Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive296

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kristina Pimenova

She's a child model, and her height gets changed somewhat frequently but there doesn't seem to be any sources whatsoever being used. The height itself isn't even consistent: [1] changed from 6ft6inches to 5ft3inches, [2] back to 6ft6inhes, [3] to 5ft4inches, [4] to 5ft6inches. I noticed this, removed the height, and started a talk page discussion about it yesterday. However, no one's commented and the height was changed yet again [5], this time to 5ft6inches. I tried looking for a reliable source that verified her height, but couldn't. She's 13, so she's likely still growing anyways. If her height can't be verified as correct information, I don't think it should remain in the article. Am I doing the right thing right now? I think I've been doing what I should in a situation like this, but I don't really have much experience with situations like this. Clovermoss (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd remove her height as it's going to change and no sources are available to verify. Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do we even have this article? The principal claim to notability is by inheritance. Guy (help!) 00:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the sourced value that was still in the article on December 3. She has grown a little since LA Models last measured her, but that can't be helped, they update measurements once or twice a year. AP 20191223 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: and @JzG:, the height has been added again [6], this time to 5"4. The editor is new, but they added a source. Do you think that a source like this is reliable enough for a WP:BLP? I'm still skeptical of including height, but I can't even access the source to verify it. Clovermoss (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The source has been in the article since the beginning. IMDb has a more recent value but is not considered reliable for such data. An agency is. Almond Plate (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
An agency is a primary source. We do not include controversial primary sourced data. Guy (help!) 00:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
We do, however, use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Almond Plate (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a point of trivia which is changing over time. There's actually no source that gives her height with a date attached. I'm sure she was, is, or will be 5'4". So what? Does L.A. Models continuously measure the height of all the models on their site. Do they have independent fact checkers. Should we graph her height as she grows up? Perhaps we should also give her daily weight, and body measurements while we're at it. Or, maybe it just doesn't matter until some reliable sources write about it, to show it does matter. --Rob (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I filled out at SPI report [7] and AP 20191223 was blocked for sockpuppetry.
In conclusion, do we have a consensus to not include her height in the article (that way I can remove the BLP noticeboard discussion from the talk page)? I'll keep the article on my watchlist, but I want to know that this is what the course of action from now on should be (unless independent, reliable sources are cited for her height). Clovermoss (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Pascoe

Recently some opinions columns have been published questioning Aboriginal author Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality. Pascoe identifies as Aboriginal. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Pascoe as Aboriginal, including the ABC, SBS, The Guardian, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald etc.

The columns have been run in two News Corp mastheads: The Herald Sun and The Australian, both reliable sources, but their opinions columns are famous for their strident bias. The main voice in the debate is Andrew Bolt. Bolt has been convicted and successfully sued over near identical claims made in this column (Bolt has been sued a number of times in the past after publishing defamatory falsehoods). In this context these mastheads are not independent reliable sources, they are "culture warriors".

The other voice is essentially yellow journalism a generally unreliable source - Quadrant.

The three publishers of the claims are the main protagonists in the Australian "culture wars". The source of the information is a total hatchet job, someone who obviously fixates on Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality to an unhealthy and wildly disproportionate extent. It's a blog, little more than an attack page: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/

The only reliable voice published on the debate so far is the The Saturday Paper and they tear the claims to shreds here: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/media/2019/11/30/bolt-pascoe-and-the-culture-wars/15750324009163

Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page. I believe this would violate a number of guidelines, namely: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL.

Undue because only a handful of columnists, who clearly have a strident bias and also have a history of attacking fair skinned Aboriginal people, have made the claim. Why haven't other mastheads reported the claims? That gets to the next point and why we shouldn't publish them either - other mastheads haven't gone near it because they may well end up in court: Libel - because the main voice in this debate has been convicted and sued for near identical claims in the past. These claims may well end up in court under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

With this taken into account I do not believe such claims should be published in a BLP unless they are more widely reported in independent reliable sources.

Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to add some further detail about the source of the info on the blog: a Wikipedia editor has stated on the talk page that he is the author of the blog, and that he is the sole source of all of the info used by Bolt (in the Herald Sun and possibly syndicated in the other Newscorp tabloids?), The Australian, and Quadrant. The first are two behind paywalls, and the opinion piece in The Australian (referred to by someone on the talk page) was not published in their print version that day, so they are hard for most editors to assess. However it appears that they are all either by columnists or opinion pieces by editors. There was also a video of Bolt on his Sky News show. This article in another independent source makes a brief mention of Bolt’s attack and Pascoe's response. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to add to that...who is the author of Black Emu Exposed? What are his qualifications? All this info has come from a complete unknown. Bacondrum (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
To clarify the statement above that Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page. I feel misrepresented by Bacondrum statement. Most of the editors referred to have not said we want to say "Pascoe is not Aboriginal", we want to say something akin to "Some commentators have questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry." The statement would be referenced to one of Bolt's articles and Dark Emu Exposed or perhaps just to the Inside Story article mentioned above. Some of the comments about Andrew Bolt on talk:Bruce Pascoe have gone very close to breaching WP:BLP about Bolt. --Scott Davis Talk 06:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
" Most of the editors referred to have not said we want to say "Pascoe is not Aboriginal", we want to say something akin to "Some commentators have questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry."...Six of one, half a dozen of the other. It's libelous, end of story. As I've stated before Scott, unless there is wider reportage I'm going to fight the inclusion of libelous and undue content every step of the way. Yawn. Bacondrum (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree it's the same. The sources may not support the addition. But it's far easier for there to be sufficient sourcing to establish one, than it is to establish the other. Conflating the 2 just confuses everyone what we're actually discussing. A fairly common response at BLPN, is that the statement requires inline attribution and can't be said in wikipedia-voice. Clearly this would not satisfy you and fair enough. But if you ask the wrong question, expect the wrong answer. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I looked at this a week or 2 ago. Is the question actually over his Aboriginal ancestry or over his identity? When I was looking, it sounded like at least some of the controversy was coming from organisations representing various Indigenous Australian groups. I would be surprised if such groups would necessarily dispute his ancestry, since I presume that may be established by his known genealogy. But it's fairly common that such groups require more than simple ancestry to accept someone's identity, e.g. it arises a lot with Native American identity, e.g. there is a very long running dispute over stuff like Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. (Check out the history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for more.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on the lack of any real info on who is behind it, nor any evidence it's meets our requirements for fact checking and accuracy, there's no way in hell that https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/ is an acceptable source in any BLP, except maybe as a supporting link if something they say is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment The top of this page says For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. There are currently two open RFCs on talk:Bruce Pascoe on related topics of this report. The second RFC was raised by the same person as this report. Neither has been closed yet. The first four sentences of this notice are not in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is how much weight should be given to "right wing" sources, and how the content of those sources should be used in the article. --Scott Davis Talk 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with ScottDavis. There are two RFC's ongoing on the page already, this smacks of forum shopping. I request this be closed as this is already being discussed on the page in question! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Not forum shopping, I want to know if any of the proposed sources are acceptable for a BLP considering the history of some of the commentators and the libel implications. Bacondrum (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank Nil Einne for the well considered feedback, as always. I'm coming round to the idea of mentioning the dispute if properly framed and attributed. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum "mentioning the dispute if properly framed and attributed" sounds like a brilliant idea. I fully agree. --Rob (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

Mark Bourrie

BLP subject complains on talk page of unfairness. Has not been given due consideration by Canadian Wikipedia editors who have locked the page down after stripping it of most of the information, refuse to listen to him claim cited article has error that he complained of at the time -- the accusation that he had a conflict of interest as a journalist when, as the timeline clearly shows, he had earned his PhD, was teaching and writing books. Appears to be spite and retribution for Bourrie's Wikipedia edits of some 10 years ago. Square Offset (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As a brand new account who has never edited the Mark Bourrie page, what relation to you have to the editors who have banned from that page and share a similar interest as you with adding criticism to the Jesse Brown (journalist) page? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's stick to the BLP issues raised, please. Square Offset (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues. First, the question about your possible conflict of interest, and secondly, your complaint. The first you can easily respond to and there is no problem with a COI if admitted and handled correctly. The second would require more explanation of the exact problem with diffs. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's stick to the BLP issues raised
Nope. Nobody died and left you in charge. Let's deal with the obvious block evasion, instead. Perhaps you should try to get yourself unblocked first. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, someone told me this was a BLP issues page. Silly me to believe them. Someone also said Wikipedia has a BLP policy that's supposed to be taken very seriously. Again. my complaint is that the subject of the article is insistent that he wasn't a journalist when he did the Duffy edits and other work/favors/whatever for Duffy, and the timeline shows he's right: he taught full time at Concordia in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years (see Rate My Professor) got his PhD in 2009, according to the University of Ottawa alumni page cited in the article, did three books (2012, 2013 and early 2015) and went to law school in September 2014. The Christopher Waddell comment seems to be a dial-a-quote from the go-to journalism prof in Ottawa, who was fed information by David Akin, and then spit out a quote. Waddell as dial-a-quote: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ACYBGNTWkV_yWBbepnDOHROgKC5MnyNmXQ%3A1577113726113&ei=ftgAXqLCBpirtQafzaRQ&q=christopher+waddell+journalism&oq=christopher+waddell+journalism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10760.13819.0.14130.11.11.0.0.0.0.347.932.1j2j1j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.-GCJyqaF90I) Bourrie's objection, also published by Canadaland (here https://www.canadalandshow.com/canadaland-strong-armed-me-writing/)(we can get into that site's lack of credibility later), is not mentioned. I think Bourrie has a point: anything that gives depth to the article has been trimmed out, while anything negative has been fiercely protected. For instance, the anonymous editors who guard the page could try to keep it current by doing the odd Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie+bush+runner&sxsrf=ACYBGNSvUNkx7zrtEd5fZ8tFBwc8u_Lauw:1577113436043&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjksICxhczmAhWoVN8KHUGOBHMQ_AUoAnoECBUQBA&biw=1366&bih=625. As for who I am, there may be a happy day when everyone writes on Wikipedia under their own name, so that we may be able to easily see their conflicts of interest, and they may take responsibility for their work. That day has not yet arrived. Square Offset (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Square Offset: The BLP policy says to put far more weight on what independent, reliable sources say about a person than what the person says about themselves. So, any complaint that starts with "the subject of the article is insistent" starts to run right into that territory of self-published sources (not to mention conflict of interest). —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cherry-picking for straw man arguments is a waste of yours and my time, so let's not do it. You could try to make a case for leaving the article as-is by reading the links. The article by Bourrie is from the same site that Wikipedia uses to trash him. Wikipedia has a rep as an organization in which intransigent, anonymous white men stake out positions and guard them in power plays and drive everyone else away. It's easy to be an arrogant bully behind a fake name. It's also easy to trash the name of a real person without responsibility. And the BLP guide suggest people who feel Wikipedia has given them a bum deal should come here, so COI is also a worthless argument here -- whether a CO exists or not. You try to make the argument "we can libel Mark Bourrie because you might be Mark Bourrie." It's not much of a case you're making. Square Offset (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting how you start off complaining about straw-man arguments, and then go immediately into a straw-man argument with racist overtones about how all us "white" Wikipedians are out to bully people. Editing with a COI is a BLP issue. Perhaps one that you don't want to talk about, but when you bring a problem here you're likely to get issues addressed that you didn't bargain for, and first thing's first. Your refusal to answer the simple question of COI is as good as an admission, and the combative attitude is not going to help you sell your case. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a COI. But even if I did, this is the place to complain about BLP violations. Now, do you have a COI? Do any of the other anonymous "editors"? No one will address my actual complaint. Complaints about Wikipedia being an insider social club ring true when all the responses are about the person and nothing is about the content. Square Offset (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Square Offset: Very well, I'll address the meat of your concern presented in your first message. Looking at the masthead of Canadaland, it appears to be a reliable source. They label Bourrie as a journalist. Even though he received a PhD, the timeline of our article shows he was continuing to do journalism work, so I don't see any problem with the text sourced to Canadaland. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that. The timeline, in fact, shows otherwise, and none of this "journalism" seems to be linked to by anyone. I tried to find some, and all that turned up was excerpts from his books, and absolutely nothing about Canadian federal politics or about Duffy (outside his book Kill the Messengers: Stephen Harper's Assault on Your Right to Know, which he discussed in the piece published by -- wait for it -- Canadaland). The Wikipedia page strongly implies, through a quote from someone who did no investigation but is held out as authoritative, he had a journalistic conflict of interest, covering Duffy and Canadian politics, while working for Duffy. I can't find evidence of that. Where is the journalism? Some links please. Timeline very strongly suggests he was writing three books and teaching during the time he did the Duffy edits. Square Offset (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to track down evidence ourselves, we should be following what the sources say, and it seems that the sources about the incident call him a journalist. - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's "original research" to do a Google search (Merk Bourrie in Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie&sxsrf=ACYBGNQmDDLqk5u6DARL57YgTTOjy9l2Yw:1577211335138&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhPeK8s7mAhWDVN8KHTlnBqYQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1366&bih=625) to see if the subject of the piece is right when he complains on that talk page. There's an inherent human dignity question here: does Wikipedia actually care about truth and reputations? Or does it use weaseling to get out of responsibility and accountability, just as it allows editing and administering behind fake names? Does anyone care about getting it right, or is it just about exercising social power in Wikipedia cliques? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Square Offset (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Not interested in the proximate issue, but point: we certainly, can, do, and should track down material on our own for our education, not for putting into the article. Here's one that came up for me recently. We had a source, would normally be considered reliable, that said [pop star] had appeared in [girlie magazine] as the centerfold. Sleuthing and deduction revealed to me that this wasn't true -- she'd appeared in the magazine, but fully clothed and not as the centerfold. To determine this I certainly performed original research, such as searching the world wide web for copies of the supposed question, analyzing them, looking at the cover of the magazine (centerfolds are always on the cover or at least mentioned there; she wasn't), determining of the magazine in question ever used fully clothed centerfolds (they don't) and so forth.
So, what do do? Leave in what the reliable source said, or take it out since it wasn't true? Obviously we cannot be like "Reliable Source magazine said she appeared as a centerfold [source: the article], but she didn't [source: me]". But we can just remove the material. So we did.
Was that wrong? Are we not supposed to do that? I mean... you have to understand that "Reliable Source" is not a magic word. No source is always reliable for all statements of fact, and I would say that a source is by definition not reliable for a fact which it objectively got wrong. Right? Because holding otherwise would be... well, I don't want to throw around pejorative terms, but... but... so wrong it is on Jupiter? We are not putting in the Wikipedia things that we know are not true just because we can dig up someone who got it wrong? Tell me we aren't.
Don't know that applies here or not (busy, not interested) but I felt compelled to counter the editor's statement. Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A couple responses to Square Offset's statements: (1) We're all volunteers here, and also not mind readers. If you have reliable, third party published sources that directly counter claims in the article, then please provide them. Telling everyone to google it isn't helpful if we don't know what we're looking for. (2) You keeping claiming that editors are controlling the page but haven't provided any evidence. Nothing's going to happen about that unless you supply DIFFs of misconduct. Woodroar (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If the subject of the article has a concern, in my opinion it should be taken seriously. But I'm a busy person and personally I've found the OP's tone and behavior to be off putting, to put it mildly, so I hadn't bothered to look into this until now. Frankly, if they had simply said "Yes, I have a COI" or "No, I'm simply interested because..." I would have taken this a bit more seriously, but the evasiveness automatically put me on alert.
First, the article reads for the most part like a resume. I can't really find in there anywhere --going strictly by the writing-- what this guy is notable for. Aside from an impressive list of schooling and jobs, what has he done? Talked to a Chinese news agency and participated in paid editing on Wikipedia? If that's all we got then it must've been a really slow news day on Wikipedia. As written I see no real indication of this person's importance. It's a terribly boring article about some insignificant stuff.
Now, let me see if I got this right. This is all about the use of the word "journalist" at the end of the career section, is that correct? This is not Wikipedia calling him a journalist by profession, but a paraphrase of someone named Christopher Waddell making a statement that I read as "Someone with a masters degree in journalism should know better, because that goes against all ethics of journalism." I haven't read the source, but I assume there is a direct quote in there from this guy that perhaps we should use instead. That would help clarify the intended meaning and make it clear that this is a statement according to Waddell, not a fact presented by Wikipedia. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment on sockpuppetry: I went through the article and didn't find any BLP violations. Almost all of the material is properly sourced and supported, and the few unsourced non-contentious statements are tagged inline. This looks like a complaint from the same person operating accounts such as Sportsman360, who left a nearly identical complaint on the article's talk page in September [8] and was subsequently banned for being a sockpuppet of Spoonkymonkey, who was banned by Arbcom and may be related to the sockpuppets of Mark Bourrie. All the accounts have the same argumentative style, and they also focus on people like Christopher Waddell for making "libelous" statements. Based on the article's talk page, editor Nfitz looks to have more knowledge about the sockpuppetry there (which seems to frequently have 3 month breaks in between, possibly to avoid checkuser). I will submit a new entry for the SPI if I have time later in the week. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The OP has been banned as a confirmed sockpuppet of Spoonkymonkey. I suggest this thread be closed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Before closing, I'll say I do think it would be helpful to clarify that the last sentence is an expert opinion by Waddell. I can see why this would upset the subject, but claiming another job is only trying to minimize it. To help clarify why I immediately read Waddell's statement like I do, journalism is not just a job like flipping burgers at the local Burger King. In journalism, reputation is everything. In some ways it's kinda like being a Marine. I've heard it said, "Once a Marine, always a Marine". Both have a very structured, internal value-system and a "code" that they live by. A code that carries with them all throughout their lives. It doesn't matter what particular job you're doing at the time, once you break the code your reputation diminishes in the eyes of other journalists, and once that happens... But if well sourced, Waddell's opinion seems like a valid, expert one (at least a peer) given the facts surrounding the case. However, we should also strive to add opposing views, that is, provided they exist. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, Zaereth, and if the article subject had news articles or other sources that discussed the issues they raised, I don't think there would be any objection to include additional information. If they create another sockpuppet in 3 months, I strongly encourage them to focus on reliable sources that can be added. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Fiori

There is either a person or group of people who have continuously been vandalizing and editing Patrick Fiori's page even though I've tried to undo the changes. I would like to request that there be a page protection of some kind to keep the page from being edited unless it is by an admin or by Patrick himself, and also restore the page to what it was before all of the edits were made. Any advice or help by anyone is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I have reversed the edits made by the other users back to the way it was before. I hope it will stay that way. Though, I doubt it. Admins, please help!

Hajiru (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hajiru: Thank you for reverting the vandalism and welcome to Wikipedia. I see that the article has already been protected now. I couldn't have helped you with that specifically, since I'm not an admin. In general, if you'd like to request page protection, WP:RFPP is the noticeboard for that. You'll get a much faster response there than here, so it's a good place to go if you encounter a similar situation in the future. Clovermoss (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

G. Nanjundan

G. Nanjundan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} Person was found deceased in last few days, there were various reports in newspapers etc. No talk page was created by the article creator. The talk page where created had Old revision of Talk:G. Nanjundan had no Template:WPBS blp=yes not blpo=yes parameters set; nor the living=yes {{WikiProject Biography}} set. I have subsequently set various parameters, FeanorStar7 has challenged them and I seem ot have challenged back. This is all good faith and I would like to know best practice setting for a newly created article on a person recently deceased for WPBS/bll & blpo and WikiProject Biography living=. This report has had to be rushed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC) See also my talk page. @Inter&anthro and S. M. Nazmus Shakib: article/talk page creators. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Having more time and less rush on a different point on a day I have restudied Template:WikiProject Biography/doc and [[:Template:WikiProject banner shell/doc]. The Parameters section of the Biography/doc specifies "living=" mus be specified (yes or no). For a confirmed death of subjects of the article this must imply living=no for a confirmed death. "blpo=yes" should be used "Answer yes if the subject of the article is not a living person, but the article contains sensitive information about other living persons, otherwise remove this line.". In the spirit of WP:BDP the information in the article is (usually) sensitive to living heirs/friends for a "mourning" period; and I would suggest generally until interment; and erring on the safe side would usually be 6 months except for complex situations. The documentation for banner shell/doc is similar with blp=yes/living=yes demanded for living people (does not actually state the position for non-living people) and blpo=yes This should be used for articles where Template:BLP does not apply directly to the subject, but which nevertheless have content that directly relates to other living persons. BLP might be required if the article mentioned people other than the subject. In essential in thie case I have determined living=yes on the Template:WikiProject Biography template and blpo=yes on the [[:Template:WikiProject banner shell] would be appropriately place Template:BLP others on the talk page with points to a page covering WP:BDP. (I actually believe this is precisely -FeanorStar7's position on my talk page). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I still think the living parameter for the actual WP Biography tag itself should be living=no since we know the person is dead; the blpo=yes in the banner shell I agree with... I hope this is clear. Thank you.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. I simply need to be WP:TROUTed for braindeadingly setting it incorrectly on an edit this morning, now fixed. [9]. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Vladimir Bushin

There's a few things that I wanted to bring up here first about this article. First, the article only has two citations: one being for his death today. I can't read them because they're in Russian. His name was also removed from Category:Living people. The other thing that stands out to me is that the only other citation in the article is to a sentence containing one word (read the article to see what I mean, I wouldn't want to repeat possible WP:BLP violations here). Are sources like these enough for a BLP? The original creator of the article was blocked for using mutiple accounts abusively, so I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the content. Clovermoss (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Sen. Marsha Blackburn Biography of Living Persons

WHY are you looking for dirt on Sen. Blackburn under the guise of a Biography of Living Persons? You ask for evidence if she is "Racist" because of her vote in regards to recognizing Hawaii as former Pres. Obama's state of birth. SHAME on you!!! Biography's are apolitical and by asking for evidence if she is racist you are negating your claim to be a "Biography". This should be deleted IMMEDIATELY if you wish to maintain your credibility! Kilraywashere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilraywashere (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, the OP appears to be referring to Talk:Marsha_Blackburn#Racist_birther_background_and_links, which is a section that someone started over two years ago which had no comments in response until now. Looks like it was basically ignored. (There is text in the article relating to the subject introducing legislation in the wake of birther conspiracies, but there is no accusation of racism.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I've noted on the article talk page that the comment, while maybe not well articulated, seemed fair enough since at the time there was zero coverage of the subject co-sponsoring that bill and I suspect we probably should have covered it, as we do now. (I don't think the comment inspired the fix, and indeed such comments often result in no action, hence WP:SOFIXIT etc, but the post of that comment still had a point.) As for the racism stuff, I would remove even after 2 years any explicit accusation of racism by an identifiable living person when not supported by reliable secondary sources. However since the comment on the talk page didn't say the subject is racist, but rather the conspiracy theories were, which IMO is a fair enough characterisation since they often were, I don't think we need to do anything. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Naseem Shah

Hi. Can anyone help confirm that this interview (on YouTube) confirms this edit to Naseem Shah's article? I assume the language is Urdu. FYI - I have no issue with the source, as it's from the Pakistan Cricket Board, but need confirmation on that edit. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

yes, I have also added second source of another interview which has English subtitle.--119.160.71.158 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Please note that someone keeps deliberately putting up a section on 'Norway' which is disparaging to Manfred Gerstenfeld. Every time we take it down, they put it back up. Can you please stop this?

thank you

Karen (for Manfred Gerstenfeld) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwolberg (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added a lot of guidance to Karen's talk page. At first glance the challenged material appears sourced to RS and/or to the subject's blog. More eyes will help us figure it out.-- Deepfriedokra 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Oscar Lopez

Article cites, "In contrast, Lopez claimed that Southwestern administrators fired him for his refusal to cut back on his rhetoric after having reprimanded him earlier for talking almost incessantly about homosexuality.[13]" 'Talking incessantly' is not mentioned in the cited article, and obscures the point. It appears the issue is between a belief in the "celebate homosexual life" as ideal (SWBS), and belief in modification of homosexual orientation by Lopez, as well as linking homosexuality to abuse. The cited source itself from queerty.com is insubstantial and unhelpful compared to sources closer to the discussion. Inside Higher Ed does a better job. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/12/11/professor-who-sought-refuge-liberal-academe-southern-baptist-seminary-finds-out-why. Vague broadside swipes should be excluded by Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardTurner2 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Need more voices, please

We could use some more eyes over at Talk:Open_Technology_Fund#Addition_to_Section_3_-_Projects. A user removed an entry stating that it violated WP:BLP, this has been re-removed by Gamaliel. I understand he wants to err to the side of caution. We have another admin, myself and another user who all state there's no BLP violation present in the addition. The original user who removed the entry, Cellarpaper has responded on the talk page but has not actually stated what the BLP is, nor has Gamaliel stated what he believes the BLP to be.

Some extra input on the page would be appreciated to gain consensus, one way or the other. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Asaram

There have been multiple attempts by a user to make this article like an attack page. That user is eager on deleting all the positive info even is it is sourced by news websites and just wants to have all negative info. diffs: 1. User wants to delete acquittal info: [10] [11] [12] 2. User wants to delete the clarification comments and just wants to have the controversial comment: [13] 3. Any many more: [14] [15] [16] Removed references which proved the subject was exonerated in the other case [17] etc. I see continuous attempts by this user in making article negative and as fas as I know a BLP article should have both negative and positive aspects if they are sourced, but this user just wants to engage in edit war and tries to remove all positive content. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The acquittal stuff seems out of place as presented, especially the IT act thing. If the cases were mentioned elsewhere in the article, then sure his acquittal should be mentioned. But mentioning some random acquittal when there isn't even some minimal explanation of what the case was about is pointless. We do not mention even random court case someone gets involved in, and if these court cases wouldn't have been mentioned before the acquittals then they often won't be mentioned after the acquittals either. (Exceptions would be if they resulted in something wider. E.g. if he successful sued for malicious prosecution or something.) This guy seems to have had a number of controversies and these two random acquittals don't exactly seem to be "positive info". Positive info would be stuff like any good work he has done etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter LaBarbera

A picture of Peter LaBarbera (File:Peter LaBarbera.jpg) exists but an admin says it is prejudicial towards him given protesters against his organization in the background. However, I would note that LaBarbera was attending this pride parade as a counter protester and therefore the image is consistent with his work. Can the image be used or cropped?--NL19931993 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@NL19931993: Can you provide links or WP:DIFFS to this discussion? Such a photo might be inappropriate for a lead photo, but otherwise shouldn't be a problem. 13:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Assuming it is the image in this diff, the concern is valid but at the same time that image can cropped to just the person's head and shoulders to remove the protests around him as to work. --Masem (t) 14:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if that is the image, it's not appropriate for the lead in its uncropped form. It would be fine cropped, but you don't have to crop out ever bit of the rainbow flag either. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Mriganka Singh

User:Kshitijbhargava171001 is adding unsourced POV and potentially defamatory content in the article as can be seen here, here and here, where the user writes that the subject has no other credibility apart form being the daughter of a notable politician as can be seen in one of the edits by the user here - "Mriganka has no other relevant milestone in her life than being the daughter of Hukum Singh.." The user keep edit-warring and is likely to violate 3RR despite I warned them once [18]. Since not much activity can be seen from the account apart from vandalizing the above article, it seems like a vandalism only account. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


User:Fylindfotberserk should note that the comments made were not defamatory these were just facts. To Prove me wrong I did ask User:Fylindfotberserk to prove that these defamatory or untrue. If even one instance of the information provided by me is found to be untrue I would agree to the statement above. Please provide with credible data that proves Mriganka Singh has some achievement in her life apart from just fighting an election that too on the basis of her ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshitijbhargava171001 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Samira ahmed (UK journalist)

I'm the subject of this page. I never went to Hazelhurst school. As it's my page i'm not editing it myself. The page is also very out of date and has obsolete listings. If you want to update then I suggest you use my website www.samiraahmed.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.125 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Removed the unsourced claim. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerardo Werthein

Gerardo Werthein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malfeasance that is "under investigation". content aded here is negatve BLP sourced to finleaks and removed as misinformation here. Subsequently readded and removed. While not egregiously negative BLP, I'd like it looked at and I question the adequacy of the source.-- Deepfriedokra 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There really wasn't much there, so I redirected to Werthein Group. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Eric R. Braverman

I came across a slow edit war at that page, over information that portrays the page subject negatively. It looks to me like the information is reliably and widely sourced, but I'm posting here to get some more opinions about it, and eyes on the page. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Post and The Daily News are gossipy tabloids. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The article has many reliable references. The user in question is whitewashing the article, that is vandalism in my book. He can't just delete thousands of pieces of text because he doesn't like it. I reverted him. If one of two sources need to come out fair play, but not most of the article which is well sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Copying my comments from the Talk page: I've removed the claims again. More than two-thirds of the sources are to court records (which aren't reliable sources for BLPs) and tabloid papers The New York Post and The New York Daily News. Surely there have to be better sources than these. If not, then these claims shouldn't be here. Woodroar (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Quackwatch is a reliable source. The New York Post has been used on over a hundred articles on Wikipedia as a source, search for The New York Post on in the search bar that gives many other articles where it is cited. Are you going to remove all those as well? Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
[19], casewatch.net is a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Again copied from the Talk page: From WP:RSP: "Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons." (Emphasis mine.) Casewatch is run by Stephen Barrett so it is also self-published and should not be used for these claims, either. Woodroar (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Quackwatch articles by Barrett are sometimes used on biographies where no other reliable source exists, this has been discussed at length. See Gary Null for example. If you are going to remove Quackwatch as a source on Braverman are you going to remove the many other living biographies where it is cited? I think not. You are cherry-picking. And Casewatch.net is used on other biographies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The RFC on Quackwatch just closed 2 days ago and that was the general consensus. Personally, I like Quackwatch—in addition to plenty of sites that also wouldn't be appropriate sources in all situations—but Wikipedia has high standards for claims about living persons. As for your whataboutism, WP:BLPN is on my Watchlist, which is how I found out about this dispute. Woodroar (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
You have removed Quackwatch as a source on this article, but not any of the others for living biographies, so you are cherry-picking. Go over to the Gary Null article then and remove Quackwatch. I would like to see how far you get. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The BLP-violating content was reinstated by User:Roxy the dog, using Twinkle no less. Some more eyes on this would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Explain what on earth is wrong with using Twinkle for us please. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Twinkle is for reverting vandalism and unconstructive edits, along with maintenance tools. It's not restoring BLP-violating claims that were removed in good faith. Woodroar (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the response here. I want to point out something that I also said at the article talk page: What originally led me to restore the material in the one edit that I made was that the page also cites this source, which is from The New York Times, and that is unquestionably a reliable source. It look to me overall that the source material is factual as opposed to sensational, but I also think it might be a good idea to revise the page to reduce reliance on the contested sources, and maybe to find alternative sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The user who started the whitewashing Oxford2008 has been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry. What he was doing was vandalism. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

NOT#TABLOID

I agree that there was some serious problems with the whitewashing. But Wikipedia is also WP:NOT#TABLOID. In other words, although this person's legal troubles have been splashed across the New York society scandal pages, we probably shouldn't be devoting the entire article to such. I think we need to just summarize the legal troubles neutrally and let the reader visit the relevant sources if they want the sordid details. I am not sure on how best to accomplish this. jps (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, although QW controversies are what prompted the FTN posting and most of the above discussion, I think that QW-sourced content is far and away not the thing that is WP:BLP problematic on the page. jps (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll just note that there has been a significant rewrite of the page in the last 24 hours. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
That's true, but it still relies largely on tabloids, court documents, and SPS like Quackwatch and Casewatch to make negative claims about a living person and not their beliefs. Woodroar (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I intentionally did not express an opinion of the rewrite efforts, simply reported them. And I think the solution is to continue revising the page, and working towards consensus on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
This to me looks like a reliable source Embattled Manhattan doc faces accusation of ‘quackery’, it is not tabloid gossip, it documents some factual information. On Wikipedia there is no rule that says nypost.com is banned or should never be cited at all anywhere at anytime, but that is what is happening here. Even the Daily Mail in rare cases is cited on some Wikipedia articles. Sometimes tabloid newspapers have a good moment and author sensible articles. Yes rare, but it does happen. I don't see why we have to eliminate that source. The nypost.com was indeed cited many times on this article, but to eliminate it entirely seems excessive. We should not be censoring negative information that this guy has been accused of quackery. He has been accused of quackery and we should cite that on the article but that has now been removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There's no consensus about the reliability of The New York Post per WP:RSP, except that it's a tabloid newspaper and "most editors prefer more reliable sources when available". You can read about their generally poor reputation at New York Post#Criticism. The author of that article also writes for their gossip section, Page Six, which is concerning. I have to wonder if there are really no other sources that repeat these claims? If there are, we should use them instead. If not, that's probably a sign that no unquestionably reliable sources consider them worth reporting. (And if that's the case, we shouldn't, either.) Woodroar (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Prefer does not mean "must not use".Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course not, but there's significant disagreement that a policy-based consensus should decide if we use it, if we need to support it with other sources, or anything else. But editors who want to use that source (or others) need to build consensus for its inclusion rather than endlessly reverting. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
True, but any objection must also be based upon policy, not I do not like it. The NYT is an RS, it "repeats" A claim, the "tabloids are being used (in this instance) to flesh it out with some details. THus all that is being done is to remove valuable (and verifiable) information.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Kim Iversen

The neutrality of the recently added Kim Iversen#Political views section isn't obvious for me. For starters I've reset the lede + categories to what they were before (=2RR for today), tagged the section as {{primary}}, and upgraded six raw references to {{YouTube}} + {{cite web}}. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Connor Behan: Thanks for helping with this mess. If there are no new insights here (before this section is aechived) I plan to remove the section, because it isn't based on RS. Or as you said in an edit summary: Does this "Political views" section mention what she thinks of healthcare, climate change, trade, outsourcing, the minimum wage, universal basic income and money in politics?, matching what I said on the talk page: Nothing about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. Andrew Yang. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson, really? –84.46.52.46 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this discussion. It looks like the approach we are both taking is to fix the most egregious problems first (references and NPOV violations) while we wait for further input. Deleting the whole section is the next logical step since I can't see it receiving coverage in secondary sources any time soon. Connor Behan (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Julia Roberts

Glad this was finally protected. I'm getting no response to rev/deletion requests of content a several articles. This one could use it. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've revdeleted those entries. If there's any I've missed, drop me a note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Lia McHugh

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

Is there any way to protect certain sections of this person's wikipedia entry from being edited. I have provided solid proof of this actresses DOB yet people keep reverting the change based on zero evidence. RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Instagram is not a valid source of information. I removed the birthdate. It can be added back when a reliable source comes along. --Rob (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
how is it not a valid source of information? do you think the actress is lying about her age? I have also found a post which corroborates her age which was posted on her family account. these are confirmed accounts, not fan accounts. RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@RoboBongoCuckooCop: Celebrities have motives to manipulate their ages. As a result, we don't accept self-published sources for age. See WP:BLPSELFPUB, which says SPS may be used only if they are not unduly self-serving. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that it is not unduly self-serving. We have multiple instagram posts now confirming her proper date of birth. What benefit would it serve this particular person to pretend to be 14 instead of 12? None that I can think of, hence why its not unduly self serving. RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
what would constitute a reliable source? any interviews she did could be marked as unreliable for the same reason as why instagram posts are unreliable. It is worth noting that I have at least 3 confirmed ages via different instagram posts now. RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
looking at Julia Roberts page, for example, how do we know her DOB is accurate? there is no source, so how do we know for sure? How do we know that any of the hundreds of thousands of public figures have accurate date of births? If I see someone like Hailee Steinfeld or Daniel Radcliffe post that it is their birthday and then the paparazzi have photos of them going out to celebrate said birthday is that considered reliable? or is everyone just lying through their teeth about their date of birth? at some point we have to trust that they are telling us the truth and if they aren't well what else are we meant to go off? I mean if 3 instagram posts detailing her 11th, 12th and 13th birthday aren't enough, in combination with everyone wishing her a 14th birthday in her post from last year isn't enough then maybe you should go through and remove every single celebrity date of birth because nothing can be verified as the vast majority would be taken as true on good faith. RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@RoboBongoCuckooCop: Other stuff exists. In the case of those other articles, there are probably interviews that have been reviewed by editorial staffs at the publishing entities. In the case of McHugh, we have one self-published Instagram post (well, two, since I'd argue that the mother was part of the birth, so she can reasonably be said to be posting about herself) that support the date of birth. That's evidence that's so flimsy as to not be allowable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: you have just proven my point for me. If Instagram is considered to be an unreliable source because it is user controlled, then how are interviews, reviewed or not, any better? If a public figure is being interviewed for a magazine and they say that they recently turned 21 on December 6 and that is used to justify a DOB then I fail to see how that is any different to using an instagram post saying the same thing. Also this is hardly being applied consistently. I've seen tweets from celebrities being counted as evidence of birthdays. Dove Cameron's wikipedia page has 2 sources listed for her birthday: one is a tweet from Dove confirming the day and the other is a page which has zero information about her DOB. My point is that if we cannot trust instagram posts by the person themselves, verified or not, then how can we trust interviews with the person? Or any source really? RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Great point. Wikipedia is edited by anyone and policy here is weakly implemented and also weakly supported by the vast majority of contributors, they are mostly not bothered about guidelines at all, there is no guarantee thay any of the details posted here are correct, but does that mean that I can post more unverified non policy compliant claims, no.Govindaharihari (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the Instagram post is not allowable, period. I just took a look, and it's an unverified account. Accordingly, we cannot place any reliance on it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I did a Google search and found nothing in reliable sources (as defined per WP:Reliable sources). I get hits from Just Jared Jr. (blacklisted URL) and Daily Mail (unreliable per community), though. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC) amended 16:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Second opinions needed on Corky Boozé

I came across Corky Boozé while reviewing a new-ish user's article creations. I'm very concerned about how this article is written. It consists almost entirely of controversy sourced to local publications. There is very little biographical information in the article. My dilemma is, should this be CSDed as an attack page; should it be nominated for AfD; or can it be salvaged? - MrX 🖋 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this. I have made a start? Maybe it needs AfD. MPS1992 (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MPS1992. I'm on the fence about AfD. - MrX 🖋 00:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't see how he's notable per WP:NPOL. He's a city councilman and has campaigned on some local issues, as a councilman would be expected to do, and has received local press coverage, also to be expected. That's not enough on its own and I can't find any sources which suggest anything which elevates him above thousands of other local politicians (but I'm searching from the UK so my search results will reflect that). On balance, I'd be in favour of AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Olivera Finn

Too much personal, passionate detail. --195.176.96.201 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Early life and education" could do with a trim, but why no just trim it yourself? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I’ve trimmed it. The article needs expanding with detail about her career, and it relies too much on one source. Neiltonks (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Robin Steinberg

On Robin Steinberg: The "Controversies" section appears to be poorly sourced and the subject of repeated attempts to re-add the material by a single-purpose account. Since I'm arguably INVOLVED as I've removed the content before, bringing here for review and possible administrative action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jawar Mohammed

Asking for more eyes on this. Not a whole lot of English sources. I've reverted a couple of times unsourced and poorly written additions to the article which seem to me not to be written from a NPOV. Hydromania (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Blum

A SPA is trying to whitewash the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Malcom Gladwell

My query concerns a book by Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point. An editor has added this:

"There has also been criticism of the basic claims of his book that the idea of a tipping point originates from epidemiology and a denial that there was any actual evidence for the central examples of the spread of the fashion for hush puppies or venereal diseases, together with the claim that the book has an underlying theme of racism and homophobia.[1]"

Besides needing attribution, I'm uneasy about it as it seems to be accusing Gladwell of racism and homophobia, something not suggested in his article. However, when I looked at his article to find out, I found that the same editor, User:Napata102, had added "This claim that the idea came from epidemiology has been critically challenged.[2]" I can't see where Ladimeji is an expert on dynamics here[20] or in the deleted biography Dapo ladimeji created by the same editor. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ladimeji, Oladapo. "Racism and homophobia in Gladwells Tipping Point" (PDF). African Century Journal. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  2. ^ Ladimeji, Dapo (March 2015). ""Racism and homophobia in Gladwell's Tipping Point: Revisiting Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Tipping Point'" (review)". Retrieved September 1, 2016.
African Century Journal looks to be Dapo Ladimeji's vanity project. Not a reliable source; no evidence of peer review; no evidence of use by others; essentially self-published. - Ryk72 talk 16:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug_Chapman_(American_football)

Requesting page protection due to defamatory and libelous information being repeatedly posted unnecessarily. These edits made by posters with an axe to grind are public information that could damage ones career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.187.84 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What has been posted and removed is not defamatory. It is a garden-variety edit war between Prosportslogs and SinclairCEO over rather innocuous early-career information. I have warned both users as an uninvolved fellow editor and asked for page protection. Maybe then they can work it out on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd entirely agree with your assessment although I appreciate it may not have been obvious. There is something weird going on with that page. I recognised the article and name, which was weird since he's an obscure former American football player, a sport I think is wack and don't follow in any way. I see now this is because it came up before Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive294#Douglas Chapman. At the time, there didn't seem to be anything particularly concerning.

But since then, the article has had edits that admins have felt were bad enough to justify rev-deletion [21].

Also I see now that even before the previous thread, someone has been adding uncited contentious and I suspect almost definitely untrue claims about their recent employment [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and a clearly untrue claim that the subject is paralysed [29] [30] [31] and utter nonsense [32] [33]. Given the relative obscurity of the subject, I guess this must be some person with a personal dislike of the subject targeting the article. (I recently dealt with what I assume is a a similar case on two sisters although in that case I suspect there's probably some personal connection as the people seemed ever more obscure.) I would include the blocked adder Special:Contributions/Marshall77 of the rev-deleted claims and Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO who did once add similar non attributed claims about the subject's recent employment as per my earlier links.

The recent edits [34] are maybe the basis of something which could be in our article and in any case are not defamatory if true. But although a source was attributed for one claim, no inline citation was provided. And I have very strong doubts given the recent history that it is true. If not true, I would argue it is defamatory. I personally dislike using the word on wikipedia as it's rarely helpful and don't think it's useful here, still the OP may very well be correct. Definitely some of the earlier additions could be considered defamatory.

BTW I noticed [35] which suggests to me the OP could be the subject of the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

SinclairCEO has been blocked as a sock of Marshall77 based on an ANI report I made. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:, you have done sterling work here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rose McGowan

Persistent WP:BLP violations, so a more stringent level of page protection is merited. As well, mass rev-deletion may be appropriate for defamatory content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, EvergreenFir. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Marnus Labuschagne

Really need more eyes, a mass attack re: long term addition of unsourced nicknames, mixed in with a mass attack of unsourced changes in statistics. I've requested indefinite semi protection. Can't keep up with the multiple IPs, and no intention of spending the night doing so. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

Could some editors please have a look at this article, the use of cited sources, and the associated AfD page. There was an incident at a Trump campaign rally in 2016. A young Aspergers Brit with many mental health issues had a psychotic episode in which he attempted to grab a security guard's pistol at the rally. He was immediately subdued and eventually served 6 months in jail for possession of a firearm. An editor has created and is "defending" an article that promotes the false narrative that this was a significant assassination attempt on Trump. In fact, the only lasting coverage given the incident related to discussion within the UK about how the social services and justice systems treat troubled individuals with behavioral problems. The article creates an UNDUE and BLP-disparaging narrative that is not supported by the weight of the RS coverage of this incident. Any wise input will be appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would welcome any suggestions on how the article could be improved. I would note that User:SPECIFICO appears to be heavily focused on articles relating to Donald Trump and would suggest that the article would benefit from oversight from someone less invested in the subject matter. McPhail (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, McPhail has written 90% of the "assassination" article text. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment - To be completely honest, this seems like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. What about the article was UNDUE? The article is well sourced and it certainly meets GNG because of that. I'm also not really sure how you can say that the article is not mentioning his mental health when the personal life section is almost entirely focused on that very topic, in addition to mental health being part of an entire paragraph in the lede. Jdcomix (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Why does the heading say "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump"? He was never charged with or pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. Moriori (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree that the labeling of this as an attempted assignation is OR, against BLP of the suspect. I don't know what else to call it, but definitely not " assassination.--Masem (t) 23:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Seconding the ongoing discussion about the title possibly being misleading, but I am also having problems with thinking of a potential title for a RfM. Jdcomix (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment on US Statutes & the reification thereof. "Assassination" is a term with a common English meaning, "murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons : the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader)"[36]. Under US law, the only statute that I can find explicitly labeled "assassination" is 18 U.S. Code  1751. Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties; the scope of which is limited to the President, Vice-President, both-Elect, their staff (the Cabinet), and the next in line if there is no Vice-President. If we are to take this statute as the determinant of what can and cannot be described using the term, then only those persons, and only post-dating that statute, can be assassinated. I am loath to do so. We would have to go against reliable sources in our descriptions of more than 99% of the entries in List of assassinations. Martin Luther King was clearly assassinated. As were Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and Harvey Milk. - Ryk72 talk 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to read this amateur legalistic mumbo-jumbo as anything other than a deflection from the central point of BLP, decency and erring on the side of protecting the privacy and rights of a living individual, in this case one whom nobody called an assassain or attempted murderer after the initial confusion and headline-writing hyperbole subsided. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
A veritable outrage! I should like the record to show that I am well regarded for the professional quality of my legalistic mumbo-jumbo. Happy New Year! - Ryk72 talk 21:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the thing. All the cited sources were from the period shortly after the incident before the facts became known. This is not a notable event. The article presents prosecutors' early allegations as if they were fact. BLP violation. And when all of what we now know is put in context, we just have the story of a kid who had a psychotic break and acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. The folks at AfD don't seem to be focusing on much of this. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. “I did try to kill a guy, mum.”[37] I'm not sure these quite gel. - Ryk72 talk 02:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The kid is mentally incompetent. That source says the judge, who is competent, dtermined that the kid did not attempt to kill. You are missing the crux. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The kid is mentally incompetent Not legally, because he was still charged and convicted. That source says the judge ... dtermined that the kid did not attempt to kill. No, it doesn't quite say that. It says the judge commented, not determined. He wasn't charged with attempted murder, so there was no determination on that aspect. He plead guilty to what he was charged with, so there was no determination on guilt. You are missing the crux. No, I don't think I am. He tried to take somebody's gun, with the intent to shoot to kill. I don't think it's reasonable to describe that as "acted out in a very harmless way" or "not harm anyone or anything". - Ryk72 talk 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, I think you've made a distinction without a difference. You can substitute "comment" for "determine" and it does not weaken the point I made. We're not talking about judicial determination. The judge said -- how's that -- he did not believe the kid had the intent to kill.
More importantly, I'm troubled by your approach to the issue. BLP is a core Policy on Wikipedia. If there is any doubt about the matter, we do not state that unindicted, unconvicted, uncharged individual attempted murder. Period. The judge's comment that he did not think he did should be quite sufficient for even undecided editors to err on the side of omitting it for purposes of this article. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I seem to be having a week where people are attributing statements to me which I haven actually said. - Ryk72 talk 01:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
How cute! I raised a BLP concern where the Judge's comment negates the title and article content as BLP violations and you reply with nitpicking language. Very disappointing and unresponsive. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with everything that Ryk72 says above. But I also agree the title may not be a fair representation of what happened. I also think that wasn't "amateur legalistic mumbo-jumbo", although I fail to see the direct relevance of "U.S. Code  1751." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you agree that Ryk72's original research from his purported legal primary sources should be used for article content, rather than the secondary RS report of the statement of the judge who presided over the trial of the perpetrator (on a charge of going to a shooting range after he failed to renew his 90-day US guest visa?) I don't. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't either. I think we should base our articles on what reliable sources say, as filtered through our content policies & guidelines. It was a counter-argument to what I see as a poor argument - that poor argument being that we should engage in original research based on what the charges were to determine article title & content, rather than using sources, policies & guidelines. For policies, I'd start with WP:AT.
As to the judge's comments, I think they are interesting, certainly noteworthy and definitely should be included; but ultimately they are an opinion, not a determinant of fact. Nit: No trial; plead guilty. - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Re: I fail to see the direct relevance of "U.S. Code  1751. I only see it as relevant in the negative sense. The argument is made above, and at AfD, that we should not say "attempted assassination", because no-one was explicitly charged with "attempted assassination". That statute is the only "attempted assassination" statute. (Mere mortals must make do with mere murder). If we were to use that as a decider as to whether, when and where we could say "assassination", then we would have to exclude multiple incidents, all of which are commonly regarded as assassinations. I suppose I could've just said "No-one was charged with "assassination" for MLK, ME, MX, RFK, HM". - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
In terms of being a notable event, I think it clearly passes the NEVENT bar, given the coverage out of the UK. But the event should be covered in the long-term view. Sources that came out in the days after the event calling it an "assassination" should be used very carefully over long-term sources where the crimes the person was actually charged with were determined. Perhaps there is room to speak to the run of the media to call it an "assassination" which later was disproven. This is basically applying WP:RECENTISM whenever you have something with a very specific legal meaning is being thrown around by sources that are not in the position to assign that legal meaning. (the same problem we have with "terrorism" for some attacks). --Masem (t) 01:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I generally like what you write a lot, Masem, and generally find agreement with it; though occasionally we differ on semantics. In this case, I'm not sure "disproven" is the right word. - Ryk72 talk 03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm amazed that article even exists. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC) I've just found and removed a group of references cited to British tabloids deprecated here at RSN. Help is needed vetting all the sources for this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a section of the article that recites undue personal detail about the perpetrator and relies on press accounts of the confused accounts before all of the facts were known. I have asked author of the article not to reinsert that content. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The above article concerns an incident at a Donald Trump rally. Donald Trump Jr. gave an interview on Good Morning America reacting to the incident. My view is that this is germane to the article as it is a response to the incident from a public figure. Another editor has removed Trump Jr's reaction stating it is "meaningless UNDUE content that violates BLP by inflating the significance of the incident". I would welcome an objective view on whether it is appropriate to include Trump Jr.'s reaction in the article. McPhail (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Too many of our articles on modern events feature "immediate" reactions, when we should be working to look at the long-term opinions and assessments of events, per WP:RECENTISM. I agree the removal of the quote is UNDUE from this facet, it's just more immediate reaction rather than the long-term. --Masem (t) 21:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
McPhail, I've spent quite a bit of time removing text cited to shoddy sources and tabloids deprecated at RSN, removing misrepresentation, SYNTH, UNDUE inflated indications of significance and various other text and sourcing we don't use on BLPs. You've reinserted half a dozen of these, probably violating 3RR in the process. It would be refreshing to see you take the lead in removing the bad content and sourcing, most of which is your own additions to the article. Then we can think of an appropriate name for a move. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

title issue

At the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there are strong BLP problems - a specific, otherwise non-notable living individual is associated with the title. While there are some sources that use that term to describe the event, going by the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, we see that we should avoid suggesting that such an individual committed a crime unless they've been convicted of it. Said individual has not only not been convicted of that crime, but not even charged with that (they were found guilty of a far more minor crime, disorderly conduct.) While the recent AFD for that article ended with a Keep, even many of the Keep votes were saying that the page should/could be renamed, with BLP concerns often being cited. While there may be concerns for orderly page move, BLP concerns generally override most other concerns, and editor @Pudeo: has not only undone a move specifically intended to stop BLP concerns while a more proper name could be found, but also undid an attempt to edit the article to avoid the BLP concerns within the article (I have since restored those edits.) I am asking that the page be blanked until it can be moved to a title that does not fly in the face of WP:BLPCRIME. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiroto Saikawa

In the small biography of Hiroto Saikawa, there is a big section on Carlos Ghosn's arrest and how he is guilty of funds misappropriation. There is a note saying that so far there is no evidence of his crime since no trial has taken place, but has been deleted then added again, and will probably be deleted again. The whole paragraph on Ghosn should actually be removed, as it is actually defamatory since no guilt for Ghosn has been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.244 (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ben Judd

Article I've created on a video game developer. He's recently been accused of some shady behavior. I'm mostly curious about BLP, tone, and neutrality. I would like imput from the greater community about these issues.

Discussion:

Sources:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article needs some work. I'm not gonna lie, so please take this as constructive criticism. It reads like a diary more so than an encyclopedia article. I mean, it's nice and you've taken a lot of time and effort to source everything, and it's great to have it all in such chronological order, but it does read more like a timeline of events in a storyboard format than an encyclopedia article. And there are quite a few colloquialisms, like "higher ups" where "executives" would look more formal. And a little too much "he says" and not enough of what is said about him. The good news is that's ok, and is easily fixed.
As for the paragraph in question, I'd say we have several major problems. The first is that our sources are op/ed columns from an editorial website. The second is that they are talking about anonymous blogs and tweets of people making unsubstantiated allegations. (I was especially amused by this line: "Another anonymous source had reason to believe the allegations, and suspected that their prominence prevented people from speaking up about it." I mean, really?) Third is that it is totally one-sided and doesn't give anything about his refutations like the sources do.
Sexual harassment is a crime, and we shouldn't be throwing around such allegations lightly. The subject doesn't seem to pass WP:WELLKNOWN, and per WP:BLPCRIME it should probably stay out until there is a conviction in a court of law. But even if he did pass WELLKNOWN, we'd still need a lot more than a single report from an editorial website about admittedly anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations to warrant inclusion. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the additional paragraph in the "indie games" section should be removed, and only keep the brief first sentence, "In 2019, following reports of mismanagement and sexual harassment by Judd, he stepped down as CEO of Dangen Entertainment, and was replaced by Dan Stern". That sentence directly relates to his why he stepped down, and avoids some of the BLP concerns of the detailed paragraph. I don't think any mention of the sexual harassment is probably relevant for the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that WP:BLPCRIME applies, so sexual harassment allegations should not be included. I have removed the mention in the lead and another in the body leaving it only in the sentence that provides context for the resignation. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dilraba Dilmurat

Persistent addition of the name DelRoBa. I am not seeing any source online that Dilraba = DelRoBa. Dilraba is a transliteration of an Uyghur name. 41.102.0.91 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If it is contested and unsourced it can be removed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Beeny

Christopher Beeny's death has now been confirmed by the BBC. EdJohnston (talk)

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

Persistent unsourced claims of death. I'm not finding any online corroboration. Page protection, user blocks or verification, any will work. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any obituaries or anything either. According to sites like livingordead.com, he's still alive, but I wouldn't use them as a reliable source. This is definitely a BLP violation, and I would suggest giving a stern warning of that to the user. We need a very good RS to pronounce someone dead. Unfortunately, I have no power to block or page protect myself. Because this is a user problem, you may get faster results at WP:ANI or WP:RFPP. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
We've got a twitter statement by family. Really hope we can wait for something a bit more official. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think twitter is quite good enough. I know a guy who was disowned by his father, and if you asked he'd say his son was dead (to him at least). A good RS would be preferable. If true then the user in question may have personal knowledge of the subject and may have access to such a source. Even a local news obit will work; it doesn't have to be online. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think this is one case where where editorial judgement or OR sort of comes into play in the sense that [38] is very unlikely to be the sort of thing someone will say just because they've disowned their father. If it had been something like where an account responded to a question "Is you father still alive" and the reply was "No he's long dead" then sure. Frankly, I would be more concerned about the fact the account is unverified so it could be a hoax, although even then the fact it seems to be a well established account makes this unlikely unless it was hacked, which then applies to any account anyway. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't encourage people to add poor sourcing and I'd even defend the right of people to revert if they want to. But it's the sort of thing where the risk is low enough, that frankly it's probably fine to just leave it be until a better source comes along which in a case like this is quite likely within a day or 2 and deal with some more pressing problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
BBC, this should be resolved. --Masem (t) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balloon boy hoax

Hi, I just added a few maintenance tags to Balloon boy hoax. This because of an outstanding discussion on whether this YouTube video should be worked into the article. It portrays undeniable evidence against the current "opinion" of the article.

I'm only a rookie, but I believe this should be looked into. While it is a YouTube link, and "anyone can upload anything", I believe it should be taken into very careful consideration whether the current, very loaded argument the article provides is still correct for a BLP. If facts change over time, this article should too, especially if the article is almost libelous towards its subject. ShindoNana talk? 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The now infamous video has been discussed to death previously. See Talk:Balloon_boy_hoax/Archive_3 and search for "Internet Historian". As before, this video is not a reliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia. As far as the title of the article, it happens to be the WP:COMMONNAME found in the reliable sources. As such, do not move it to any other title as you just did. Needless to say, I have reverted your undiscussed move, your tagging of the article, and the addition of the unreliable source along with your personal observations based on the video. Dr. K. 02:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Avery (lacrosse player)

Ryan Avery (lacrosse player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! Please help. I wanted to know what I would do if I create Ryan Avery (Keynote Speaker) in Wikipedia and there's already a name that appears the same as his, which is the subject above. I believe that Ryan Avery as a speaker is more noticeable than Ryan Avery (lacrosse player). I hope I could get advice from contributors and editors. Thank you.

Azumi121 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Azumi121

I have responded to this query on the user's talk page, as it is not the sort of query this noticeboard was meant to address. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Jim Gardiner (Chicago politician)

Edit warring over inclusion of a legal issue. May require page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:55AD:391C:FBB:BE24 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You were already active on WP:ANI among others, to request page protection try WP:RPP if possible: Sometimes this page itself is semi-protected, if too many IPs flood it with requests, but today it can be edited by IPs. I see no special problems on Jim Gardiner (Chicago politician), it's a stub in need of more references, I've added a {{refimprove}} cleanup tag. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Inna Korobkina and Steve Valentine

Persistent addition of unsourced WP:BLP violations to both biographies, adding names and birth dates of non notable children. Requesting page protection and user blocks, if necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fanboys adding un-sourced social media gossip to BLPs are sadly "normal", just remove it per BLP policy, or ask for page protection on WP:RPP. Of course you then also can't edit the page, but you can use {{edit semiprotected}} on the talk page. If many users edit the page or at least undo any damages ask for a "pending review" protection, it's far better than "semi-protection" for all involved parties if there are lots of editors. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Glenn Beck known for promoting conspiracy theories?

There is a dispute on the Glenn Beck page where some editors are removing a line in his lead that says, "During Barack Obama's presidency, Beck promoted numerous falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Obama, his administration, George Soros, and others." Is it a BLP violation to say Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories about Obama and others? RS say he did. Furthermore, it's a central aspect to his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In the body, there's one line with a bazillion references that too tersely says "he promoted conspiracy theories". To better support that lede statement (which to my recollection is something well footed), that line in the body should be expected to cover up to 3 or 4 of the theories he pushed. Something like "These included theory X, theory Y, and theory Z." which now gives you a way to spread those references across the different theories putting them right after each theory so you lose the ref kudzu. You don't have to go into the theory at all, just name enough to be clear what it is, eg for example "that the Obama administration was trying to create a false flag attack akin to the OK City bombing to increase his popularity" (coming off [39]). If you better support that body statement, the lede statement is fine as is. But right now you are hand-waving a statement with a zillion refs but no specifics, and that's not helpful in terms of neutrality - just spell out the specifics better. --Masem (t) 01:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Random observation, X + Y + Z would be three, not numerous. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj

Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj - This page contains many false informations. The cited weblinks are misrepresenting. The cited weblinks of awards are false. The page should be deleted or rewritten completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical Arun (talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

{{rewrite}}, {{PROD}} and {{AFD}} exist, pick what you need, the article name with a title is already odd, therefore I haven't read the page. Caveat, better don't pick PROD or AFD until this BLP/N entry is archived, about a week after the last reply. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Also discussed in the teahouse, Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj is a redirect. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

V. A. Shrikumar

An IP requested that the above be semi-protected at WP:RFPP and I've done that. If anyone has a moment, please try to work out what is going on. In particular, some editors like adding "Menon" to the name, and some like to remove it. The image was also recently changed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell, Menon (subcaste) is more of an honorific, and not part of his actual name, so I would say leave it out. From what I can see, looking at the most recent revert, the user in question seems to be adding mostly puffery, some bad grammar, simplistic yet uncommon names (ie: "ad films" instead of "commercials", or a list of marketing tasks instead of simply saying "marketing"), and for some weird reason they like to change everything to the present tense. I think page protection is likely the best thing. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bohdi Jones and TicTok account for Tokpolitiks linked as same person in content but not sourced.

Content added linking Bodhi Jones to a TicTok account are only based on the looks of the person and has not been sourced proving they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles E Hampton II (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you fixed that, and BLP/N (this page) is for WP:BLP issues, where folks found no consensus on the talk page, e.g., disagree about the BLP policy. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think he's notable anyway. Taken to AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark Kostabi

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

Bringing this here for review, an IP editor and a new user with one edit have both removed this content, with edit summaries of falsely sourced paragraph that is libelous and harmful and the new user claiming poorly sourced content which is misleading, harmful and libellous. I reverted both editors. I maintain the content is a significant life event for a BLP, reliably sourced, NPOV, he's well known, and has received sustained coverage through the years, 1991, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018. Mentioned in this book as well. And the original article (June 1989) is still online, The Art Of The Hype, with a paid subscription. Should this content be removed or is it compliant with our WP:BLP policy? Left a note on the new user's talk page about this discussion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi there. My primary trouble is that you replaced the content prior to coming here, such disputed content would be better left out rather than replaced if discussion is needed regarding BLP concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't notice until today that this was already brought to this noticeboard. In addition to Isaidnoway reverting Lower Manhattan Art History Society (talk · contribs), Cullen328 and I also reverted this editor. Looking at the material, it can't simply be described as tabloid journalism. The book source is right there. It's my opinion that some material on this matter should be included in the article. That stated, per WP:LABEL, it is perhaps worth changing "homophobic remarks" to "remarks that were characterized as homophobic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Govindaharihari, in that if a person is unsure about BLP compliance, enough to come here for advice, then they should probably err on the side of caution and leave it out until they're assured it's ok to restore it.
That said, the warring editor is incorrect. Page Six of the New York Post may well be an unreliable source, I don't know nor does it matter. We don't use that as a source. But it was apparently reported by the Villager, the Washington Post, the book, etc., and those are reliable sources. The retraction of the apology is properly attributed to the Page Six article. Nearly all of that is direct quotes of the subject, and nearly all the opinions are his. I also agree with Flyer22 that we should probably not say "homophobic remarks" in Wikipedia's voice, because that is a judgment call, but at the very least we should attribute it to the source. And really, the same could be said for "significant backlash". Personally, I think that first sentence is rather redundant and we'd lose nothing if it were removed. Everything needed for the reader to make those same judgments is found below, so I would just nix that sentence. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22 Reborn's suggestion that we change "homophobic remarks" to "remarks that were characterized as homophobic." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Norman Shetler

This article states that Norman Shelter was born in 1931 and served in World War II, but that is impossible, he would not have been 18 until 1949, four years after the war ended. Either he was not born in 1931 or he served in the Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.76 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If ever I saw a candidate for WP:Articles for deletion it's this one. The only sources are music academy schedules and advertisements. And a quick google search yields no reliable sources. There's no way to verify any of this, nor to establish notability. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Reece Webb-Foster

Please review the edits of @Luke Mills1996: at Reece Webb-Foster - he claims to be the subject's brother and makes edits every once-in-a-while which go against RS in the article. GiantSnowman 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There’s literally a link saying he plays for Droylsden and all edits are right and you can drop the “ he claims “ bullshit because I am. Who are you to make edits about a member of my family when you don’t even know him or anyone from my family? Read the article mr Wikipedia page editor on a power trip and stop spreading the wrong information about my brother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Mills1996 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
And here’s the link proving I’m right about who he plays for. Stop lying on my brothers page.
https://www.footballdatabase.eu/en/player/details/243924-reece-foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Mills1996 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Luke Mills1996, if you have a conflict of interest because you are related to the article subject, then you should probably be using the article's talk page (Talk:Reece Webb-Foster) rather than directly editing his page, especially if you are making edits that have been contested by other editors. Others have already directed you to WP:COI. You should also read WP:CIVILITY, which is the Wikipedia policy on how to properly interact with others in a respectful and considerate manner. Note that editors here cannot simply take your word for any fact on here. We have to be guided by the reliable sources, and if they contain incorrect information, then the article's talk page is the appropriate place to resolve those types of concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wally's right. We have no way of knowing who you really are, but for argument's sake I will assume you are who you say. It still doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if you are the subject himself, we need reliable sources to back up your claim.
From what I can tell, Steeton, Haworth, and Keighley are all part of the City of Bradford; something like Hollywood and Beverly Hills are to LA. This stat site says Keighley, while others simply say Bradford. Several newspapers and magazines like this article from the Keighley News say Haworth (it's even in the title of the article in this one). If you are indeed his brother, then you should have access to sources which contradict this info. If this is a mistake, then you and your brother should take that up with the sources and have them run a correction. Only then can we change the info. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Luke Mills1996: for consideration of the above comments. GiantSnowman 20:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the talk page with your COI and this BLP/N info. Simplified, nobody cares if you are an enthusiast, brother or "himself", everything works. And of course you can fix obvious nonsense and vandalism. However, with a WP:COI, you cannot add facts only you know, if reliable sources are wrong you have to accept it, or suggest your evidence on the talk page, where others can check if that's good or boils down to your say-so. –84.46.53.30 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, 84.46..., with the exception that the subject just has to accept mistakes made by reliable sources. However, Wikipedia is not the place to correct them. While the brother has no standing, the subject most certainly can and should contact the offending newspaper, magazine, or stat website and request that they print a retraction or make a correction. Any good RS will want to correct their mistakes publicly. Once that's done then all anyone has to do is bring a copy to the talk page and we can correct it here. But the only one with the power to make that happen is the subject.
I have a feeling that Mr. Mills may be taking this a bit too literally. I've never been to Bradford, but let's just hypothesize that my parents live in Haworth, but for some reason I happen to be born a few miles away at the hospital in Steeton. Maybe it's the nearest hospital, I don't know. But I never lived in Steeton a day in my life. Would I be Steeton-born or Haworth born? And the bigger question, does it really matter? If I come from Mountain View, Stuckagain, or Spenard, am I not still from Anchorage? As a possible compromise, perhaps we could just say Bradford and leave it at that? And the one question burning in everyone's minds, is GiantSnowman bigger than Snowzilla (snowman)? Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to BLP policy to allow omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm

Following an ANI discussion on protecting the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, I've proposed a change to BLP policy to allow for the omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm. I'm putting it up here to elicit further comments from interested editors: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed changes.

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTATABLOID is useful here. Not a tabloid & not a newspaper. Potential harm far outweighs any benefits. Bleepenvoy (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Delhi gang rape

I would like BLPN contributors to share their opinion on the dispute, whether Wikipedia Article should name the "unnamed" Juvenile convict in this case.

  • Past consensus among several editors is to not name the juvenile accused.
WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.

  • WP:BLPNAME : Privacy of names

  • Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

This is the single event where this juvenile is was discussed.

  • When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

  • The juvenile has not been named in any public documents official case records, court documents, news articles. We have only 1 RS India today article based on initial reports and India today since then has not named the subject in any of its news articles. An Article from same publication IndiaToday from 2017 about this juvenile does not mention the subject's name.
  • The name has been intentionally concealed, as a court case involving juvenile.
  • Using "juvenile suspect" like the reliable sources instead of the claimed name does not result in any loss of context.

  • When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Other than a news media, there are no secondary sources or scholarly journals or work of recognized experts that name the subject.

  • the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source - AltNews.in (A fact checker site)

  • based on above quote from Altnews, clearly it is inappropriate to use an unconfirmed name in the Wikipedia article.
  • There are real life based security risks of using this name, on the subject who completed his sentencing in 2015 and was released, and others with this name. As seen in the Altnews article above, there have been open public calls to harm the subject or others with this name. Any young man with that unconfirmed name is a target who can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. Especially since there are frequent cases of mob lynching happening in India.
  • Reliable sources just refer to him as "the juvenile convict" or "juvenile" and IMHO that is what wikipedia should also be using. Naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME that prohibit the naming in such a case.
  • So considering all these reasons, IMHO there are strong reasons for not adding this name into the article, but Binksternet disagrees. thoughts ?

DBigXrayᗙ 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Publishing this individual's (alleged) name in these circumstances would absolutely be contrary to WP:BLP. It should not be done. MPS1992 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Do no harm. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Certainly I disagree. India Today published the name in December 2012, and Moscow-based Lenta.ru published the name the next month in January 2013. Some prominent people referred to the name explicitly since then, for instance the actress Raveena Tandon in a 2017 interview, and retired Lieutenant General P.C. Katosh in a 2019 op-ed piece. India.com published a piece in May 2017 naming him and discussing his current situation, and the fact-checking website Altnews.in debunked a photograph meme about the rapist but acknowledged through a link to the initial India Today piece that his name had already been published in December 2012. The fact-checking website addressed only one of the several memes on social media that have named the rapist who was prosecuted as a juvenile.
As far as I know, the WP:BLPNAME policy has never applied to those who share the same name as someone who has appeared in the news. The privacy of the person who is actually involved in the story is what the policy covers. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
We generally do try to avoid naming minors in such that were non-notable before the crime, and where they only may have gotten BLP1E-type coverage from the event, regardless of how widespread the rest of the media give the name. Case in point: we do not name the student at the center of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation despite his name easily found by a google search. Same principle here. And I would definitely think BLP, which goes on the lines of "do no harm", would recognize that if there are reports of people with the same name getting death threats or other harassment (and this is not an isolated case, in today's world where doxxing is common), then we should take caution and not get any other individuals in trouble, or at least minimize the impact WP had on that. --Masem (t) 06:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "applied to those who share the same name as someone who has appeared in the news. The privacy of the person who is actually involved in the story is what the policy covers". We aren't going to be publishing the names of random people who share the same name as the convicted juvenile rapist, unless they're somehow a key part of the story. But they aren't and indeed the vigilantism isn't even mentioned at the moment AFAICT. The fact that the juvenile is apparently going under a new name, doesn't change the exclusion of publishing his name based on the limited number of sources which mention it. And by sources, we of course mean reliable secondary sources, no Twitter mentions or whatever.

While I don't have hard stats, probably the most common cases of BLPNAME we deal with here are naming family members particularly children of notable individuals. (To be clear, I don't mean people who are notable for crimes. Just random celebrities and the like.) We do normally exclude such names even if they appear in one or 2 reliable sources. We also get a fair few cases where the victim has been named by one or two sources, again we exclude such mentions if they're limited. We may exclude them even in some cases where it's more widespread but we need to do so for other reasons. (Kobe Bryant sexual assault case may be one such case.) We also often get cases involving those who have chosen to use a pseudonym especially those acted in adult films and similar although frankly most of these cases are terrible and involve primary sources like court cases, trademark documents or other clearly non RS/WP:BLPPRIMARY violations that we don't even need to touch on BLPNAME.

It's probably true we don't deal with many cases of excluding a convicted defendants name here but this is because most commonly either it's widely published or there is no reliable secondary source. Especially for very high profile cases involving a significant offense. (Again primary sources and other non reliable sources are irrelevant, no matter if there is no doubt of their accuracy.) I think the circumstances of this case namely that it involves someone seen as a minor in the jurisdiction they were charged in and so they were not named for that reason, but that a small number of reliable sources were willing to publish the name anyway, probably arises in part because of how extremely high profile it is and this isn't something we deal with a lot.

The most similar case I can think of off hand is Murder of Grace Millane however that situation is only expected to be temporary. (There are other permanent name suppression cases in NZ, but there are normally no RS coverage of the name. And those tend to be minor crimes as more major crimes will only involve permanent suppression if it's necessary to protect a victim i.e. where the victim was a spouse or child.) I also expect there's cases case where the alleged victim of a sexual crime was later convicted for making a false statement or something and where they have been named by one or two sources, but not by most. And I'm fairly sure there are some cases involving fairly low profile crimes or things which may not even be crimes, and of course cases which didn't result in convictions, which we cover for some reason where the name has been excluded even though it was published in RS although of course additional considerations (namely how to handle the BLPCRIME issue) arise in such cases. (While eventually the decision was made to include the names of both parties, there was extensive discussion on what to do with either party for Columbia University rape controversy and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

Some expert input about the Stefan Molyneux entry on the List of YouTubers could be helpful, a "discussion" (not really) on the Talk page was inconclusive. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux substantially uses YouTube. For instance: "One of the alt-right’s biggest YouTube stars — Stefan Molyneux — is Canadian, but you’d never know it, because he talks almost exclusively about U.S. issues." Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, the OP proposing "remove" blanked the talk page section after my reply, and I interpret that and your reply as "keep". The BLP issue is the characterization as an Anarcho-capitalist podcaster, writer, and public speaker. Known for his advocacy of libertarianism, anti-feminism, and support for Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the alt-right, is that as it should be based on the BLP?
And is BLP/N suited to discuss a blpo=yes list issue? –84.46.53.255 (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, that list is an utter mess, with very few sources, so it's entirely possible someone make take a hatchet to it one day. I'm not planning to do so myself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the entries with sources—or red/no wikilinks—are actually the worst. It's one of those simple "bring wikilink + rationale per list rules, get entry" lists. Minor issue, I still haven't figured out what the rules are, who does the cleanup, etc. Not planning to volunteer, the unprotected blpo List of sex symbols with "known to be not good enough" rules is more fun for IPs with a cleanup mission. –84.46.53.255 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I didn't notice we had red links or black entries (no links). I've remove all except for those where the channel or whatever was a blue link, or where they were part of a group where at least one was a blue link. Probably some of those I kept should be removed as well, e.g. Ewan Gotfryd who's work doesn't seem to get key mention in any of those links. Likewise where people are part of a group and one of them is a blue link. (Frankly, I think in at least some of these, the blue link probably came about in questionable circumstances.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Of course one problem in cases like this is it's always hard to know whether the blue link is even to the right person without manual checking. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Brian Evans (singer)

This article has frequently been the target of socks and editors (often new) with an obvious WP:COI. Today, a new editor (and now an IP with threats) have been adding promotional material to the article. More eyes are needed. I cannot revert any more.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

I need help with a sourcing issue on Cenk Uygur. I introduced an edit in the Political Views section that lists his current political views, and then source each political view with a YouTube video showing Uygur expressing the political view on his show The Young Turks. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by one user claiming there is a sourcing issue, leaving the comment "Entirely sourced to Young Turks YouTube, which is controlled by subject and lacks independent sourcing." In response I reference WP:BLPSPS which states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Ultimately my argument is that when citing a person's political views, a video of the person expressing their political views is a reliable source. This appears to be backed up by WP:BLPSPS. Independent sourcing in this case doesn't seem necessary to me because the section is on Uygur's personal opinions, not what other people think his opinions are.

Here is a diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cenk_Uygur&diff=934340944&oldid=931464513. Can anyone provide their input? Cacash refund (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've left feedback on the article talk page. IMO given the level of stuff you're covering, you really need some secondary sourcing to keep it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You need secondary sourcing, not Cenk's own words. You want to avoid fluff and spin that Cenk might introduce. We also don't want to list every single political position he's ever taken on every issue (that's what his personal campaign site is about), rather only what is notable. How do we determine what is notable? It would be what secondary sources discuss. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9 What about what secondary sources consider important questions to ask him regarding his views, as in an interview or debate? My take is if a news anchor or debate moderator asks him something, his answer is given the notability you refer to because the news anchor is an independent reliable source doing research in real time, if you will. Is it necessary for Uygur to state his views in an interview and then at a later point in time for another secondary source to analyze his views in order for his answer to be notable? Cacash refund (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:DUE, content must be significant or noteworthy enough to include in an article (which is different from notability, as article content does not have to be notable itself, see WP:NOTEWORTHY). Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources because they do not involve any analysis or discussion by an independent third-party. Secondary sources determine what is noteworthy, and primary sources have only limited value. However, you cannot add a bunch of liberal political views to the article sourced to primary sources, and then remove his previous conservative views because they are sourced to primary sources. That creates a biased article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
At the time that I gave new citations to the liberal views I believed them to be secondary sources, which is why I thought they were appropriate and the conservative ones weren't. To be honest I still don't know if what I think of as a secondary source necessarily is one after all this discussion. It seems even a direct quote is enough to sway what would otherwise be independent analysis into primary source territory. Cacash refund (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Generally, a source where Uygur or people close to him are expressing his views would be a primary source, while sources where unrelated people are discussing or analyzing his views are secondary sources. WP:PSTS provides a few lists of examples in the "notes" section that are helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: About "touting his support for single-payer healthcare", a quote from the BLP as of today: Is it only me, or is this out of line? My idea of neutral would be "supporting single-payer healthcare" with a wikilink. The HuffPost reference contains no "tout", but I can't tell if it is the red or yellow RS/P variety, maybe an attribution to Jessica Schulberg would help (8 uses in the article namespace). The other The Santa Clarita Valley Signal source also contains no "tout". Both sources are not wikilinked in their references, NOTTIKTOK. –84.46.52.170 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I made the edit, replacing "touting his support for" with "supporting" in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

Need some assistance on whether this is considered part of WP:TWITTER (via WP:V) and thus added to the article or shouldn't be added at all. Since this is a BLP, I am coming to you all for guidance. A discussion has begun on the talk page of the article. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)

It is a verified Twitter account, so little reason to question that it is a self-published claim and would be appropriate for BLP, if the Twitter message was more direct about that. The linked tweet is way too vague to make the claim, but I may be missing context here (clearly the replies to it are taking it as what is being claimed). That's the only issue I see, that right now we'd be engaging in OR to jump from that tweet alone to this claim. --Masem (t) 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The twitter account descriptor also includes "Ace.", which at this point (lacking some sort of adjective like "guitar ace" or "World War I flying ace") isn't that much fuzzier than "gay" these days, so that's not particularly unclear. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If that is the only context, I'd be extremely wary of it. It's clear from a quick google search she certainly falls outside "heterosexual", and she's been tied to asexual before, but I'd not 100% sure if that can be used, I'm not familiar with that use of "ace" (though clearly it exists, we document that), but I can see other ways for that statement to be taken too. I would think with her being a celebrity, we'll have an RS that will re-affirm that was the intent... --Masem (t) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual") (pulled from the first sentence of Asexuality#Definition,_identity_and_relationships). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not disagreeing: this is the Occum's Razor reading. But BLP I feel requires something a bit more than Occum's. --Masem (t) 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing, I was just pointing out since there was some confusion on the usage of "ace". Again, I am willing to look for alternative sources and say she is current sitting on a dog house or in a Sopwith Camel pretending to be a World War I flying ace as NatGertler pointed out. We could just comment out the mention of this...for the moment, while we look for backup sources. So, when people go to add it in, they'll see it's there, but also see a note that we are looking for backup, reliable sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Occam. Other than that, I reckon thhat more conventional and easier to interpret sources will be popping up soon, -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours as people are edit-warring over this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Gabriel Matzneff

Could I please get someone to check the article Gabriel Matzneff I just created? I think it's fine, but I would like another set of eyes on it - I've largely just translated the lead section of the French article. Thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Bit of a sticky wicket I'd say. I'm not sure if the subject passes WP:WELLKNOWN or not, which is something more saved for the Brad Pitts and Stephen Kings of the world, eg: people so famous that such a scandal would be reported everywhere. In cases of people who are not well-known, where coverage is out there is not widespread, WP:BLPCRIME applies, which says we should leave out criminal acts until/unless a conviction is upheld in a court of law.
This may be more of a special case, if the bulk of the subject's notability is revolves around writing about the very act he's been accused of, and that the accusations come from a book published by another author, but we should need some very good sources to support all of this, and perhaps that would also involve getting more of the story. We also have to be very careful about how we phrase things. That's the problem with just copying the lede, because the lede is really supposed to be summary of the rest of the article, but I would really need more info on all aspects to be able to make an informed determination. Zaereth (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, however he has actually confirmed the allegation and he has written books that are literally about pursuing underage minors. Unfortunately, it’s hard to understand all his work. It is absolutely making headlines all over the world, and France is going through quite a bit of soul searching at the moment because of him. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That may be the case, but the problem is that I can't tell that from reading the article. I would expect to see a lot more than 2 sources. Once again, that may just be a problem of copying the lede. Perhaps there are hundreds of sources in the body that weren't copied, I don't know. If he passes WELLKOWN I'd expect to see a lot about his career and works. There just isn't enough in the article at this point to be able to make that determination. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, should be resolved now. But at this point we aren’t talking about BLP, you are talking about notability, and any reasonable person should have worked out he is (perhaps was now?) considered one of France’s foremost intellectuals. That’s absolutely not in any doubt. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLPCRIME, which are part of WP:BLP, although BLP also works in conjunction with all other policies. I had a few spare moments so I sat down and read the French article. I would say yes, he does pass WELLKNOWN. But we really need to move all of that info and sources here, so that the English readers will have the full story. Perhaps with a little less editorializing, and less of a novelesque writing-style and more of an encyclopedic one. But to comply with BLP that all should be accessible from the English article. Zaereth (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I'll need to reread WP:BLP. Sorry about that. This is a direct translation of the French Wikipedia article. Can you highlight the editorialization in the French article? I didn't actually translate the rest of it, as I suspect this is where the editorialization is :-) Anyway, I think I've done all I can do for now. Thank you for your review, I'm happy for anyone to improve the article as they see fit. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Think of it as the difference between notable and celebrity. Let me get back to you on the specifics when I have more time. I can read French only because of my fascination with English etymology. They're about as similar as English is to Norse and Swedish, more so than it is to German, Spanish and Italian. But I am by no means fluent so it takes me a little longer, and easier if it's an archaic dialect. In general, from reading it I felt like Chris Hansen should be narrating it on an episode of Dateline, but I'll try to give some specific examples when I have more time. The article looks much better since you expanded it. There really is no question now that the info is appropriate to the subject. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Linda Bryder

This page is in violation of large portions of the biographies of living persons policy.

Sources are nearly all tabloid journalism, which consists of defamatory and libelous information. Sources are negative, questionable and written/referenced by unqualified people. Removal of such sources has been unsuccessful - editing blocked by a bot.

The page serves the only purpose of harming the subject - achieved subtly through negative references.

NPOV is not consistent where the anonymous writer has given their opinion on the subjects career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceNerd1900 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What tabloid journalism? The sources there seem to be NZ Herald, the ODT, RadioNZ, NZMA's journal, Science Media Centre, NZ Skeptic (which I'm not sure is an RS, especially for BLPs but can't reasonably be called a tabloid journalism source), www.cartwrightinquiry.com (which seems to be some sort of blog with uncertain editorial oversight so is unlikely to be an RS especially for BLPs but again doesn't seem to be tabloid journalism). None of these can reasonably be described by tabloid journalism, except for the crap NZ Herald regularly pulls from Daily Mail and similar sources like news.com.au. But although I didn't look at the stories, the fact these are local stories makes this very unlikely and I think they're also from before NZ Herald really did that. (Also I saw Chris Barton as one of the authors.) I mean okay, NZ Herald's own reporting can be a but questionable at times on some issues, but it's generally still far from tabloid journalism and especially in serious issues like "The Unfortunate Experiment" it's unlikely they were anything like that. (This doesn't mean their reporting would be perfect, but it's not accurate to describe it as tabloid journalism.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the article, I think a big problem is the lack of any other real info about her work. The book she wrote received is likely what has received the most attention by far, still she is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand so I assume there is other stuff covered in WP:RS. Nil Einne (talk)

Jay Maynard

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

Discospinster constantly reverting sourced material from Jay Maynard article without comment, even as far as to remove the edits from the system entirely. Refuses to address the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.50.12.149 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is being reverted because it's not referenced by an independent reliable source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
What's unreliable about the source? The source *is the work being referenced*. It's no less reliable than wikipedia edit history.136.50.12.149 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Pablo Lyle

Pablo Lyle

The category in the Pablo Lyle Wikipedia biography is libellous and slanderous.

I tried to edit and now it has been locked...and its unedited. This is my edit...that includes their misintentions with more detailed information. Their short blurb appears to be nonfiction but its actually full of errors...and out of context and most importantly out of context with the video footage being used to make the accusations. Its biased and very onesided. Once again while being a short blurb of the incident it is libellous and slanderous and can be punishable in the court of law for writing a bad take on the incident.

The real,longer and uncut version: On April 2019, Lyle without consideration for his Miranda Rights may have admitted to punching 63-year-old Juan Ricardo Hernández (of Cuban origin) during a road rage incident where Juan Ricardo Hernandez leaves his automobile unattended about 5 cars behind Lyle and approaches and engages the chauffer of the automobile SUV (a family car) where Lyle was a passenger. They were at a Stop Light and major intersection in Miami, Florida. The victim was hospitalized and died four days after his road rage incident which engaged the passerbyes occupants of a family car/vehicle.[3] Lyle was charged with manslaughter after the man of mature aged died. He had been originally charged with battery before Hernandez died. There is a video of the road rage incident where the victim leaves his compact car unattended about 5 cars behind, he was obviously the driver of his compact car leaving his car unattended during a Stop Light at a Major Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez then approaches enraged to engage the chauffer, Lyle and his children whom were passerbyes at a Major Stop Light Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez engages the family whom were in a family car, an SUV stopped at a major intersection. Lyle's children were passengers in the car. Lyle in a dubiously sketchy video is perhaps then seen running to punch Hernandez. Miami is full of random violence and crime even in traffic like the Dominican Republic and various parts of Florida and the Caribean which all lead to massacres. Many intersections are really to be avoided and really its a Stop and Go at Your Own Risk Intersections Regime. Apparently, gangs are more adept at law and managing the courts than the courts themselves. Why would gangs want to own the streets and major intersections. The trial is still on going but may end soon. [4] If convicted of manslaughter, Lyle could face up to 15 years in prison.

There are many major criminal incidents in Miami against tourists. Many appear to be mock crimes or repetitions of tourists being mugged and with the Miami Yacht industry apparently some are lured into yachts and raped. Do notice the recent mass murder crimes against families in traffic even in Mexico in Sonora. A family on a rural road headed to Sonora was killed in an incident that took the lives of 3 female adults and 6 children from the LeBaron family, a Mormon American Family returning home. The survivors are the father Mr Baron and 3 children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:C000:4A86:40CC:9574:69E2:B1C3 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to begin. First and foremost is that all of this needs to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. BLP rules are very clear about that, especially when naming victims and other people. And while we do give a bit more latitude on talk pages, BLP rules apply here as well.
This reads like a police report, with the exception of all the editorializing. By that I mean phrases like "without consideration", "may have admitted", "he was obviously", "enraged to engage", "dubiously sketchy", etc... These are not simple facts but conclusions on the part of the author. And even if we whittle it down to the "factual" stuff (by that I mean info that would be regarded as factual if verifiable, but lacking reliable sources it's just fiction) the info is way too detailed. All we really need is the gist of it; a summary. This is an encyclopedia, so we don't need a play-by-play.
Then there is the matter of weight. By adding so much detail about this one incident, you're giving it a lot more weight than the rest of the article. Does his notability for this incident outweigh his notability as an actor? You should want to be very careful about giving so much weight to a single incident, especially in such a very short article.
Finally, just by looking at the article, it does not look like the subject passes WP:WELLKNOWN. He may be an actor, but there is just so little coverage in the article that I seriously doubt he rises to the level of celebrity or public figure. As such, I believe WP:BLPCRIME applies, which says we should leave out everything about this incident unless/until a time comes that he is convicted in a court. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Lots o suppression, protection, looks like it has been sorted. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael McCain

Michael McCain

"As CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, McCain's handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak with frank and open communications made him a role model for crisis management.[[40]]"

This is overly promotional content with a dead source. According to policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Statement should be changed to reflect a more neutral tone, or at the very least have a verifiable source.

Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed the promotional line. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Disagree it was promotion. The Globe and Mail is a reputable paper, so a comment like this in his obit in that paper is not really promotion. As for being a dead link, a quick Wayback visit and edit added the archive there. Editors should be always checking archive.org for replacing dead links. If that source wasn't recoverable that way, I would agree the removal was fine. --Masem (t) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Also found one academic paper reviewing the crisis management, as well as the fact the Canadian press named him business newsperson of that year for the handling. Definitely a notable facet of this person. --Masem (t) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would ask that the "role model for crisis management" bit be placed in quotes as it's still the opinion of a publication. So long as it's sourced and not stated as fact I have no further qualms with it. Bleepenvoy (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It's on the border of needing quotes. There are likely more sources that can back that up, as the event and aftermath towards McCain's leadership and honest seems very well documented. --Masem (t) 06:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In the interest of maintaining a neutral, disinterested tone, I attempted to incorporate that sentiment without stating it as fact. Bleepenvoy (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:COISOURCE having a lot of trouble considering the widespread conflicts of interest that exist here. Talk:Michael McCain expands on my concerns. I don't think it would be responsible or objective to relay potential PR intervention without expanding on these potential conflicts, and that seems beyond the scope of the article. I think it's best to be cautious here for the sake of being a neutral source.Bleepenvoy (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that per Wikipedia:Link rot, you should not generally remove content simply because the link is dead. This applies even if you looked for an archive and cannot find one. You should normally only do so if you have genuine doubts that the source verifies the content. If you cannot find a replacement link, it's generally best to simply keep the citation intact and leave it for someone else to deal with. This example actually perfectly illustrates why. Even if the source was not on archive.org, it is on archive.is which is no longer banned for their historic spamming [41]. More importantly "a reputable paper", let's remember that the paper part is still true. The Globe and Mail remains a physical newspaper. Considering the significance of the person, I think it's quite likely that either this exact story, or a very similar one was published in the actual newspaper. We have the author and date and title, so it's easily possible that we already have enough for a citation to the physical newspaper. We do not require sources are online, so even if this is only cited to the physical newspaper, that's perfectly fine. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bleepenvoy, here are the cites given for this small paragraph.

  • CBC (you appear to accept this one)
  • Globe and Mail (you consider COI through board members, it appears Masem and Nil Einne disagree with you)
  • Case study in the peer-reviewed Public Communication Review journal. (you dislike "research performed by the PR firm")
  • The Conversation ("serves only as promotional language")
  • canada gov report that you call 'Weatherill' (you like, but I can't tell what is or might be used)

It appears you have strong opinion that there should be no review of this event, just given as a date and fact. But there's significant coverage that it has been used as a case study. Deciding Globe and Mail is in the bag for him is quite the stretch. The article in The Conversation isn't "only promotional", it's complimentary, which isn't the same thing. The Public Communication Review study has been referenced in 48 books. It seems this is strong personal bias on your part, not true criticism of the sources. tedder (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, I didn't actually intend to comment on the use of Globe and Mail. That said while I don't know that much about the Globe and Mail, my understanding is Masem is correct and it's a reputable Canadian paper and therefore I'd consider excluding it simply because of board members questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm OK with leaving the positive stuff in so long as the potential COIs are enumerated and they're rounded out with opinions from independent sources. Bleepenvoy (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
What would that look like? "Globe and Mail, who has a board member in common with Maple Leaf, said McCain handled it well"? That's way out of proportion, I think. tedder (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
If there's any question, there's coverage of McCain's handling of the crisis from Financial Times (paywall), Wall Street Journal, Global News, and that's just 3 pages into a dated Google News search. There is clear "respect" for how McCain handled the recall crisis at the company, so calling it "promotional" in that regard makes no sense. --Masem (t) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I restored and expanded it with these sources. It's a pretty clear consensus both here on WP and in the sources that it's worth including.tedder (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Boyden

Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation in Joseph Boyden bio are one-sided, subjective, poorly notated or not notated at all. Many claims posted in this section are clearly libellous. The tone of the opening paragraph of Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation says it all. Wikipedia editors who are trolling this page have only continued to highlight subjective and false statements and refuse to allow objectivity or additional fact, while at the same highlighting false and unverified rumour. Please find a fair balance of facts and the deletion of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miigwaansaag (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That section might be improved and probably should be more concise. You can propose changes on the talk page of the article and suggest improvements, specially if you can provide additional reliable sources with an opposing point of view, but blanking a whole section referenced by multiple secondary reliable sources as you did, is not the right way to go. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Natalie van Gogh

Hi. I wanted to get further clarification on this edit. I'm not saying it's a bad edit, but I'm not clear on the policy relating to this. The editor states it is per MOS:BIO, and I see this section. That states it should not go in the lead, but should it be in the article? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing it from the lead is warranted, but I don't see an issue with including that sourced information in a different section of the article. That "A transgender woman has been hailed a history-maker after becoming the first-placed female finisher in a major cycling event" seems relevant enough for inclusion and does not violate any policy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

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

There's a dispute over whether to use Category:21st-century American criminals. I oppose it's usage until there's a reliable source to say he has been convicted of a criminal offense in a court of law. Another editor points to the fact that he's already categorized as Category:American fraudsters, which is a sub-cat of Category:American criminals by crime.   I think there's sufficient sources to say he's been found to have defrauded people, and broken the law, and been penalized for doing so. But, I don't yet see a source to say he's been criminally convicted. It's my understanding, that with a BLP, we don't categorize somebody as a criminal, unless they are convicted of a crime, even if sources say that they committed an act, which is normally considered a crime (e.g. fraud). I think this case shows a flaw in how the categories are organized. I haven't found a source that clearly settles the issue either way (to definitively say he's been convicted, or he's never been convicted, of a crime). Maybe I missed a source, in which case, I would be happy to be proven wrong. --Rob (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that it is only a matter of time before he manages to get himself convicted of something, rendering the question moot in his instance, but I think that you are right to err on the side of caution in the meantime. Leaving Wohl's antics to one side, I think that you might also be right that there is a flaw in the category nesting. It seems that the US makes a distinction between civil and criminal fraud so that not all people found to have committed fraud would necessarily be criminals. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
While I happen to agree with you on the first point, that doesn't make the question moot—someone should not be categorized as a criminal without having actually been convicted of a crime, regardless of their propensity to brush up against the law. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
All I meant is that if he were convicted then he would no longer illustrate the potential problem with the category nesting as he would then belong in both categories, although potentially for separate reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have the page on my watchlist since I've edited it quite a bit, and I'm baffled as to why Koavf keeps restoring the category. They are absolutely correct that American fraudsters is currently a subcategory of American criminals, but they have been informed that Wohl has not been convicted of a crime, so re-adding the category is miscategorization. I agree with Thivierr that the fraudsters category should remain, and given that Wohl is a prime example that not all fraudsters are convicted criminals, it should probably be recategorized. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the article says that he is a "fraudster" and a lot of sources say that. I searched for the definition of fraudster and I found this "someone who commits the crime of fraud". A lot of sources call him fraudster. So should the word "fraudster" in the lead be removed and replaced by accused of fraud?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Wohl is many unmentionable things, but until he's convicted in a court of law, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence like everyone else, and should not be described as a criminal until and unless he's found or pleads guilty to a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
He's not known as a criminal, categories should be definitional. Guy (help!) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Supun Halangoda

Supun Halangoda ] (Born 29 of April 2000) is young Programmer and an Engineer in IT Infrastructure in Cloud computing, Servers, Routing and Switching. He started his first organization in 2017 which was known as App Factory LK, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun Halangoda (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Supun Halangoda:, neither this message board nor Wikipedia is the place for autobiographies. Please see WP:NOTLINKEDIN and WP:AUTOBIOG: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:BASIC may be of help to you. If you conclude "Yes, I have those sources, no problem", move on to Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If primary sources are disputed, e.g., "alternative facts" about the age, you could need a better source or a rough consensus. She uploaded a "Merry Christmas" video on YouTube, remotely related to the "multireligious" topic.[42] –84.46.52.210 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thx for that. Can you address this objection by one editor:
”The inclusion of the word ‘multireligious’ in the sentence ’Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household’ needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS.”
Humanengr (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Interesting example. I guess you could argue it is to some extent " self-serving" per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'd be ok with it with a "According to Gabbard..." if there's no conflicting sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Humanengr, the cited reasoning is an irrelevant attempt to impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Be specific. We don't use self-sourced info if it's disputed by rs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Not 100% true. If the BLP is responding via SPS to claims laid out by RSes at them as attempting to refute them (whether right or wrong about that), it is probably appropriate to include the BLP's SPS briefly to stay neutral. (something like "The NYTimes accused Smith of being racist, but Smith refuted this in a following Twitter message." sourced to the NYTimes' and Smith's Twitter) On the other hand, where the controversy is started by a statement from a BLP on their SPS, and RSes dispute that, its likely better to frame it from the RS and not use the BLP's SPS to start. ("Smith's claims on being non-racist have been refuted by the NYTimes" only needs the NYtimes sourcing). This should not be taken as a rule, but that there is sometimes need to do so. What we do want to avoid are the self-serving claims, those that attract no coverage at all by RSes. Including those, outside of standard factual biographical material, would be unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I think "self-serving" means WP:ADVOCACY. Xenagoras (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point. Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The shorter summary by Snooganssnoogans is clearer. I dislike the US-centric "fact finding" about religious views and ethnic roots on the wrong side of OR and BLPCAT in BLPs. For multireligious I couldn't tell if that's a proper adjective, from my "DEnglish" PoV it's a red link. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd watch out and avoid personal sites as they likely have spin and fluff. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is clear on this matter. If a self-published source contains an exceptional claim, it requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, an exceptional claim led to this discussion and the multiple high quality sources do not exist to support the claim. Samp4ngeles (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center study "[T]he number of Americans raised in interfaith homes appears to be growing. Fully one-quarter of young adults in the Millennial generation (27%) say they were raised in a religiously mixed family."[43] Gabbard is from the Millenial cohort.
If there were RS with specific fact allegations contradicting Gabbard, we could include both claims as indicated by Masem. But you have not yet identified any such specific statements from RS. Humanengr (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
At the moment the lede offers Hindu (given sources not checked, I believe it). The "Early life and education" section states "multicultural and multi-religious", but the given CBS source (text + video) doesn't support it (verification failed, or I need fresh coffee). While I trust that it's true, multi-religious is a red link, less elegant than your mixed, and not obviously relevant for this BLP. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Humanengr's explanation that being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Fresh coffee. That 2019 CBS source states: "She comes from a multicultural, multi-religious family and, as a practicing Hindu, was the first Hindu elected to Congress." From this 2012 NY Times News Service piece:
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat and an Iraq War veteran who won a seat in the House from Hawaii, is the daughter of a Hindu mother and a Roman Catholic father. She calls herself Hindu, a first for a member of Congress. Bui it is not quite that simple.

“I identify as a Hindu," Gabbard wrote in an email Thursday. “How­ever, I am much more into spiritu­ality than I am religious labels."

In that sense," she added,“I am a Hindu in the mold of the most famous Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, who is my hero and role model."

Gabbard wrote that she "was raised in a multicultural, multiracial, mulitfaith family" that al­lowed her “to spend a lot of time studying and contemplating upon both the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."

Today her spiritual practice is neither Catholic nor traditionally Hindu.

“My attempts to work for the welfare of others and the planet is the core of my spiritual practice," Gabbard wrote. “Also, every morning I take time to remember my re­lationship with God through the practice of yoga meditation and reading verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. From the perspective of the Bhagavad-Gita, the spiritual path as I have described here is known as karma yoga and bhakti yoga."
I should add that as a cite. Humanengr (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe "multi-faith" is a better term. Gabbard has used that as well. Also see https://www.tulsi2020.com/about/about-tulsi-gabbard-my-spiritual-path. Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, admittedly I'm rather paranoid with ethnic/religious info (example), but I have no problem with the Gabbard BLP or her Christmas + similar personal videos, not everything on her channel is self-serving campaigning. Apologies to Masem, a good place for my reply to Humanegr was occupied in an edit conflict, feel free to move this to a better place. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Given she is running for election, anything from her campaign site should be taken as self-serving, and should not be used unless confirmed by a third-party RS. --Masem (t) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not including her campaign page as a cite, but you can see it is consistent with the material going back 8 years (and it elaborates more detail to show context). There are no RS that say she did not have a multi-faith upbringing. If there were, I would include both as conflicting claims per your earlier direction. I was mentioning the campaign page as an example of 'multi-faith' in lieu of 'multi-religious'. Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem's assessment. Gabbard used the "multi-cultural, multi-religious" and/or "multi-faith" language at least twice during her 2012 campaign, as noted in the sources Humanengr mentions, which would have been self-serving and would have dispelled talk about her upbringing in the Science of Identity Foundation -- something that was local knowledge at the time. Broad claims by Humanengr about the number of Americans raised in interfaith homes do not apply specifically here and give no insight into Gabbard's religious practice in her early life. Furthermore, the sources from 2012 that Humanengr has dug up rely solely on statements from Gabbard herself and make no mention of her Science of Identity Foundation upbringing and therefore indicate a biased and self-serving nature. Beyond Gabbard's own words, there has been no secondary or tertiary analysis indicating a multireligious/multifaith upbringing. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The text that you yourself inserted into the Science of Identity Foundation article stated: "Butler has said of the SIF philosophy of Bhakti yoga, 'It does not conflict with Christianity, with Islam, with any bona fide religious system.'"[1] There is no contradiction between that statement and Gabbard's description of having a multifaith upbringing. The meditation practices taught through the SIF are not incompatible with the way the Gabbards have described elements of both Hinduism and Christianity being present in their home.
You are doing OR on other people's private religious beliefs. Ignoring the fact that 'cult' is the first of the MOS MOS:words to watch, you declared your opinion as: “It would be accurate to describe SIF as either a cult-like Hare Krishna splinter group (see [44]) or a fringe yogic sect, primarily due to its virulently homophobic and Islamophic teachings” to which Ronz, responded: “Samp4ngeles, regarding cult-like, fringe , and virulently homophobic and Islamophic: No. I fail to see how those are verified by the source you indicate, let alone represent a neutral presentation of the best sources.”
Yet you are continuing to push the 'cult' identification about SIF and Gabbard. Note that, per the WP Cult article, Catherine Wessinger (Professor of the History of Religions at Loyola University New Orleans) "has stated that the word 'cult' represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals. She has argued that it is important for people to become aware of the bigotry conveyed by the word, drawing attention to the way it dehumanises the group's members and their children."
It is inappropriate and offensive for WP to be used to push this 'cult-obsessed' agenda. Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This is not OR -- it's just checking for RS. The 2012 article plainly says that the claims come from an e-mail Gabbard sent. And again, you're speaking in generalities with regard to Science of Identity Foundation not conflicting with Christianity, etc., while ignoring the the lack of secondary sources discussing Gabbard's actual religious practice in early life. And I have no idea how what you have just written about cults relates to this discussion, but these are baseless claims you are making about me pushing some sort of agenda and I ask you to be WP:CIVIL and take them down. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, such material can be used. WP:BLPSELFPUB applies. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

For those interested in bigoted attacks that Gabbard has faced regarding her private religious beliefs, see the sources cited here. Humanengr (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is really grasping at straws. The Gabbards aren't mentioned anywhere in that article, and Gabbard was one year old when this article was written. I am providing a URL for anyone to read the actual article: https://staradvertiser.newspapers.com/image/276169995/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Remotely related, I stumbled over "figures like Tulsi Gabbard" on another biography with a seven months old BLP/N info. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed: 1+2. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.

Tapon Mahamud Jony

I am someone who is a big fan of a broadcast crew member 'Tapon Mahamud Jony' and I made an account on Wikipedia with his name. I have watched all of his interviews and attended his award-winning ceremonies. I once met him and told him about my interest to publish an article about himself and so I asked him to provide me some references where he was nominated for awards and achievements. Indeed it is an autobiography and all references are reliable. Please guide me on what changes are needed to publish this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: See this simple guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted. You need independent references by other people, not him. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tapon Mahamud Jony: Since you aren't actually Tapon Mahamud Jony, I also suggest you ask for a rename per WP:REALNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have done what you said. Can you guide what to do for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Tarraga

Found at the help desk, it's no BLPPROD, but apparently a BLP1E with various BLP policy violations not limited to do no harm (see #Delhi gang rape above.) –84.46.52.152 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a good candidate for speedy deletion, having a total of 6 sources consisting of 5 youtube videos and a book review that doesn't mention his name once. Aside from the rather novelesque writing, there are telltale signs that seem to indicate this may be an autobiography written by the subject himself. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Zaereth: Please note also that Tarraga and his associate Anna Brees (producer of two of the YouTube videos cited in the article) -- with in particular their wildly implausible allegations about Edward Heath -- have been comprehensively debunked by both Private Eye and the respected blogger Richard Bartholomew: see https://barthsnotes.com/2019/04/04/private-eye-explores-new-edward-heath-accuser/ . These people are conspiracy theorists who seem to think uncorroborated assertions on YouTube (which exercises no editorial control over content) constitute reliable sources. -- Alarics (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Alarics: The website barthsnotes.com doesn't constitute a reliable source either though. I removed the part of Ted Heath and all other names mentioned in the article. Except for Shirley Oaks as there were countless other people that claimed that they were abused there while in care. All other names are removed. I really wouldn't think that private eye is a reliable source either... It would be great if his life's story could remain standing without any names in it. The article was viewed at least 40 times per day, it seems there are people that are interested in his story.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Zaereth: courtesy ping for awareness of the above comment from Alarics -- I believe that the ping from Alarics may not have worked for obscure technical reasons. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks MPS1992. I didn't see the ping, but I saw the comment. I don't even need to know all that, but it is useful background information. The article has no sources and is full of BLP vios, so many that it's easier to list the policies not violated. I am particularly concerned about the naming of so many different people in this mess. I was hoping an admin would come along and delete it. When I get more time I may try to put it up for AFD, unless someone else wants to do the honors (hint hint) but I'm literally running out the door right now. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
User warned, obscure YouTube video removed again. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please give me the weekend to see whether I'll find some more credible sources. There are no people mentioned in the article just the abuse the Michael claims that he suffered.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive296&oldid=1073212842"