, Wikipedia policy doesn't support us treating commentary as reliable statement of fact. We can use the newspaper as a source for her statements, and we might even be able to say that the newspaper made the allegation that these are a denial, but Wikipedia cannot state the denial as fact. Moreover WP:SAID tells us to be shy of using the word 'deny' in the first place, and it converges here with WP:BLP's instructions for us to take particular care about what we say about living persons - especially in such volatile and litigious subject areas as the Holocaust. The Talk page discussion is live, please contribute and help us find a resolution. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note this is not an opinion piece or commentary - but news reporting by Haaretz which is generally considered a fairly solid RS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am using the term 'commentary' here to describe the newspaper's commentary within its news report; the report itself alleges the quote it has taken from a separate TV report is in fact a denial. According to its own policy Wikipedia is unable to make this statement of fact, just because Haaretz does. (We might be able to state specifically that Haaretz says it is fact, however.) This is the spirit of the policy and my rationale is unchanged. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at other sources, express doubt or questions seems closer to what RS are saying, however there aren't many english sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph in our Jedwabne pogrom article as tweaked by Icewhiz seems a not unreasonable reflection of what is in the Haaretz article. Edwardx (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Edward I think the point is that Icewhiz is now referring to other sources in addition to Haaretz, to get a consensus of sources. It appears to me that Haaretz made a slightly sensationalized interpretation of comments by the living person, as other sources don't describe what she said as a 'denial'. That's why BLP, SAID, and NEWSORG override V here. We could replace Haaretz with one of the other sources or at least add the sources Icewhiz has gone and found. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I think Haaretz's parsing of the original comments was reasonable, and it is a strong RS, however as other sources (all be it some of lower quality) parsed in a more qualified way than outright denial it was appropriate to modify the article (to "expressed doubt") per the balance in the sources as well as erring on the side of caution.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I now see that Google Translate shows she has since clarified her stance: [4] That source is in Polish, it looks like English-language newspapers have cared less that she now says Poles share responsibility for the massacre. But nevertheless it seems in keeping with right of reply standards to add it now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Kam Williams

Only functioning source is a Rotten Tomatoes profile that is equally likely to be fabricated. All other web sources do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippy.zippy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually they do indeed seem to exist.--Auric talk 01:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

They look to be consistently crappy, not reliable-third-party sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

True, but still a long way from nonexistent.--Auric talk 22:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

Hi! As additional perspectives might help, over at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur) we're having a bit of a back-and-forth about the sourcing for a claim on David Wolfe. The original statement in the article was:

He advocates that people with cancer take dietary supplements instead of getting medical treatment, which he describes as "largely a fraud."

Two sources are used. The first, from Slate, only supports the first half, (that he advocates for complementary medicine as a means of fighting cancer), but doesn't say that he recommends people use dietary supplements instead of seeking medical treatment.

The second source is a self-published contributor article in Forbes. That one quotes the "Don’t cry Wolfe" Facebook page as the source for the claim that he "will dissuade your dying relative from seeking life saving cancer treatment". It also links to a meme posted by Wolfe on his Facebook page which quotes Linus Pauling saying "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them".

My reading is that the Forbes and Facebook posts are self published and therefore per WP:BLPSPS are not strong enough to support the contentious statement, and that the Pauling quote shows - at best - that Wolfe may be opposed to some (or most?) cancer research, but not that he advocates avoiding medical treatment for cancer. However, it is claimed that WP:PARITY allows for poorer quality sources in fringe topics, and therefore we can use the Forbes article as a source for the claim, even though it is self published.

Considering WP:PARITY, is the Forbes article sufficiently reliable for the claim? - Bilby (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP is a misrepresentation and offered without sources and far from neutral.

A neutral and accurate posting here would be:

We are having a disagreement about content and sourcing at David Wolfe (entrepreneur), and both BLP and PSCI are relevant. The most recent content offered is:

He advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements,^[1] and according to Kavin Senapathy he advocates that people with cancer avoid medical treatment for cancer because it is “largely a fraud.”^[2]

References

^ Anderson, L.V. (June 28, 2015). "Everblasting Life". Slate. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
^ Senapathy, Kavin. "A New Year's Resolution For Science Advocates: Don't Cry Wolfe". Forbes. Retrieved 21 June 2016.

Please comment. Thanks.

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The "OP" (well, me) did provide sources in the above, and I also noted that I had only provided the original statement from the article. I guess I should also note in regard to the new wording discussed that a) Senapathy didn't actually say herself that Wolfe advocated "that people with cancer avoid medical treatment for cancer", but instead quoted a Facebook page that made the statement, and b) that Wolfe did not say that medical treatment was "largely a fraud", because that quote was not from Wolfe, and because it was in regard to cancer research, not treatment. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Jed Brophy

The stated place of birth (Fielding, NZ) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_Brophy is incorrect, the subject and multiple reasonable sources state the place of birth as Taihape, NZ. I have added a request to the Talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jed_Brophy to have this changed, or at least broadened to simply "New Zealand" if there is too much doubt. The help page suggested I could remove or correct errors of fact myself but given I'm a new account it seemed more appropriate to do the Talk comment and follow this process. Phirate (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Now

Resolved

by an unregistered editor and the formatting -- an inline citation -- added by me. Yes it's fine to correct things like this yourself, whether new or not. If an article is so sensitive that new accounts shouldn't be changing it, then it won't let you edit it anyway. Often only temporarily. MPS1992 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Will Bashor

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

This is an obvious autobiography, and one of the books upon which it relies for the claim of notability is self-published, but is this subject notable? Guy (Help!) 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Some red flags: The article lists "teaches at Ohio Dominican University yet their faculty directory does not include him. The most significant academic notice for his work is listed as receiving the "Adele Mellen Prize for Distinguished Scholarship", a prize apparently given by the Edwin Mellen Press, a publisher with certain credibility issues to one of its authors. I'm also unsure about the "2013 USA Best Book Awards"[5],[6]. Marie Antoinette's Head has, however, received enough coverage to be notable ([7], [8], [9], [10]) so the best course is probably to have an article about it and redirect the author's name to the book. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Laura Jane Grace

The Laura Jane Grace bio page lists her deadname immediately after her legal name; this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntigonesAncestor (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@AntigonesAncestor: Only if the subject became notable after the name change. This isn't the case here. See Chaz Bono for example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, she doesn't seem to mind her dead name being mentioned, given that she was famous prior to transition. She's even joked about reclaiming the name on Twitter (though I won't link to it, since it's possibly a BLPVIO itself). Woodroar (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a question in passing she is in the Category:Lesbian musicians which doesnt appear to be mentioned in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

She referred to her ex-wife and herself as a "lesbian couple". That should probably be in the article somewhere, but I don't know where. Woodroar (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Defamatory vandalism at James F. Amos

I've reverted several days' worth of vandalism--my concern is that the older stuff is defamatory, and may require rev/deletion. My disappointment is that this sort of stuff can get placed into the lede of a BLP and sit there for an indefinite length of time before being spotted. I'd prefer to report this at ANI, but that page is protected. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry it took this long to sport your post, but the edits have now been hidden. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Landis

I reverted some recent pending changes to Max Landis but would like a second opinion from other editors. There were two versions:

The first I feel clearly did not meet the sourcing requirements for BLPCRIME [11]
The second is sourced to the Daily Beast [12]

My opinion was that the Daily Beast is not strong enough sourcing for these types of allegations. I checked and it is not currently being reported anywhere else. Should we wait add these allegations to the article with the Daily Beast source? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely throw concern of only coverage by the Beast. Even if included, it definitely should not be in the lede until it becomes more recognized by more reliable sources. --Masem (t) 21:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

IPs keep trying to add this, and I keep reverting as a BLP violation - if anyone thinks this can be added based on the Daily Beast source, then please comment.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources are blogs and a twitter feed. Quoting directly from one of the sources: "it’s true that these are allegations on Twitter, many of them second-hand, and I haven’t seen any stories yet from a publication with fact-checkers and vetting."[13] Seems like a very good reason not to put this in an encyclopedia article. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fabio Descalzi

The writer and translator Fabio Descalzi portrayed on the article happens to be me, User:Fadesga (although the article makes no direct mention to the fact of being a Wikipedist).

There happens to be a [list of Wikipedians with articles] - please consider if this article incurs in any conflicts of interest. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Flamingoflorida

Actually, the concerns are raised on the editor's talk page about members of their family and errors in the articles about them. The user is now blocked. If someone could look into the matters raised, perhaps we might resolve the issues that led to the socking. I had a hard time parsing the information there. Might be me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Glenn R. Simpson

Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Done Removed. Codyorb (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cardi B

A large portion of this articles uses self-published sources or sources that includes blogs, gossip sites, and social media— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.143.210 (talk) 09:26, January 4, 2018‎

It is not clear what you object to and this may be better discussed at the Cardi B talk page. That said, I see a lot of statements about Cardi B made by Cardi B on her social media accounts, which is accepted use within the Biographies of living persons policy: Never use self-published sources...unless written or published by the subject of the article.emphasis in original Sourcing statements in the article such as "She went on to attend Renaissance High School For Musical Theater & Technology..." to her Instagram account, for example, fits all the requirements of using self--published sources in BLP's. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal

Hi all, I've just removed a considerable amount of detail from Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal which named a number of individuals found to have sexually abused children in a Grand Jury investigation. I haven't revision deleted any of the content yet as I wanted to get more opinions on whether including that detail is acceptable and on the future of the draft. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Some are confirmed dead like McCaa but the sourcing should still be improved regardless, there is no reason to cite to a Grand Jury report for anything other then what the Grand Jury report said. The section could be renamed "Grand Jury Investigation" instead of "Details of abuse", and revised to remove content about anyone who is not confirmed dead. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tons of content have been readded by the drafts author. And I agree any material involving any living person sourced only to court documents needs to go, and it needs to go now, with a strong warning from an administrator that re-adding them will have severe consequences. John from Idegon (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If alleged abusers have confessed to crimes against children during interviews conducted by the diocese and explained within the Grand Jury's report why do they need to go? Abuse has not only been committed but confirmed by the abusers.Cencoredme (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cencoredme:, please read this policy, particularly: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records...to support assertions about a living person.emphasis in original This absolute prohibition includes adding grand jury transcripts as sources. Note also that adding names sourced from such documents to Wikipedia articles may in some cases also violate the Terms of Use you agreed to follow when you created your account. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: If that is the case for a *living* person then so be it, the article has already been amended to reflect only those deceased and other details are from reliable articles such as the Guardian.Cencoredme (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cencoredme:, you asked why these needed to go and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the relevant policies. Thank you for saying you intend to comply with these. BLP's, particularly BLP about criminal allegations, are one area that we all need to be really, really strict about complying with the best sources. This protects both you and the project. Thanks again for understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

1 Night in Paris dvd cover

The article 1 Night in Paris, is about a pornographic video of Paris Hilton released without her consent. The article contains a photo of the dvd cover, which contains images from the pornographic video. I nominated the photo for deletion ages ago, but the file was kept, and I then proceeded to forget all about it. Rather than re-nom for deletion, and be accused of beating a dead horse or ignoring consensus, I thought I'd bring the issue here. Taking into account BLP policies, is it appropriate to have such a photo on Wikipedia. Also while this isn't a topic I know too much about, would the presence of such a file be contrary to revenge porn laws recently introduced in various US states?Brustopher (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Chef Ingrid Hoffmann Wiki

I manage celebrity chef Ingrid Hoffmann. I have attempted to make changes to her bio a few times since some current info is wrong and I would also like to add the latest information. My changes keep getting reverted. How can I make changes to reflect her original bio? Dleon1077 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you have a conflict of interest regarding the article subject, I would strongly advise that you read and follow the advice given in our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. --Chris (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

James F. Jones (educator)

Over the course of a number of years, concerns have been expressed at Talk:James F. Jones (educator) that this page has some significant BLP issues, including claims that it is an attack page and uses primary sources inappropriately. Any help with trying to resolve problems with the article would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: James Douglas-Hamilton, Earl of Arran and Cambridge

This draft page is almost entirely fictitious, creating a child born in 2000 to a real man born in 1978. Almost everything about the article is spurious. I have deleted it, amended it but the author immediately reverts changes.Sebmelmoth (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted by PhilKnight as CSD#G10 attack page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji

Hello, I'm requesting some help. I am wondering if Medium is sufficient as a source for a BLP on this page and am concerned about the precedent that this creates for other BLPs. Also, it seems like this is a case of someone whose own experiences and process ended 10 years ago, now commenting on a termination that took place 6 years ago... does this belong in a BLP article? Again, concerned about the precedent this may set for BLPs in general. Thank you! Torren (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's a blog, not a news outlet or other source providing editorial oversight. It's basically an (incredibly long) rant giving the viewpoint of one single student. Everything they say may or may not be true; who knows, but there are way too many adjectives and conclusions without any real information. (ie: lots words like "cult-like environment" or "intimidation" but no description of acts that would allow me, the reader, to make the same conclusions.) It tells us a lot about the author's feelings but shows little in the way of facts. For all we know this former student may simply be overly sensitive or even misconstruing the situation to fit their own perspective. Maybe not, but that's why we can't accept a blog, especially by a person who obviously has a personal bias in the situation. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Torren (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Well put, but there is more problem. Article has used "blog" having "personal bias in the situation". For example, sacw.net (an unreliable source) and other one is kashmirprocess.org. Should we remove every information associated with them as well? Raymond3023 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I only looked at the one source, but didn't have time to check the whole article. In fact, I still don't, but today I did take a better look. The prose is a bit disjointed and difficult to parse through. However the verb usage, tense, spatial perspective, temporal perspective, etc., all seem to suggest an article that was written mostly by the subject herself. (Even aside from the less obvious clues, many writers don't realize that a person's writing style is as unique as a fingerprint.) Most sources (as in more than half) are sources that were written by the subject or by organizations she is affiliated with. Even many of the news articles are ones that she wrote herself. While she definitely seems like a notable person, there is a serous lack of reliable --independent-- secondary sources.

For example, sources 1.) The source is the website of an organization she founded, used for most of her biographical information. 2.) Nonexistent. 3.) Nonexistent. 4.) Nonexistent 5.) Her own book. 6.) News article written by the subject, used as a ref for biographical information, yet none of that info is found in the source. 7.) Her personal website 8.) Her personal website. 9.) Her personal website. (Does anyone see a pattern forming?) Skip ahead, Source 12.) The first reliable, secondary source, which details the reason she was fired (from the organizations records, not some student's blog) yet our article glosses over most of that pertinent information. I could go on, but most of what I've seen follows this same pattern. Overall, there is a serious lack of reliable, independent, secondary sources.

Most of the rest of the article is not so much about her but rather detailing the causes or movements she supports. While some description of her causes in necessary in understanding her, the article should be about the subject and not focus on nor push those causes. The style of the article is not so much expository or encyclopedic as it is a mix of academic and persuasive writing (an odd mix, reading something like a resume daftly disguised as a field report). I think it should be trimmed a lot to focus on the subject, and tone down a lot of the personal perspective. Keep in mind that BLP works in accordance with, but ultimately trumps all other policies. Sources published by the subject can be used for certain types of information --under very specific conditions-- but I would suggest studying the policies closely to determine what can stay and what should go. (I suspect most of the article can be gutted.) Zaereth (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanessa Beeley

Needs help from the BLP-perspective. Sources include her blog, twitter, linkedin, 21st Century Wire etc. She "calls for violence" and "People who oppose Vanessa Beeley can become victims of threats and harassment from her supporters" in WP:s voice. Probably meets WP:GNG though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The "article" was a hit piece, "sourced" to rumor and conspiracy sites and primary sources. It may be that this individual is notable and an appropriate article can be written about them, but that one sure wasn't it. I've deleted it under G10. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Having said that, judging by the parts that were sourced to reliable sources, I suspect any article on this person would focus more on the negative than the positive. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Mario Scaramella

Dear Sirs, this page was created in the year 2006 by different authors and substantially was not modified since that period, I only made little contributions to clarify details. on December 2017 a new unknown author Mrtno made a total change of the basic information (lawyer, academic and nuclear expert) quoting Mario Scaramella is NOT but he claims to be a lawyer etc. this means he is a fabricator and committed a fraud, the new author also stated Mario Scaramella wrote the article on his own. This change is very dangerous for the reputation of Professor Scaramella and is a defamation. The entire carreer of Professor Scaramella is reported on the www.litvinienkoenquiry.org (now at webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk) and the source quoted by the new author Mrtno (the Independent, article by Peter Popham) is declared by Judge Robert Owen of the High Court as fake and fabricated. It is important to remove the changes by the author MRTNO because this represent a clear and well documented libel. Please restore the original text wich represent the neutral contribution of dozens of different author and was well managed by administrators for more than 10 years. Thank you Mario Scaramella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.29.204 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You have already removed the problematic content from that article but I will add it to my watchlist and I have warned Mrtno about proper sourcing for biographical subject articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Eggishorn, Mario Scaramella claims to be "a lawyer, security consultant and academic nuclear expert", and indeed it sounds pretty bombastic, but as reported by the article of Peter Popham in 2015 - so, years later after the facts - many of those claims were unsubstantiated. The other source cited is too old, and doesn't give a full picture. The precedent contribution says that "page was created in the year 2006 by different authors and substantially was not modified since that period" and that's correct, but in 2012 Mario Scaramella was condemned to jail for 3 years and 6 months (source in Italian: http://giornalesm.com/mario-scaramella-condannato-dal-tribunale-di-rimini-per-calunnia-a-3-anni-e-6-mesi-30933/ & https://www.altarimini.it/News52309-rimini-condannato-a-tre-anni-e-sei-mesi-mario-scaramella.php among many others) for "calunnia" (slander). In my opinion the page should reflect those developments. I don't see why the article of "the Independent" by Peter Popham is problematic. Please also note that "www.litvinienkoenquiry.org" doesn't exists at all, and it seems it never existed. So, it can't be used as a source. In particular, it should made clear where the article by Peter Popham "is declared by Judge Robert Owen of the High Court as fake and fabricated". I suggest to revert the page to reflect my modifications. That said, I won't modify the page further. Happy new year! Mrtno (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mrtno:, as I said in replying on my talk page, while the Independent is a generally reliable source commentaries, editorials, and other opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable for BLP purposes. The article by Popham is clearly identified as a commentary and this type of article is a reliable sources only for the opinion of those taking responsibility for them (i.e., the author or organization whose byline appears or the editorial board for unsigned editorials). We cannot base factual claims in BLP articles on them. The Italian convictions for slander are not evidence that he is not who he claims to be, as your earlier edits were trying to establish. A conviction for slander is simply that, not a general refutation of every statement Scaramella has made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kiwi Farms

I looked over this article carefully and it is almost entirely negative BLP content - the sourcing for it is not suitable for this type of BLP content, in my opinion, and parts of it (like comparisons to Nazis and Hitler) misrepresent the sources. I nominated it for speedy deletion as WP:ATP but that was turned down. I was going to nominate for MfD, but since the editor is so upset about the nomination and says he is a new editor acting in good faith, I think a community discussion somewhere more visible would be better.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This has come up before. @JzG: is this the same article you nuked before? Fyddlestix (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Different content, but undoubtedly the same person. Blocked for block evasion and draft nuked per WP:CSD#G5. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Krishi Thapanda article

Seems that the article should be deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed the article. All of Naol Rac's (Naol Rac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 150.129.89.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) articles could use some extra eyes.

Rishi (Kannada actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahesh Babu (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hitha Chandrashekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judah Sandhy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jayanna Combines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rockline Entertainments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Krishi Thapanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 09:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael DeLorenzo

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

Poorly sourced article about a rather prolific actor (Fame (1982 TV series), Head of the Class, New York Undercover, Resurrection Blvd.).

I recently stumbled upon this BLP, and have been searching for better sources, focusing on his early life to see if it's possible to pin down his date of birth (Talk:Michael_DeLorenzo#Year of birth. There's been a large amount of WP:SPA editing since June 2017, and the article relies heavily on his website, IMDB, and YouTube for sourcing.

Help would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Tiger Beat article from 1985 cites him as 23 in 1985 so that would make his birth year 1962. copy available here: http://www.fameforever.com/series/interview55.php —Janelovely —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The single-purpose accounts focusing on this biography since 2010 are worrisome; I think they could be the same editor violating WP:MULTIPLE, or they could be paid editors. The latest one, Janelovely, provided a URL to a magazine article image that was uploaded to Google Groups, violating copyright laws. And above you can see Janelovely provided a URL to a website run by Pamela Rosensteel that is hosting a Tiger Beat article without permission – another copyright violation. The actor is certainly worthy of having a good biography, but these SPA accounts are not the answer. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Shaunti Feldhahn

This BLP article is based solely on primary sources. I'm not familiar with Christian Evangelical/self-help book writers and which US news sources are considered trustworthy when it comes to this topic. Can someone take a look at this? NoCringe (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've stubbed it completely. Whether she's notable or not, there are no inline sources and it (was) written like an advertisement - which is unsurprising as most of it was a copyright violation from the subject's own site and related web pages. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking into it. NoCringe (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Paul Pelosi Jr.

The initial section reads like promotional material, culled from his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.204.135 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I stubbed it, as it was almost entirely unsourced. Might be best just to take to WP:AfD once again if no one can find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tony Mawejje

Multiple sources, including FIFA and the Football Association of Iceland, list his year of birth as 1986. However, his year of birth is constantly being edited to 1990, with those who edit that providing a single source from a football statistics website. Dalitidlamadur (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's any evidence that '86 may be incorrect, or that he's been trying to keep his age private, then it would probably be best to remove the year per WP:DOB.

Are there any detailed biographies about him? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Bahar Mustafa and Milo Yiannopoulos

Hey BLPN. A dispute has arisen on the page Bahar Mustafa race row incident about the inclusion of quotes/opinion from Milo Yiannopoulos sourced from Breitbart. The quotes pertain to a police investigation against Bahar Mustafa for tweeting "#killallwhitemen." Milo is quoted opposing the police investigation on free speech grounds and describing Mustafa as "a complete fucking lunatic" and "another ten-penny arsonist in a sea of pre-programmed feminist automatons." Is it appropriate to cite Breitbart in such a manner from a BLP perspective? --Brustopher (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents is leave in his support of free speech while summarizing the disparaging comments as disparging comments (without fully qupting them).Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Never. Breitbart is absolutely an unacceptable source for anything about a living person. There is no evidence that the opinion of a fringe far-right commentator published in a non-RS far-right publication merits inclusion here. Why do we care what Milo thought about this? Answer: we don't. The mere existence of an opinion is insufficient to justify its inclusion, particularly given that no reliable source could be bothered to publish it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinions cited and used as opinions are still allowed from almost any source imaginable. Collect (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Almost any source imaginable" - you're acknowledging there are exceptions, and one of those is Breitbart. If Milo can't get his garbage published in a source worthy of the name, there's no particular reason we should bother including it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

As a cursory BEFORE shows, this was actually reported elsewhere, e.g. vice.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Milo's opinion is relevant only to Milo's actions, he is not a recognized or credentialed authority figure on any topic whatsoever. Does not belong in this or any article outside of his own and perhaps Breitbart. TheValeyard (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"he is not a recognized or credentialed authority figure on any topic whatsoever" - the same could be said of a great many socio-political media commentators, surely? They are just there to give their opinion to a readership or viewership who may be interested in it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't include literally everything ever said about someone by anyone. We pick and choose - that is the very essence of editing. We can, and should, choose high-quality sources on all sides that make meaningful comments which enlighten and inform our readers. I would posit that literally nothing Milo has ever written about anything has ever enlightened anyone. The article is improved immensely by omitting his mindless invective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Breitbart as a source, I looked through the archives and it seems that—although Breitbart is never considered a reliable source for news coverage—it is acceptable to use its op-eds for socio-political commentary. That is particularly the case when said op-eds are written by prominent commentators like Milo or Steve Bannon. From reading the comments here, I'm a little concerned that several editors are opposing the inclusion of the material simply because they dislike Milo Yiannopoulos and Breitbart. Now there's nothing wrong with disliking Yiannopoulos or Breitbart (hell, I'm not exactly a fan). But simply not liking him and thinking that his views are poppycock is not a reason for ruling him out as a significant political commentator. At the end of the day, he is probably one of the most widely recognisable political commentators of the past five years, in the U.S. and U.K. at least. (Can anyone name a single political commentator who has attracted greater press attention for their actions in recent years?). Remember, "I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument for removing material from Wikipedia, and I've yet to see a single argument other than that presented here. And as Icewhiz has shown, Milo's views on this incident have even been quoted on other media platforms like Vice, so it clearly meets notability guidelines. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What does it add to this article to note that a *redacted* writing on a far-right website called her "a fucking lunatic"? What, from an encyclopedic standpoint, do our readers gain from that? Nothing, right? So why would we include it? We don't include in Donald Trump any leftist loudmouth lout calling him an "orange fascist" though it would be trivial to find such a quote somewhere. We are writing encyclopedia articles, not compendia of ad-hominem insults. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the "fucking lunatic" quote per se. What I object to is the total removal of any mention of Milo's views from the article, which to my mind is purely being defended with the argument that 'he's a bigot and he's got far-right views and he's a loudmouth and no one needs to know what he's got to say'. That's just "I don't like it" and it's not a legitimate argument for removal. As I see it, Icewhiz made a perfectly reasonable suggestion that the prose be edited to remove the direct quotation while keeping to the general gist, i.e. that we describe how Milo supported Mustafa's right to free speech in the face of legal prosecution while also criticising her standpoint. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the comparison with the Donald Trump article is not really a particularly fair one. The Donald Trump article must give coverage to a vast selection of events and incidents, the Bahar Mustafa race row incident is far, far more restricted in scope. The former article should ideally rely on the work of biographers and professional academics; the latter will inevitably rely more on press sources and op-eds. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It may simply be my own ignorance, but why should we accord Mr. Yiannopoulos' opinion any greater weight or notability than other commentators? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: We don't, at least not on the article in question. There, we record the views of various commentators. The problem here is that several editors believe that Yiannopoulos' views carry lesser weight and lesser notability than those of other commentators, which frankly I think stems purely from political bias against Yiannopolos and his right-wing libertarian (and often provocatively contrarian) views. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We are not a site for the dissemination of "provocatively contrarian views" for their own sake. There is clearly no consensus that we should include Milo's views on this issue in any significant detail, much less that we should provide a link to his*redacted* rantings. If your only argument for inclusion is "it exists," we are not obligated to include it merely because it exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"If your only argument for inclusion is "it exists,"" - that is most certainly not my argument! My argument is based on the fact that Yiannopoulos is probably the single most prominent public figure to have commented on the situation. His comments were covered by at least one other media outlet and even warranted a response from Mustafa herself; as the article currently stands, it includes Mustafa's response but not Yiannopoulos' original comment! A bizarre state of affairs, surely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a deletion discussion. We explicitly *do not include everything said by anyone about anything.* The essence of encyclopedia editing is deciding what to include in an article. The burden here is on you to explain and justify the inclusion of Milo's commentary. Why should we include these inane rantings? What do you think it adds to the article? If you cannot provide a better argument than "he said it," then the merits speak for themselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: Milo Yiannopoulos is one of several commentators to have publicly spoken out on the police investigation into Mustafa's comments. Of those, he is almost certainly the best known public figure. His comments have been referenced by another, independent news service and have warranted a response from Mustafa herself. Clearly, it is relevant. The only argument that you have produced in opposition to mentioning his comments in the article is the fact that you don't like him, you don't like Breitbart, and you don't think that they deserve any citation or reference in Wikipedia. Please, please take a step back and just look at your comments: "His views are irrelevant and Breitbart can get fucked", "a bigoted loudmouth lout writing on a far-right website", his "inane rantings", his vulgar, misogynistic ad-hominem rantings", "literally nothing Milo has ever written about anything has ever enlightened anyone". Every comment and edit that you have made is brimming with disdain for him and it is that which appears to be driving your views on including the information. That's contrary to Wikipedia's policy. I've said it before and I've said it again: "I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument for removing material from Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article seems perfectly fine to me now. The mention makes sense, but to accord Mr. Yiannopoulos an entire paragraph seems more than passing strange to me. If you'd like to create the article "Milo Yiannopoulos' Views of Bahar Mustafa" it would certainly belong there. I can't vouch for what might happen to said article, but anything is possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And the idea that this is only about Milo is untrue - it would apply equally if someone suggested, say, including inane rants from The Borowitz Report in an article about Donald Trump. We are encyclopedia editors, not Google automatons, and our ability to discern what improves an article and what does not is what makes our efforts a worthy endeavour. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What? You want to give someone's derogatory opinions about someone else on their BLP? You're going to need a much stronger argument than he's a known opininator, and an odd cite to a Wikipedia deletion discussion rationale. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed this discussion, I agree with Midnightblueowl, whose position seems completely reasonable to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP, this unquestionably-unreliably-sourced material has been challenged by multiple editors and it should not be reinserted until and unless there's a clear consensus that it belongs in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

To quote Midnightblueowl, "Regarding the use of Breitbart as a source, I looked through the archives and it seems that—although Breitbart is never considered a reliable source for news coverage—it is acceptable to use its op-eds for socio-political commentary." We are going in circles here. There are no reasonable grounds for removing the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What part of "there is no consensus for inclusion of this questionably-sourced material" do you not understand? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of that sentence perfectly well, NorthBySouthBaranof. I am a native English speaker, after all. I was not actually arguing with what that sentence asserts. Even if there were a consensus against inclusion at this moment, consensus can change. As has been already noted, it is simply strange to include someone's response to Yiannopoulos without including the original comments from him they were responding to. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As an additional comment, why were some of NorthBySouthBaranof's comments about Yiannopoulos removed by Malerooster when those same comments are still clearly visible in Midnightblueowl's quotations of them? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I can only do so much :). They should ALL be removed, per BLP. I also have no opinion on what statements should be in the article, but would lean towards not including them especially if there isn't a clear consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If you seriously think they should be removed per BLP, then you should have done just that. Removing only the original comments while keeping the quotations of those comments by Midnightblueowl may make you feel good, but it accomplishes nothing. Anyone interested in seeing what was said can still clearly see it on the page. Maybe take the issue to ANI, and see what the admin corps do? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ok, i removed the portion in the quotes, better?. --Malerooster (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It is more consistent. I will leave it others to decide whether it is better. The more relevant issue is that content has been removed from the article Bahar Mustafa race row incident for no good reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

this diff is entirely reasonable. Milo's opinion is discussed by non-Breitbart sources and he is a quite notable commentator commenting on a not so notable person. There is no good reason to include Milo's highly disparaging remarks verbatim - and leaving them as "he criticised Mustafa's views and stated that he thought that she should be sacked" while pointing out that "but argued that it was an affront to free speech for the police to press charges against her for her comments." makes his, notable in this case, position on the matter clear while removing unnecessary invective language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue as such. Milos opinion has been covered elsewhere, so even if we could argue his opinion piece in Brietbart fails reliability for a BLP, that other more reliable organisations have covered it circumvents that. This is an WP:UNDUE issue really. What makes Milo's opinion on this relevant to the article? Well the simple answer to that is that it has been covered elsewhere (other than where it originated). I don't *personally* think it should be included because I don't think his opinion is worth a sack of shit. Sadly that is not a policy-based reason to keep it out, and I cant find one given the coverage it received. Also Milo has spent too long in the US. We don't have 'free speech' as such in the UK as it is understood by many people, inciting violence and racial hatred is not something you can get away with. Which is why she was legitimately being investigated by the Met (Legitimate in the sense, the Met were required to investigate if people made a credible complaint). You don't get to say whatever you want in the UK with zero consequences. So I don't think any comments on 'its a violation of free speech' are really relevant there. If it has to be included, per Icewhiz above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

I've made this edit. Is it problematic in any way? Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Recommended folks check out the very extensive talk page discussions on Molyneux's heritage before commenting. In short, some people are very determined to work mention of Molyneux's Jewish heritage into the article, despite the fact that he has directly stated that he doesn't consider himself Jewish. Personally I would say this needs a secondary, published source before I'd even think about including it. Molyneux has said a lot of things about his background & his mother, there's zero reason for us to highlight this one item unless published RS treat it as noteworthy (they don't). A lot of unsavory types (stormfront, etc) have made a big deal about Molyneux "hiding" the fact that he's "Jewish" - we need to be very careful not to lend credence to a view that is plainly inaccurate. If people disagree and it is mentioned, then it should be paired with Molyneux's other statements about how he does not see himself as Jewish, was raised a Christian, etc. But I think that's going way too far down the WP:PRIMARY rabbit hole and the whole thing is best left out. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, no one is trying "to work mention of Molyneux's Jewish heritage into the article". I don't know if Fyddlestix noticed, but there is no mention of anything pertaining to "Molyneux's Jewish heritage" in this edit. And there is no "highlighting" this fact, as Fyddlestix puts it, because there is no source whatsoever implying that the mother of Molyneux might not be a Holocaust survivor. Molyneux never says anything that casts doubt on this. On the contrary Molyneux states or implies numerous times (6 times, according to the article Talk page) that his mother lived through the Holocaust under very difficult circumstances in Germany. We know that according to Molyneux his mother was a Holocaust survivor and that is all that my edit says: "According to Molyneux his mother is a Holocaust survivor." I believe the sourcing is adequate for that limited assertion. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fyddlestix here, that unless secondary sources start covering the claim, it doesn't belong. Regardless of how the TP discussions are characterized, Molyneux is part of the alt-right, a movement associated with anti-semitism, despite having distinct pro-Israel arms. It seriously muddies up the issue of Jewish heritage, making any such primary claims suspect. While the edit in question was perfectly acceptable on WP:V grounds, as it properly used attribution, the opacity of the issue of Jewishness in this context makes the question of including Molyneux's claim one of WP:WEIGHT. I don't think that due weight has been established without coverage by reliable secondary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- We standardly include information on the mother and father of the subject of the biography, if this information is known, and the source of this information is often the subject themselves, and in this case I am inserting an edit that spells out that the source of the assertion is Molyneux. This of course presupposes that there are not other sources casting doubt on the assertion in question, and there is nothing suggesting Molyneux's mother might not be a Holocaust survivor. Therefore why can't we pass along to the reader that the subject of the article publicizes that his mother is a Holocaust survivor? By the way I don't consider Molyneux an antisemite, not that it would matter in the context of the discussion of this edit. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- You speak of "the opacity of the issue of Jewishness". What does that mean? My edit states that "According to Molyneux his mother is a Holocaust survivor." I'm failing to grasp how my edit involves any perceived "opacity of the issue of Jewishness". Are you sure you are not reading into my edit to find implications that are not there? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

My reference to the opacity of the issue of Jewishness was an (admittedly over-the-top) metaphorical reference to the complex relationship between Jews and the alt-right, as I mentioned earlier in my comment. The writing of your edit was not problematic at all, it simply seems to me that, without corroborating secondary sources, this may have been just a throw-away line by Molyneux to respond to what he sees as accusations of anti-semitism. Hence my reference to WP:WEIGHT. If you can find where Molyneux has referenced this fact multiple times, then your edit as it was written would probably be acceptable, as it would represent (at the least) a consistent part of Molyneux's public image.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

03:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

On the article Talk page, in this edit, another editor lists 6 instances of Molyneux making assertions of this nature. You say that there are "accusations of anti-semitism" to which Molyneux may be responding. That may be farfetched. I have not watched or listened to the majority of Molyneux's podcasts but I detect nothing anti-semitic about Molyneux. I doubt he is fabricating family history to counter unfounded claims of anti-semitism. Where are these accusations of anti-semitism? But more to the point, where do we see him responding to any such claims? If we see him invoking Jewish heritage in response to accusations of anti-semitism, that could be a sort of smoking gun. But I have not seen this sort of dialogue between him and any hypothetical accusers or people trying to bash him and badmouth him. Perhaps others could bring to my attention instances of this sort of dialogue. I see things more simply. The man makes a statement multiple times and that statement is of a standard biographical nature and we pass it along to the reader in language that is limited to just that which is supported by the sources, in this case his own assertions. Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I would again ask you to review WP:SELFPUB, which I would argue is not met here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That may be farfetched. Hell, it may be complete bullshit, or The Truth as Spoken by Almighty God Himself. It may be song lyrics, or a line from a forgotten poem by John Keats. See my response to the next quote if you want to understand why it isn't farfetched at all.

Where are these accusations of anti-semitism? Many of them are documented in the article, though I will admit, it requires a bit of thought to understand. Critics (and non-critics) consistently describe Molyneux as a member of the alt-right. The phrase "alt-right" was coined by a neo-nazi, and is closely associated with nazism, fascism white nationalism and white supremacy. If you follow this through, you will find that saying someone is part of the alt-right is -in many cases- tantamount to calling them a nazi. And calling someone a nazi is -of course- a way of calling them the absolute worst form of antisemite there is.

But (and I'm explaining this because I feel that the fact that I had to explain the previous bit means you don't have a good grasp of what the alt-right is) there are a number of people who were associated with the alt-right during the early and middle parts of the last presidential election who are not anti-semitic. People like Trump, whose son-in-law is Jewish, who has taken a (really rather mindless and unnecessary) position in support of Israel. People like Milo Yiannopolous, who apparently has his own Jewish heritage, and who was one of the most publicly visible supporters of the alt-right during the election.

So the issue of Jewishness, to someone who is associated with the alt-right, is a tricky one. Many of the most visible parts of the alt-right are Jewish or explicitly pro-Israel. But the alt-right has its roots in the neo-nazi movement and white nationalism. So while I wouldn't be particularly surprised to learn that Molyneux's mother was, in fact, a holocaust survivor, I would also not be the least bit surprised if Molyneux was just lying (a distressingly common practice of the alt-right) to dodge the question of his own beliefs, or to cast doubt on his associations with a group widely seen as antisemitic.

If you would, I suggest you read WP:1AM. It contains some advice that would seem to be appropriate to you. In this case, you seem to be in a position where you are making what -to you- seem to be decidedly reasonable arguments in support of a barely-controversial edit, but there are a large number of people resisting you with a level of passion that seems rather bizarre. But the problem is that you don't seem to have a good grasp of the political and racial nuances here. The question of whether or not Molyneux has Jewish heritage, and whether or not we present that information (or even the claim) can have a very, very large impact on the POV of the article. Now, I'm of the opinion that with good sourcing, it would be for the best. If we can be really certain that Molyneux claims Jewish heritage repeatedly and regularly, and that it's a part of his public persona (as in: he does more than just occasionally say it) then I'm okay with including the claim. The POV shift that ensues will be one that brings it back towards encyclopedic neutrality. If we can be really certain that Molyneux does have Jewish heritage, then again; I'm okay with including the statement that he does, for the same POV reasons.

But if we can't be really certain of either of those two things, then it's probably best to leave the information out. Yes, this has it's own impact on POV, but even if the POV of the article would be better reflective of reality with the claim included, we are bound by our policies not to include it. This is where WP:BLP comes in. To parts of our readership (most of the alt-right and other antisemites), suggesting that Molyneux is Jewish is a slur against him. To parts of our readership (the non-antisemitic parts of the alt-right and many non-alt-right fans of his), suggesting that Molyneux has Jewish Heritage is an immense vindication of him. In other words, with really good sourcing, this is a statement of fact that should probably be included. Without really good sourcing, this is an explosive and divisive claim that should probably be excluded. I hope this helps.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

05:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding material which states implicitly or explicitly "This person is JEWISH" appears contrary to BLP guidelines and policy. Using a sideways method to make a claim which would be disallowed otherwise is therefore also disallowed. This is pretty simple. If you want this sort of material, find an explicit declaration by the living person. Collect (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Collect—offspring of Holocaust survivors need not be Jewish. In fact all Holocaust victims, including survivors, were not Jewish. You say "[u]sing a sideways method to make a claim which would be disallowed otherwise is therefore also disallowed." That is an argument which in essence says that all material must be supportive of the preconceptions of our editors. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"All Holocaust victims were not Jewish"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Assuming good faith... Nobody said all Holocaust survivors are Jewish. You're ignoring the point and replacing it with your own preconceptions, which is exactly what you're accusing everyone else of doing. This dispute started with an attempt to say "he is Jewish" based on one very flimsy source which directly contradicted this person's statements about his own identity. The primary source for his mother's info is an extremely obscure passing mention being highlighted specifically because a small number of editors want to insert his supposed Jewishness into the article. No other context is being proposed, just the bare-minimum needed to imply Jewishness. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The lede of the Holocaust article lists ten other groups aside from Jews that were persecuted in the Holocaust. There are several sources in which Molyneux asserts that his mother is a Holocaust survivor. This is the one that I used to support my edit. You say that "a small number of editors want to insert his supposed Jewishness into the article". Please don't speak for me. I wish to do nothing of the sort. You are arguing that this is being "highlighted". It is not. It is quite commonplace for our biographies to contain information about various parameters of the parents. We should be quite clear that my edit reads: "According to Molyneux his mother is a Holocaust survivor."[14] This is not a discussion as to whether or not the subject of the article is Jewish. Please don't introduce extraneous questions and issues. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"According to Dumuzid, his parents were the King and Queen of Freedonia!" It seems to me to pretty clearly fail the bar of WP:SELFPUB, though reasonable minds may differ. I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources remarking on the claim, so I would say it's not particularly notable in that context, either. I would personally want more before including it in the article. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Highness! 👑 SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right cite? I listened to what you cited and I did not hear him say "Holocaust survivor" I heard him talk about the bombing of Dresden and that the family was working there in 1944. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How would you paraphrase the source? Also consider the 6 other cites on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, he says several things, he says his mother was born in '37 to a Jewish clan in Germany. Then he says they were civilians in Dresden during the war and there in 1944 his mother and relations was able to flee the bombing but his grandmother could not because she had to go to her work in Dresden. So, it's all a bit muddled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We are paraphrasing. That period and location are commonly known as "the Holocaust". Civilians were killed for the flimsiest reasons. There was no rhyme or reason to many things that would transpire in such an environment. Is your objection that there is a contradiction between a Jewish person working and not in a concentration camp? If she was Jewish, perhaps she hid her Jewishness. Does it matter? Perhaps she was only known to some as being Jewish. Perhaps she "slipped through the cracks". Perhaps the authorities had faulty information. Who knows and who cares? Wouldn't it have been an impulse of many to hide any implication of being Jewish? The son is providing us with certain information, perhaps misinformation, in another time and place, for perhaps new ulterior motives. To my way of thinking, the only question is whether or not, as well as how, to pass Molyneux's assertion along to the reader. He is developing this theme. We have not dug up some obscure record somewhere pertaining to the mother of Molyneux. Any reader can be assumed to want to know more about the subject of a biography. That is why they come to the biography. In my opinion a thorough biography of Molyneux alludes to Molyneux's well-developed theme of a mother who is possibly Jewish who survives war-torn Europe in Germany. I've chosen my wording for a responsible edit carefully but it was reverted. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't paraphrase him saying something he did not say - that's just not done, especially to BLP's. 'His mother survived WWII in Germany' is just not the same as 'His mother survived the Holocaust'.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker—then you are suggesting that we say "His mother survived WWII in Germany"? If others agree, and you agree, I will go along with that. The source certainly supports that "his mother survived WWII in Germany". Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to go back to the talk page, to discuss that and other edits. You'll have to deal with other editors sourcing and weight issues there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Saying in the article that she "survived" would imply that there was some reason she was not expected to survive, which is another way of telegraphing his supposedly Jewish heritage. What percentage of people born in Europe in 1966 had parents who lived through the war? Most, I'm guessing. Why is that history noteworthy compared to every other 50-something European? It isn't, unless reliable sources say it is. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell—did you listen to the first 2.5 minutes of this talk? Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This "Jewish mother" stuff has been more than thoroughly examined and rejected at the article talk page over the course of 1-2 years. By a pretty diverse group of editors there, and including half a dozen weaselly wordings and formulations that attempt to evade policy-based scrutiny. If there were a shred of merit to this, there would be some RS basis for it. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you don't have to agree with the edit in question. But you should be addressing the topic at hand rather than the topic of your choice. We aren't discussing whether the mother, or Molyneux himself, are Jewish. Really. I specifically opened this thread to examine this edit.. Responding that "This 'Jewish mother' stuff has been more than thoroughly examined..." is not even presenting an on-topic argument. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your link points us to a primary sourced dubious claim from a video full of dubious narrative about momma's "Jewish Clan" as Molyneux deftly characterizes them, living openly in Nazi Germany until the very last days of WW2. P.S. we know from his many other self-published videos that he *hates* momma. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

OP has an extensive history of not hearing others and pushing some kind of "Jewish" agenda. Time for a ban, block or both. --Malerooster (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Malerooster—I have a point of order. What is an "OP"? Why don't you speak plain English? Is Wikipedia only for a select group of Wikipedia devotees? It is important to create a welcoming environment for all good faith editors because a welcoming environment promotes collaborative editing, at least in my opinion. Wikipedia editing should only be poorly comparable to a jousting match. A little bit of respect shown for others goes a long way. This need not be a hostile environment. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You could have asked that in half a sentence. OP=Original Poster, in this instnce that would be you. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop, yes, good faith editors should be welcomed, but I do not consider you a good faith editor, I consider you a plight to this project. --Malerooster (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Primary sources are generally reliable for uncontentious information about themselves. 2. Except where a claim would be self-serving. 3. For members of the alt-right the Jewish heritage issue can be self-serving when its used to deflect criticism. 4. While its a bit of a stretch to paraphrase I don't think its completely out of line that any Jew or person of close Jewish heritage living in Poland or Germany at the start of, or during WWII who managed to come out alive at the end survived the holocaust. 5. I don't think it should be included - its primary sourced, its contentious (for the reasons MPants has gone into above), its certainly possible its self-serving given the political problems with the alt-right and Jewishness. Absent better sourcing I would leave it out. Which appears to be the result of every other discussion in the archives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Maxwell Gratton

Anonymous user appears to be adding unsourced and frankly bizarre claims to article such as that the individual was an advisor to a non-existent politican, hosted their own game show on commercial TV and is friends with a particular people. I will revert the article but I suspect this individual will keep editing the page. GuyIncognito (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the article. At the moment the level of vandalism is annoying but manageable. If it gets worse you might request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, but a request made now would probably be declined. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a welcome/warning to the IP user's page, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. GuyIncognito (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassie Sainsbury

An anon editor changed data (birth date and place), claiming to be the mother of the article's subject. I first removed the disputed data altogether (as it was unsourced either way). Searching around the internet there a numerous depictions of the person's passport, almost all of them with the DOB/POB/Passport number blanked. I have been able to find one image (here), which - if it is genuine as it appears to be - lists the date and place of birth in line with the claims of the anon editor. So there question is: can/should we use very likely illegitimately obtained pictures of the internet to source BLP data on Wikipedia?? Travelbird (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary documents (Of which a passport is one) cannot be used on a BLP. Its also a massive privacy invasion if we were to link to a passport. I don't see why this is even an article, its classic BLP1E. Subject is only notable for one event. Drug Smuggling. There is nothing surprising or unique about it, plenty of drug smugglers get caught all the time. The event itself is not notable, many countries with drug problems catch foreign mules on a daily basis. The subject clearly meets the definition of a low-profile individual - according to the article and the sources she was not a public figure with a record of little stable employment and no claim of significance. It could probably qualify for speedy, 'drugs mule' isn't really a claim of significance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out - not needed, privacy, etc. Agree about WP:PERP concerns regarding notability. Seems like she's getting coverage for being a blonde drug mule - Missing white woman syndrome - with quite a bit of the coverage being tabloid based.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The DOB is unnecessary. The whole article seems unnecessary, as it is all about one event. It doesn't tell us anything about the person, nor give any reason why the reader should care. I think it should be speedy deleted, or AFDed at the very least. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's a WP:BLP1E case. I think there's too much sourcing in the article to get a speedy delete through so I've sent it to AFD. Let's see what others think. I suspect we might get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments with this one, though. Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Yoder

Stumbled across this in Pending Changes. An IP editor has been making large changes to this article, some of which are sourced and some of which are not or which fail WP:V. They are also removing negative but reliably-sourced information as "redundant". I'm now at 3 reverts and am therefore bowing out of watching the article so other eyes would be appreciated. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry

Sammy Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No content about Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry should be included without providing WP:BLPSOURCES. The article's Early life include the statement "Sosa's paternal family, the Peraltas, are Dominican of Haitian descent" with a source that have been checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as not reliable per WP:SPS. User Savvyjack23 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) has used that same source to include the same Haitian ancestry in other articles. We have discussed the matter in the article talk and he provided other poor discarded sources. I am requesting the Haitian ancestry content to be removed. --Osplace 16:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I referred Osplace here if they felt they needed another opinion - as Sammy Sosa is a living person and the information touches on his ancestry/ethnicity which can be a sensitive area. Short version - all the reliable sources say Dominican and I don't believe there is any self-identification from the subject that indicates he is of Haitian descent. The 'Haitian' info appears to be very weakly sourced (see the RSN discussion for details) - and ultimately appears to be sourced to a journalist who says he has/has seen evidence but has not disclosed or provided it (please correct me if I am wrong Osplace) - my opinion is for a BLP the sourcing requirements are not even close to being met for indicating someone is of X ancestry - even if attributing it. More opinions welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. --Osplace 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Source is "weak." Sosa has apparently made no self-identification in any place of Haitian ethnicity (including his autobiography), thus the BLP strictures on us assigning claims of ethnicity clearly apply. Collect (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. --Osplace 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ewen Southby tailyor

Ewen Southby-Tailyour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relevant sourced have been added including 4 press links that are repeatedly delated by a subject close to the Article. This are Relevant and active and as they are not in the glowing account that the Author would like to portray they are delated. It is against what Wikipedia stands for as it is not a Who's Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyBridge27 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That's about the poorest sourced autobiography I ever saw. There are six sources: Source 1.) The London Gazette (supplement) -- A wartime leaflet giving battlefield updates and special honors for troops. It lists only his name and an honor he received. 2.) A news pamphlet from the OP Society, giving a few lines of thanks to the subject. 3.) The London Gazette (supplement) Gives the name and promotion of a completely different person (Simon Southby Tailyour). 4.) Nonexistent. 5.) A link to his book on Google Books. 6.) A genealogy website (used for personal information).

He's apparently notable for authoring several books, at least one of which was a best seller. However, the lack of sources in troubling, as is the OR sourcing of personal information from some genealogy website. If not a single reliable source can be found I'd seriously consider this for AFD. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the personal life section as a BLP issue. It was sourced entirely to Freebmd - essentially a public database of births, marriages, death certificates etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some checking, and he's definitely a notable person, so I take back my comment about AFD. Our article says his book was a Sunday Times best seller, so I thought that would be as good a source as any. I couldn't find that, but was able to locate a few others like the BBC, Country Life, or Sea History. These would likely be some good sources for the article. There may be more, but I don't have time to dig deeper. Zaereth (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

lisa nicole carson

The biography of Lisa Nicole Carson (the actress) uses a quote at the end of the Personal Life section that is actually attributable to Lisa Nichols (a motivational speaker), an entirely different woman. The quote is sourced from a video of Lisa Nichols which is referenced at the end of the biography. Obviously, this needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.37.206 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done! A number of other problems with that QUOTEFARM besides being mis-attributed (bad enough by itself).Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Polk

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

There is a slow-moving edit war on this page to introduce controversial content that fails WP:BLPSOURCE. I have been trying to keep the content out until better sources are provided, but the other side of this war has not responded to any warnings or attempts to discuss.

I am seeking wider input and assistance in dealing with this because I am the only editor currently trying to remove this content and I'd like a sanity check that I'm in the right here before imposing any blocks or instituting page protection. Additionally, the bad edits are coming from multiple editors and IP addresses; I don't believe a simple block is going to resolve this.

For reference, the editors involved in adding the content:

Gudduahmed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The author of the content and the primary participant in the edit war.
192.119.165.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2405:204:9291:7e7b:2d24:73a0:1c9f:634e (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

If you are reading the article's history, you may notice that the following editor also reintroduced the content twice. However, it appears the editor misidentified removal of the offending content as vandalism, and so I don't believe this user deserves any scrutiny for their actions.

Beauty School Dropout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At this point, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed in resolving this matter. Advice is welcome. --Chris (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That was why I didn’t attempt to edit the article again. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Crazycomputers:, agreed that the material is non-compliant. The sources for the statements appear to be a blog and three YouTube videos. Obviously, none of these are WP:RS. That's not even mentioning the writing in the edit-warred section. (Does having a "contravisional" style mean he's blinding his opponents?) I suggest that pending changes or autoconfirmed protection may be warranted. Does this require a separate RFPP request? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:: We don't need a separate request. I'm an admin and can enact any protections we deem necessary here. I just wanted to gather some input from the community to make sure that I was doing the right thing. (I'd rather second-guess myself than incorrectly issue sanctions.) --Chris (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's just a standard single purpose account with an agenda that doesn't understand of care about reliable sources. The links are primary sources of people just ragging on each other, so the content isn't just made up, but its also no encyclopedic or even particularly interesting. I don't see that there is anything to "do" except keep reverting it. 2005 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've turned on pending changes for now. --Chris (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Danielle Fong

I have been trying to remove a wildly disproportionate amount of fluff from this article, much of it unencycopedic opinions about how clever she is, a good deal of it name-dropping about other people associated with her projects, extensive quotations to show "fantastic support" and the like going to the extent of providing detail about the various grants that have been rejected. I dont just want to keep reverting the various spas and ip editors, but the only alternative is nominating this for deletion, so I have just done so. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Julian Radcliffe

Hi, If you look at the edit histoy you will see that user Boomer Vial (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) constantly reinstate malicious content on this user. I've reported the user and undid the last changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yon dee (talk • contribs)

Bit of a mess there - he's obviously a controversial figure, which at present the article does not really address, but the material removed here is for the most part not neutrally worded or properly sourced. This article might be a good place to start for incorporating a more neutral discussion of the controversies. Fyddlestix (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some content that were based on some questionable sources, in my view. I would appreciate if someone could take a look. My main question is whether this WordPress blog written by an admittedly reputable journalist is reliable enough for the BLP content that it supported. I'm more inclined to ask for a better source than this. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Alice Walton

Alice Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I invite editors to join this discussion at Talk:Alice Walton. Another editor and I have been discussing the appropriateness of including car accidents that never resulted in charges, as well as an arrest that never resulted in charges and was, in fact, expunged from the record. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard again as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and my original message here from when I initially requested the edit has been archived. I welcome any input from editors who are experienced in this area.

I will not directly edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the Acapulco incident should be kept. It never resulted in charges, but there is no implication it was criminal. What it did result in was severe damage to the article subject, a leg broken in multiple places, leaving it shorter than the other,[15] and she still walks with a limp, 40 years later. That's a rather important part of her life, there would be a lot missing if we left it out. I do think we should remove the 2011 incident - as you write, it did not result in any charges, and there is no evidence it made much of a difference in the subject's life. Lots of people have DWI arrests, it's not particularly notable. It's slightly more notable since it's possibly part of a series, as noted in the Forbes article, and again since she did release a public statement, but only slightly; on the whole I think we should leave it out. (I made a few hopefully uncontentious edits to the relevant article section, but didn't remove this part since there is room for debate for a bit.) --GRuban (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, GRuban! Thank you for the insight, and your constructive edits to the Alice Walton article. I welcome more input from other editors who are also experienced in this area. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

GRuban, It has been one week with no further discussion here or at Talk:Alice Walton. Would you be willing to consider removing the 2011 incident? Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 15:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, for lack of other opinions. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GRuban! Have a great weekend. Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim

New sentences inserted into the article about NBC News President Noah Oppenheim are highly contentious and violate WP: BLP, in my opinion. A reviewer removed unsourced materials, but what they added in its place includes important inaccuracies and violates NPOV.

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but I am a paid consultant to NBC News, so as per WP: COI, I am seeking a independent reviewer to carefully assess and make the necessary edits, or instruct me as to how to improve my suggested changes. A full discussion of the issues can be found at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim. BC1278 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The current discussion is at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#Weinstein_content and more input there would be appreciated. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard

Yesterday I created the page Emil Kirkegaard, and since then a lot of content has been added to it that may not be compliant with BLP, especially stuff claiming he's a neo-Nazi and has written an "apologia" for pedophiles. I wanted to get the opinions of other editors as to whether BLP violations are present on the page as it exists now. Everymorning (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The only source I can begin to question the RS status of is London Student, and that's more a "I've never encountered this before" rather than a "I don't trust this source" question. In past cases like this, I've seen people ask if we're not confounding two different peresons, but your own work establishes that it's just the one Emil Kirkegaard.

As far as I can tell, it's currently BLP compliant. Though I generally preach against primary sources, I could see citing Kirkegaard's controversial blog post in addition to the journalistic sources cited for further verifiability. I could start to imagine WP:UNDUE complaints but as I have not trawled all the sources available on the subject, I can't say one way or another. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I, Emil, am monitoring this as well. I will be adding discussing to the talk page. Note that there is a long history of an internet stalker spreading libel about me (summary here). This person will certainly also do it on Wikipedia, and it seems likely that he is using the Storyfellow account based on the edit history (contribs, edit typical of this person). I don't know how to bring this to the attention of admins but I believe this person might already have a site-wide Wikipedia ban, so they should investigate the user's IPs (he often, but not always uses VPNs/proxies). --Deleet (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know if you have been 'stalked', I actually reverted two of StoryFellows edits. But you are not doing yourself any favours advertising your Wikipedia article on your twitter and asking people to edit it. I would add that it is not libel to cite a newspaper source that quotes your own words. You wrote in your own words a 'compromise' for pedophiles to have sex with sleeping children. The media have picked up on your post. [16], [17], [18] etc etc. It is not libel to cite these sources on your article. Rebecca Bird (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I raised some of these references on the talk-page. The London Student is a newspaper published by University of London Union. It is cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. I do not believe it fails RS. Rebecca Bird (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

In regard to the neo-Nazi claims. There are two references added by StoryFellow that call Emil that [19], [20]. One is Evolve Politics and the other is the Russian international television network website. I moved them to the talk-page to discuss if they are WP:RS or not. It was incorrect in my opinion to put them in the lead. Rebecca Bird (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything I posted is well-sourced. Another source is the Telegraph, that notes Kirkegaard is a fellow of a white supremacist institute that receives grants by the Pioneer Fund as well as the fact Kirkegaard "justified child sexual abuse on his personal blog". So Neo-nazi/white supremacist & child-rape apologist are accurate descriptions.

I'm also not interested in this Nazi's crackpot conspiracy theories. Since covered in the media as a Nazi and child-rape apologist he's tried to damage control i.e. minimise the damage to his supposed reputation by claiming he is "stalked by social justice warriors". Made up nonsense.Storyfellow (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Update) - The article has been submitted for deletion. Rebecca Bird (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

David Perdue wikipage

The David Perdue wikipage is repeatedly being vandalized by user: tomwsulcer

The page is repeatedly being updated with Tabloid journalism and injected with personal views.

Each time the page is updated with the information about tax brackets, the user: tomwsulcer, is removing the references and updating with personal views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishoilman01 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You removed reliably-sourced material about Perdue without explanation; neither of you appear to have clean hands at this point. All additions to the article need to be reliably-sourced. I suggest that you discuss your editing differences on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Roenfeld

This page does not follow the guidelines for living persons biography due to inaccurate and inflated statements. The page states he is a historian, though there is no indication that this individual has an academic degree in history. The claim is made that the individual published 16 books, and yet Worldcat lists only ten and out of those three were self-published. In addition, the page states he has three published articles without any citations to document this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.9.23 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The referencing is abysmal for a WP:BLP - two interviews with him and a report of an initiative which he started, but which isn't about him. Even in these, he's described as a "local historian" which makes me suspect he's not notable. I'll have a look around for better sources but if I can't find any, I'll probably nominate for deletion. Neiltonks (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

.... and I found nothing convincing, so I've taken it to AFD (WP:Articles for deletion/Ryan Roenfeld) to get other views. Neiltonks (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page

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

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

What updates do you suggest? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump racial views

What do editors think about this newly created article? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs work of it's to be kept but I'm not sure it should be. Its basically a "list of racist things DT has said/done." I'm torn because there is quite a lot of RS coverage about his racial views right now, but it's hard to treat a topic like this in its own article without it feeling a bit undue/attack page-y. At some point we're going to have to ask just how many DT spinoff articles is too many... Fyddlestix (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Same feeling, I feel some of this stuff is just at the edge of "who cares" and other covered in more detail at things like Trumps social media usage. It's very much bordering on synthesis even though its justified to state many believe he has racist views; trying to list them all seems inappropriate. --Masem (t) 01:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"without it feeling a bit undue/attack page-y" <-- the problem is the nature of the subject, not how the article is written. Actual news organizations and publishing houses struggled with the same issue - how to write about Trump - because he was such an ... unpresidented, phenomenon. Same thing here. It would actually be POV and a disservice to the encyclopedia and our readers if we purposefully avoided difficult subject because... they "feel" attack-page-y. Trump is who he is. Sources are what they are. An article like this is long long long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is not intended to be a listing of his apparent racist comments and actions. It's meant to be an analysis of the history as a whole and its impact on current US politics and society. There are some very good, in-depth sources that tie it all together. I added three of them to the lead sentence in the past hour or so.- MrX 01:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not what's intended, but it does read a bit like that as of right now. Like I said I'm on the fence, will take a look at the sources and see what else I can find. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This would be the type of article that really needs a good RS or three that has attempted to document all of Trump's racist views, to avoid the synthesis of WP assemblying it ourselves. Certainly accumulating all his views pre- and post-election is problematic. If we do have a few sources that do this, and only a few recent cases are omitted, then it's probably okay. --Masem (t) 02:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you may have missed where I mentioned this above. There are several such sources[21][22][23] cited in the article now, and more available. - MrX 02:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That satisfy my immediate concern, but I feel there's still something off putting about it but nothing I can tie immediately to any policy or the like. Closest would be similar issues with "criticism of X" type articles, but we do allow those too as long as NPOV aspects are kept in mind. --Masem (t) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the defining themes of his political profile and career. Articles start out with room for improvement, but it's much better to work from this beginning than to discuss the subject in the abstract. @Masem: I don't think that references to this in other articles would suggest we should not have an article on so large and consequential a topic. It's been a topic of RS discussion for at least a decade. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

For anyone unaware this goes back to his property dealings way before the present stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the 'Black' listing of applications to rent properties and if I recall there were a few lawsuits about it as well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am also kind of uncomfortable about the existence of this page for some hard-to-pin-down reasons. I do think that the page should definitely have a different, less awkward title than it has now, though-perhaps Donald Trump and racism? Everymorning (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I do agree a different title would help, and in fact, going to "Donald Trump and racism" would all for a lede section that broadly talks about his views (without any specific incident) towards race, using the sources above, and then can get down into the more specific cases that have been called out. It would make it less "attacky" to establish that this has been a subject of discussion overall from sources, and not just a random collection of things people consider to be racist that Trump has said (even if that form is backed by sources) --Masem (t) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what it is named, this article should extend back into Trump's business life during the 1970s and 'Blacklisting' of applicants for rentals in Trump properties, through the multiple legal battle, then the Presidential run. This places current Trump words and actions into a broader context to better understand what is currently happening. IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is completely possible with the sources Mr. X provided above. The media have clearly tracked how he appears to have racist views from his business days to now, and I'd think a lead section to broadly explain that before moving to specifically notable incidents would help to smooth out problems. --Masem (t) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at it recently? Its quite close to that now. It is 2016+ heavy, but that's a result of his election push. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's missing the section I'm talking about. I should correct myself, I didn't mean the lede (top) section, but a leading section after the lede but prior to the history that summarizes the general media opinion that Trump has racist views through his life. Then one can delve into specific incidents. The lede (Top) section has some of this but it should be expanded more and prior to the history. All this to establish that we WP editors are not synthesizing this list out of nowhere. --Masem (t) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note An AfD is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump racial views. Make sure to share you views there too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Kelly

Can I request an additional pair of eyes at Matthew Kelly to see if I am being appropriate, also invite other account involved @Charterhouse55:. I have an SPA / INVOLVED account Charterhouse55 making edits to remove the significant, highly reported, arrest and release of Matthew Kelly when subject to accusations back in 2003. [24][25][26][27][28] [29] Their significance was enough to draw a public letter shared by several stars in support of his innocence and character[30] and his innocence, along with other victims of accusations, was made part of a wider discussion by the BBC.[31] He has since conducted an interview with The Times relating to the impact of the accusations and arrest, and the personal trauma it visited upon his mental health, and lasting damage to his career and personal relationships [32], [33], was the subject of a personal and sympathetic Op Ed of the changes to his personality.[34] and the case was subject of a Select Committee discussion relating to his case:[35]

78. In our view, there are obvious limitations with the second option. If, as is often the case, the identity of the accused has been publicised before a charge is brought, then any post-charge reporting restriction would be meaningless. The first option offers only limited protection.[119] For those who are charged, but not convicted, the post-charge publicity may have a devastating and possibly permanent impact. We understand that anonymity for the accused before charge is already recommended in guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.[120] However, even the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Home Office, Hilary Benn, recognised that suspects' names can still find their way into the media[121]—as happened recently in the case involving Matthew Kelly.[122]

And was also referenced a Standard Note research briefing issued to MP's discussing the "Anonymity in rape cases" [36]

This policy is not always successful, as shown by a then recent case. Actor and television presenter Matthew Kelly had been arrested in January 2003 as he came off stage after a pantomime performance; both the arrest and the subsequent investigation were widely publicised in the national and regional press under headlines such as “Matthew Kelly held over child sex”, “Matthew Kelly accused of sex attacks on boys” and “Matthew Kelly, the camp entertainer with an unconventional marriage; the weird life of Mr Saturday Night TV”. A month later, the police decided to take no further action on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to charge.

From what I can see, it is quite clear that the accusations, case, and his innocence is a very notable incident in his life and not a means by which to cast aspersions. The edit summaries by Charterhouse have made strong claims that I do not think logically follow:

'"publishing contentious and defamatory information which is, in the current climate, particularly damaging. I have no idea why seems to have a vendetta against Mr Kelly"'

'"This information is defamatory. No charges were brought and no evidence was discovered. As such it should not be allowed to define an innocent man's life and therefore goes against the spirit of Wikipedia."'

'"Why does Waggers think it neccessary to keep publicising a very harmful and unwarranted accusation against an innocent man. Do you not realise the pain this causes?"'

'"After the press coverage the subject of false accusations has had recently I can only think that the contributor WAGGERS has no conception of the uneccessary additional pain his edits cause Mr Kelly. Please stop.'"

These seem obvious attempts to silence / delete and subvert otherwise open and freely available, not controversial content relating to the subject. My own investigation suggests that user Charterhouse55 is a representative of http://www.dalzellandberesford.com/ of whom Matthew Kelly is a client based upon this edit summary and the users name being constructed from the property they are based at (The Paddock Suite, The Courtyard, 55 Charterhouse St, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 6HA). I suspect the wording of the subject matter might be improved / enhanced, and more of the sources I have supplied above used for additional weight, but wanted to verify that I am not somehow creating an unnecessary burden for other well publicised claims / accusations so long as they are cited by reliable sources and are not of insignificant note or irrelevance. Koncorde (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All three sources in your latest reversion seem to say that Mr. Kelly was cleared of the charges. And one of the three is the Daily Mail, about which WP:DAILYMAIL. So I'm going to remove the information per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") until and unless a noticeable consensus to include emerges. --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I can imagine such a consensus emerging, mind you. The fact that he gave a long interview to The Times about it, implies is a big deal in his life, in which case, I can see it might be an important part of his biography. But writing about it would take great care, not just the two sentences in the removed content, because as The Times article says, it did a great deal of damage to his life, damage that we don't want to carelessly contribute to. If you want to write a balanced and impeccably sourced (The Times: yes, The Daily Mail: no) paragraph or section, we can discuss. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

They are not my sources, I am just a passing editor seeing recurring revert war between an SPA and several editors over several years now, and trying to get assistance.

Daily Mail sourcing (particularly one provided above which was for duplication of the paywalled Times some editors may not be able to access) is the least important matter, I went to the effort of adding another half dozen in this discussion (or that I started this discussion at all) including mentions in Parliament and research for considerations in amendments to statutory law.

I stated I believed it may need a rewrite additional sourcing, however blanking the section is not such a rewrite nor does it explain what aspect of BLP its current wording is in breach of. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Cable

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In article about Tom Cable, editors are inserting allegations that his wife, Carol Cable, edited his wikipedia biography. (Redacted) SamHolt6 continues to readd the news that she edited his page[37]. This violates a number of policies including WP:OUTING and WP:BLP as well as WP:NOTNEWS. It is no different than stories about other wikipedia editors that get covered by the news. We don't name them in the article especially in a disparaging way. Nowhere on Wikipedia does (Redacted) indicate her real life identity. It's important to note that none of the edits she made are kept. That is our job. It does not extend to disparaging her for making them. --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The disputed content on the Tom Cable article is the following: In January 2018, Cables' wife removed text about the allegations from the Tom Cable Wikipedia-article, but the text was reinstated. This allegation was made by and is sourced with articles from the Wall Street Journal ((Redacted)) and 247 Sports ((Redacted)). Both articles make mention of Cable's wife editing assault allegations out of the Tom Cable article. The 247 piece names an editor, (Redacted), and provides a quote in which Cable's wife allegedly admits to editing the article. (Redacted) has not commented on the situation. As editors, we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Given that both of the sources cited meet WP:VER, I see no reason to prevent their usage as sources in regards to this event. This also discounts most of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, as the information is from reliable sources. If there is any debate to be had on the subject, it should be about whether the story about the "scrubbing" of the article should be included. This was discussed by myself and several other editors at (Redacted), a discussion which resulted in a minor mention of the incident as part of the existing assault allegations on the Tom Cable article. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've protected the article fully for 3 days before someone gets themselves blocked. If in doubt, self-referential stuff like that is generally not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think reasonable people might question whether this warrants coverage in the article, but Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to discussing congress people who edited - or who had staffers edit - their own Wikipedia pages. I don't think it runs afoul of outing unless editors are needlessly mentioning a user name in conjunction with a real life person. Nblund^talk 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if consensus is that "In January 2018, Cables' wife removed text about the allegations from the Tom Cable Wikipedia-article, but the text was reinstated." is WP:UNDUE that´s fine, but it´s not super-obvious. Wall Street Journal reasonably covers the WP:RS aspect. If there are equally reliable sources that says "no, this didn´t happen", that´s different of course. IMO the WP-text is not "disparaging", it describes a very human reaction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I did however find the the more extensive previous version [38] way out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:NOTNEWS to me. What encyclopedic value does it have, based upon what sources? --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS is a reasonable position, another is that it's an ok-ish continuation of the "allegations" saga per WP:NOTNEWS: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage". "Based upon what sources?" is probably unwise to answer due to the redactions, but they can be deduced from this (redacted) thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating_III#Charles_Keating_IV

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating_III

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart_Academy_(Hempstead,_New_York)

[4] Price, Jo-Ann (27 May 1973). "Catholic School Celebrates 100th Year". The New York Times.

[Slate:_NutriBullet-5] Anderson, L.V. (June 28, 2015). "Everblasting Life". Slate. Retrieved May 20, 2016.

[6] Senapathy, Kavin. "A New Year's Resolution For Science Advocates: Don't Cry Wolfe". Forbes. Retrieved 21 June 2016.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]