Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska)

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some content, highly detailed, on this article for quite a while regarding several sex scandals that occurred at the school. When I saw it, I removed it all, as I could not see a way to rewrite it. There were three teachers named by name that were discussed in detail, and only one of them ever got any time (and he was not convicted--he plead "nolo"). The other two were either not prosecuted at all or the case was dropped with no conviction. Additionally, the principal was implicated in some professional misconduct in regards to the handling of the case, again with no legal action taken against him.

Apparently, the state's statutory rape law was changed and according to the article, the new law was named after the teacher. All the references are paywalled. An IP has been reverting my removals and has not discussed it at all at the talk page. In fairness neither had I. That has been rectified. I would like someone with more BLP experience than I to take a look at it and give advice on how to proceed. If in fact the law became known by the teacher's name, use of that teacher's name may be appropriate, and some discussion of the events may be appropriate without names. I also feel the length of the section is quite WP:UNDUE, and the use of faculty names is also discouraged in school article guidelines. Not looking for sanctions for anyone, just some help. Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A number of potentially useful non-paywalled reliable sources covered the Carlson case, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and local media. There was a notable dispute between law enforcement and the school district over the investigation of the case, culminating in lawsuits. These sources satisfy the BLP side of the equation, although I think you're absolutely right to also be concerned about undue weight and the volume and tone of coverage. It's a tricky issue. MastCell ^Talk 17:20r2g015, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That solves the BLP issue on Carlson. It does not on the others named. We have no source stating anyone has been convicted of anything. I agree that since Carlson had the law named after him, privacy is moot. But the other teachers who were convicted of nothing? And another IP has put it back in. Would going to RPP until this can be hashed out appropriate? John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In other places we have solved this by having a separate article about the scandal. For example Marylands School and Sexual abuse scandal at Marylands School, Christchurch. The the scandal isn't notable enough for it's own article, there's probably no need to cover it. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial posting about the sex scandals years ago was short. Over time, it has become larger because many former students and teachers added details about the crime, the law being added, etc. The scandal actually started decades before the teachers were caught and affected far more people than the media ever reported. It doesn't violate any rule here. Two teachers are named - one had a law named after him, the other was convicted and sent to prison. It was front-page news for years. It's not a small thing to be swept under the rug, much less deleted wholesale from the entry. 97.124.238.87 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the other teacher WAS convicted and went to prison for five years. The contention that the article names "other teachers who were convicted of nothing" is totally erroneous. A guilty plea is a conviction, period. 97.124.238.87 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The size of the section is WP:UNDUE. Something should probably be in there about Carlson. The fact that it was a major story locally is not a factor. These kinds of things occur on a rather alarming frequency all over the world. The fact that it was a topic of discussion locally for several years frankly is not at all important. This article is not for the local community, it is for the rest of the world. I would propose trimming it down to one or two sentences in the history section, briefly discussing the high points of the Carlson law and the events that went with it. Reference it well to non-paywalled sources so if a reader is interested in the details they can follow the references. Discussion of the other teachers is simply not appropriate, nor is the discussion of the principal's roll in it. The copy states that one teacher was not charged with anything, and the other one plead no contest. Neither of those is a conviction despite how your personal feeling about it may be. The principal was not charged with anything. This isn't the school's website or a notice board. It is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to summarize the important events in the school's history. We have policies that exist to protect people's privacy, and we have content guidelines to give articles that are edited by many the proper balance for the intended audience, the entire English-speaking world. John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're not an attorney because pleading guilty is a conviction, period. If you google "Satch Carlson Law" you will find that it was the model for states nationwide which modified their own laws to reflect the protections that came out of that case. No offense, but you need to do actual research rather than make assumptions. You're in no position to decide that the size is "undue." It's disconcerting that someone is making such an effort to protect child predators by turning a blind eye to fact, case law and a well-annotated history. I'll take this up with someone with more authority. 75.166.131.134 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have conceded that there should be some mention of Carlson. There remains one teacher in the content that was there that the content stated was not charged with anything. Neither was the principal. That has to go and is appropriate discussion for this forum. I would appreciate some input here as to whether a "nolo" plea is to be considered a conviction for our BLP purposes. And I would appreciate a volunteer here explaining to the IP how to properly conduct himself at noticeboards and in content disputes. Pretty much, the rest of this belongs on the article talk page, where at this point no-one is responding. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Prada gender discrimination case and related articles

• Prada gender discrimination case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rina Bovrisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was originally reported to WP:EAR#Help, and while both NeilN and I have taken a rather quick run-through of the first article and removed some of the more egregious WP:NPOV issues, I think there are some significant BLP issues remaining that need a more careful touch to address. Specifically, in the first article, the Background section makes multiple statements, sourced mostly to prominent blogs like Salon and Huffington Post, attributing quotations to adverse parties in the lawsuits as fact (rather than allegations). I'm really not sure how to handle it at this point; I'm of a mind to just take an axe to the whole section, but I really don't think there'd be anything left, and given the coverage it's gotten, I don't think AfD is the right place for this.

As to the Bovrisse article, I've only taken a brief look at it, but it smacks of puffery on the same level as the first article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest Miuccia Prada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be added to that list. I just removed a highly misleading quotation [1] where it was suggested the CEO of Prda said

and she has a [sic] black hair naturally... it was disgusting"

which seems to imply he was saying natural black hair is disgusting, but what was actually said per the source in the artice was

"She had her hair bleached blonde ... She is Japanese, and she has a [sic] black hair naturally ...She wore something different from Prada's brand image, she didn't care for her hairstyle...She didn't take care of her blonde hair and it was obvious, it was disgusting."

This was still contentious since amongst other things, as per the source, the Bovrisse hair is actually naturally brown not black and was evidentally not bleached while she was working for Prada but what our article implied was clearly very different from what was actually said.

Edit: I've now removed the entire sectionparagraph as it had little to do with Prada herself. It was a statement by the Prada Japan CEO which our article sort of implied but either way I don't see how it's sufficiently relevant for the article on Miuccia Prada

Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now removed the entire section as from what I can tell, none of the sources mention Miuccia herself. Considering her high level involvement in the company (although the case appears to concern the Japanese division), there may be merit to mention the case in her article briefly, but it will need much better sources and I'm having trouble finding any. [2] mentions the case, but only to say she wasn't implicated in it. [3] briefly mention her and the discrimination case, but only in a fairly roundabout way. [4] is not bad, except it's only an interview with Rina Bovrisse where a suggestion is made of Miuccia's involvement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. the Miuccia Prada article definitely needs a read-through. As to Bovrisse, I just stripped out a massive section consisting of little more than links to media coverage of the legal case. Definite WP:IINFO case. The article needs more work though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)

Recently information was edited [5] into Tor (anonymity network), and then substantially changed [6]. It is reportedly statements by two named individuals responding to questions about their alleged actions (with no factual basis, I might add) that, if true, would be an immense scandal and ruin their reputations. I'm in the process of discussing this with experienced editors. It appears likely that once reliability is sorted out, I will discuss the topic here. Poorly sourced information that could damage people's reputations should be removed until a consensus is reached. The information is poorly sourced because it has been cited and wikilinked to The Washington Post newspaper when in fact it was on their WP:NEWSBLOG entitled The Switch and published by that organization. The page has since been placed under Semi-protection and Pending changes protection to prevent my repeated attempts to remove the material pending consensus. Could someone please remove the material for the time being? 92.78.115.171 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The RSN discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Washington_Post_blog_at_Tor_.28anonymity_network.29. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Also see lengthy talk page thread. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that this discussion be closed as not within the scope of this noticeboard.

The statements

"One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a procurement contract and are more similar to a research grant."

and

"Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users."

are not by the wildest stretch of the imagination statements that are "an immense scandal" or that would "ruin their reputations." The IP-hopping user, having been blocked from edit warring on the page, is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, having the misguided opinion that "BLP" is a magic word that allows you to have your way in any content dispute. By my count five editors, two of them administrators, have rejected the claims of a BLP violation, and zero editors has supported the IP-hopping user on this.

Whether reliable sources confirm those individuals actually said that is a legitimate question, and belongs on the reliable sources noticeboard, where it is already being discussed. . There is no BLP violation here and thus nothing for this noticeboard to address. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. I did not even bring the matter before the reliable sources notice board. What I brought up is outside the scope of reliable sourcing. There are multiple issues affecting the inclusion of the material. I have maintained from the very beginning of the discussion that the primary issue was bringing the integrity of two people into question without a factual basis for doing so. All I'm requesting is a temporary removal of the contentious content while we discuss it. Since the RS issue is already underway, once we reach a consensus about the quality of the source, I'll then look for consensus here about using a source of that quality on Wikipedia to implicate people.

This material has been erroneously cited and hyperlinked to The Washington Post newspaper, when in fact it is the publisher of the source, which is The Switch. The web citation documentation states:

Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).

It's important that it not be wikilinked to the newspaper, as this material did not appear in it. The relevant Wikipedia article is Graham Holdings Company, but it's probably not relevant enough to wikilink. I fear that some other "reliable source" will say something to the effect of, "Even Wikipedia editors pointed to a Washington Post article which said, insert egregiously out of context misquote here."

Guy Macon, as for your often repeated efforts to talk about "what happened", again, your facts are distorted. I would appreciate it if you let me give my own opinions rather than reading your interpretation of them. (Oh the irony, considering the content in question.) Only you and another editor have contested the BLP issue. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And yes, if it were true these two would not even be able to continue their work, which would affect millions of people. I would go into detail except I read the statement at the top of this noticeboard instructing us not to post the details here. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your claims of a BLP violation have been evaluated and rejected by multiple editors and administrators, and you have yet to convince a single editor to support you. We are not going to remove the material, even temporarily, based on imaginary BLP issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For the third time in a row, it is sourced to The Washington Post newspaper when it actually appeared on The Switch blog on their website, making it poorly sourced. It brings the opinion of the author concerning whether or not the two named people engaged in scandalous activity into the article. From WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I can understand disagreeing with the merit of the dispute, and to a smaller degree not wanting to wait to get the juicy tidbit out in the open quickly without waiting for a real consesus, but not even wanting to repair the citation (You can fix the red link while you're at it.) is what I find most astonishing. As to your claim of a multitude of rejections, show me. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake, please show me on Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network) and not here. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The citation now reads as: Fung, Brian. "The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?" Washington Post's The Switch. So end of BLP issue? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat it:

Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).

This work is not called "Washington Post's The Switch". It says not to use the publishing company for the name of the work. Do you think it's important that it be in there somehow? Its misleading because The Washington Post is a newspaper and even that wikilink leads to an article about the newspaper. I don't see a reason to wikilink the publishing company in this case, but the link is Graham Holdings Company. My current recommendation is:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/06/the-feds-pays-for-60-percent-of-tors-development-can-users-trust-it/ |title=The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it? |last=Fung |first=Brian |date=6 September 2013 |website=The Switch |publisher=The Washington Post Company |accessdate=6 February 2014}}</ref>

If you want to wikilink the publisher, then I recommend:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/06/the-feds-pays-for-60-percent-of-tors-development-can-users-trust-it/ |title=The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it? |last=Fung |first=Brian |date=6 September 2013 |website=The Switch |publisher=[[Graham Holdings Company|The Washington Post Company]] |accessdate=6 February 2014}}</ref>

Please note WP:NEWSBLOG which states "...use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Caution, at a bare minimum, includes trying to get the citation right, and frankly I don't see why I'm getting so much pushback on this one simple thing. Do you have a more relevant citation template? I'll leave the appropriateness of removing the material while we determine its usability up to the experts here. The other BLP issue is about whether or not we should use the material at all, which of course won't be fixed by merely citing it correctly. I want to reach a consensus at WP:RSNB, where you brought up the issue, on the overall quality of this source and then bring that, along with the rest of my argument, here. Is that reasonable? I'll be away from the net for a couple of days. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I do have a question before I disappear for a while, how do we discuss the issues without posting what was said here, or am I doing it wrong? 94.222.99.19 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about RELIABLE SOURCES on the BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is for ... wait for it ... discussing the reliability of sources. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is for ... wait for it ... wait for it ... discussing violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (which, I remind you, does not exist in this case other than in your fevered imagination).

The fact that you appear to be unable to understand this basic concept is either a WP:COMPETENCE problem or an WP:IDHT problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to discuss are allegations about people written into a Wikipedia article. In this case, it takes the form of rephrasing a quote to insert the allegation. If the allegation is that Joe eats bananas, it can be expressed, for example, as a:

• statement: Joe eats bananas.
• loaded question: Does Joe still eat bananas?
• straight question: Does Joe eat bananas?
• insinuation: I can't prove that Joe eats bananas.
• denial: Joe said he doesn't eat bananas.
• dodge: Joe said he may or may not eat bananas.

This source says that there is no proof of the allegation. Allegations without evidence are rumor or speculation and should not be written into a Wikipedia article about named individuals in any form whatsoever. Either find reliable sources backing up the claim or leave it out of the article. Note that this reasoning is independent of the reliability of the source. The material been interpreted on Wikipedia as being both a flat denial and an evasive answer. 89.101.247.110 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of

"The reliable sources noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is for discussing violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (which do not exist in this case)."

are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP, very first infobox sentence, "If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard." Lead section, "Such material...must adhere strictly to...Verifiability (V). From WP:V, section 1 WP:CHALLENGE (not section 2 about reliable sources), "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." I think it's misleading not to differentiate the [[WP:NEWSBLOG] entitled The Switch as a separate division from the print edition of The Washington Post, just like sourcing The New York Times Magazine as The New York Times would be. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's a real question I have and not about reliability. It's been partially addressed by Rhododendrites.

Rereading what I wrote in support of my BLP claims not being "imaginary", I can see where you might be thinking that "This source says that there is no proof of the allegation" meant that I was questioning the reliability of the source. I wasn't. A perfectly reliable source can include in their argument, "So far there's no hard evidence that..." insert sensational claim here. Insert named individual here wrote insert denial of shocking behavior here. My question here is, if the source itself said that there isn't evidence to support the accusation, how can it be on Wikipedia in any form without another reliable source that has some evidence? If would be a major news story if evidence of those activities became public, and finding sources wouldn't be a problem. It certainly isn't the prevailing view now, and if this became a widely-believed rumor it would damage the ability of the named people to carry out their life's work. 89.101.247.110 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your claims of a BLP violation have been evaluated and rejected by multiple editors and administrators, and you have yet to convince a single editor to support you. You keep ignoring this important fact, and thus I am going to ignore any further comments from you; you are simply repeating the same bad arguments that didn't convince anyone the last five or six times you made them. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Only three editors, two of which are you and I, have commented on the BLP issue. One administrator semi-protected the page giving the reason "persistent vandalism: and edit warring", leading me to think that the admin might not even know about it. Can you show me where anyone other than you, Rhododendrites, and myself have evaluated the BLP claims? And talk about repeating yourself, you've repeated your "multiple editors and administrators" distortion four times now, and whatever tiny number you're talking about doesn't amount to a consensus.

In any case, I really wasn't expecting dead silence from editors not already involved in the content dispute. Is it because I'm unable to provide details about it on this noticeboard? Is it important enough to talk about here? Have I overstated anything even slightly? Is it something else? Isn't anybody here able to answer my questions about this? 89.101.247.110 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit History:

• WhisperToMe made an edit: [7] Unless he indicates otherwise, WhisperToMe counts as someone who supports his own edit and opposes an edit that reverts his edit.
• You reverted, claiming a BLP violation: [8] That's one editor opposing you, zero supporters.
• I reverted you because I could not find the BLP violation: [9] That's two editors opposing you, zero supporters.
• You reverted, claiming a BLP violation: [10]
• Rhododendrites reverted you, could not find any BLP violation [11] That's three editors opposing you, zero supporters.
• You reverted without comment. [12]
• I reverted you with the comment "I read all of the comments on the talk page and on the reliable sources noticeboard and found no evidence of any BLP violation, nor can I find any in the deleted material. Restoring": [13]
• You reverted with a strange comment that nobody has been able to figure out: [14]
• Materialscientist reverted you. [15] Note: Materialscientist is an admin. That's four editors opposing you, zero supporters.
• You reverted, claiming a BLP violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tor_%28anonymity_network%29&diff=595121922&oldid=595121263]
• I reverted you. [16] (Note: No 3RR violation on either side because of 24-hour rule)
• I requested page protection because of your edit warring: [17]
• Page protected, protection level chosen to stop you from editing while allowing everyone who reverted you to keep editing: [18] Please note that, in any case where there is a claim of a BLP violation, the protecting admin is required by Wikipedia policy to evaluate the claim and remove any BLP violation before protecting the page. This was not done in this case, because the protecting admin saw no BLP violation.

So four editors have opposed you (yes, the correct number is four -- your count was incorrect), nobody has supported you, and you were blocked from editing the page because you attempted to get your way through edit warring. Despite repeated requests, you have made zero attempts to explain why you imagine that a BLP violation exists when nobody else sees one. It is still a mystery why you think that. BTW, nobody is bothering to respond to you because blocking you from editing he page solved the problem. I think we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not the place for it, but I'll (probably stupidly) point out the distortion.

• WhisperToMe - made the edit before I raised the BLP issue and has made no public evaluation or rejection of it. 0-0
• Me - I strongly object to the material being included. 1-0
• Guy Macon - Sees no problem, won't wait for BLP consensus. 1-1
• Rhododendrites - Agrees that the material is okay, but seems willing to compromise. 1-2
• Materialscientist - Reverted with the edit summary "What was that?" clearly in response to my poorly thought out edit summary. I explained in my next edit summary that there was a BLP dispute and Materialscientist has made no other reverts. Has made no pubic comment, and we have no idea what this admin has evaluated or rejected. My idiotic edit summary was because local phone service went out for about a day and I was trying to use the same argument structure as the writer of the source to show how terrible it is. It was dumb and a total fail. 1-2
• Callenecc - Thanks for the tip on WP policy. I placed a note on that admin's talk page and have gotten no response after ten days. It's not clear to me that this admin has read my arguments after the fact, let alone evaluated or rejected them. 1-2

Anyway, all of this "what happened" or who won the straw poll nonsense is sidetracking the discussion here just like the original talk page discussion has been. The disussion on the reliable sources notice board has quieted down, and I'm fairly in agreement with one participating editor, while another has gone from a dissenting view to relative uncertainty. If I can't post details here, where should I present my arguments concerning the usability of the material on BLP grounds? This is a separate request from the one for temporary removal. Please advise; I've been straightforward and the material is quite harmful. 178.8.152.139 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the proper place for dealing with BLP concerns, and of course I could be wrong and you could be right, in which case we definitely want to remove the material -- WP:BLP supersedes pretty much any other Wikipedia policy.

The way you should proceed is to explain, in detail, why you think there is a BLP violation. Seriously. You have done everything but trying to persuade others that you are right. I find this to be incredibly frustrating because I take alleged BLP issues seriously and I really do want you to prevail if there really is a BLP violation.

You are willing to edit war to the point of being blocked. You are willing to spend an inordinate amount of effort getting an exact count of the unanimous consensus against you. You seem perfectly willing to explain your reasoning concerning reliability of sources (on the RS noticeboard -- those arguments do not belong here). Despite all of this, for some inexplicable reason you are completely resistant to the idea of actually arguing your case when it comes to BLP violations. This has been explained to you before.

Go back, start over, start a new section, and this time try to convince someone-- anyone -- that the statements

"One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a procurement contract and are more similar to a research grant."

and

"Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users."

are, as you claim, "an immense scandal" and something that would "ruin their reputations." WHY do you think that? What is your reasoning? Do you have any theory as to why nobody but you sees any BLP violation? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Because at the top of this page is "Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. To get into the harm done would require me to repeat the baseless allegations here, and I thought it was self-evident. Apparently not, but I don't presume to know what silent people are thinking, and thus have no theory. I've repeatedly asked where I can present my reasoning without pasting here, which you've done twice now. 94.222.101.42 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I already pasted the passage that you were blocked for repeatedly removing. Good luck with your super-secret imaginary BLP violation that you and you alone can see and which you cannot explain or provide evidence to support. I am unlatching this page now as the colossal waste of time that it is. You can reply if you wish, but I will not see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To anyone else, the material is WP:NOTSCANDAL, scandal mongering section, about named people. How is it not a BLP violation? Once again, how can I discuss this in detail and where? 94.222.101.42 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld

An article about Leslie Cornfeld existed from 2006 through 2013. A little over a month ago the user who moved the page to a draft created a discussion here on the noticeboard to which I replied with a list of third party references for potential use on the draft or eventual article. I also reached out several times to the editor who moved the page to a draft with the references, but received no response.

I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld ask that some volunteers consider incorporating the following third party sources to the draft and moving it back to an article page. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I would like to refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so.

Career:

• Bloomberg's Interagency Task Force, where Cornfeld was Chair: [19]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013: [20]
• Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012: [21]
• Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014: [22]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York City schools: [23]
• Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET: [24]
• Cornfeld mentioned in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1993: [25]
• Cornfeld once again mentioned in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1993: [26]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1994: [27]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Daily News as an attorney, 1997: [28]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Times as assistant United States attorney in Brooklyn, 1999: [29]
• Cornfeld was a speaker at the first annual "Building a Grad Nation Summit," 2011: [30]
• Cornfeld speaking on "Social and Educational Equity:Three Exciting New Campaigns" panel at The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (video), 2012: [31]
• Cornfeld speaking on The Mayor's Interagency Task Force on American Graduate Day (video), 2012: [32]

Board memberships:

• Children Defense Fund: [33]
• Hospital for Special Surgery: [34]
• Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior: [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaSpezz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Typically, an article is created by adding notable info, then sourcing it to something. References shouldn't exist apart from a fact they back up. Then it starts to look more like a scrapbook or link directory, not an encyclopedia. Is there particular info you'd like in the article? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

The whole "Articles and Reports" section of the draft is rather hollow, without any context for why these news stories matter to the subject. Try paraphrasing and summarizing the most important parts from each. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

First, my apologies to user NinaSpezz (talk) for being slow to respond to her messages to me, so that she has had to come here, as it were, unescorted.

Background: an article about Leslie Cornfeld existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a résumé. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article posted on my talk page a request to restore it. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her not to edit it directly, but to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

NinaSpezz (talk), acting for Ms Cornfeld with an openly-declared COI, has now provided a number of references, which I have listed at Draft talk:Leslie Cornfeld. The great majority of them are quotes from Ms Cornfeld, reports of her speaking, or brief mentions of her being involved in some activity, and help with verification of her career but not with notability; but nos. 1 and 15 are more substantial, and I think an acceptable article could be made.

Being administratively involved, I do not want to rewrite this article myself, and I would be grateful if someone experienced could update it. More detail can be found in the versions in the history before my revert. I might then reverse my AfD close, but would more likely take it to DRV for a community view. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the talk page of the draft with a first stab of a rewritten article. Please review and edit as you see fit. NinaSpezz (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Knox article ' Public image' section

I deleted it twice, because it is basically reporting that a men's mag rated her as sexy, and that a comedian joked about whether men want to have sex with her. See Public image. I suppose it's possible a model or actress celebrity type BLP subject might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to this kind of stuff on a page about them. But AK is none of those things. It's been put back by User:BabbaQ. I think the section is intrusive for this subject and I think the section should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not take a stance on if the section is notable or not. What I wanted Overagainst to know was that it is better bringing it up at the articles talk page before removing a whole section of the article. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You put it back in one hour after I took it out. Your edit summary:"excuse me but this is not "your" article per say. take it to the talk page. which i gues you should know by now. Thanks" So that is your stance. You said I was 'not the owner' of article and I had to discuss in talk. But as anyone can see it I had complained about it in talk 10 hours before and no-one had disagreed. Anyway, the essential point is it is not encyclopedic content about her 'Media image', and is intrusive for this subject. It should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem more interested in "being right" than actually having a mature discussion. But hey that is your decision to not being able to handle having to discuss removing an entire section. Good to know.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, complaining why? And 10-hours? Its not long enough and you should always wait for more input. You will see at the Knox talk page what I think and I am no longer involved in that discussion. You will have to wiki-fight with the others instead. bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ, you accuse Overagainst of article ownership but you have displayed ownership yourself in this issue.

I think the sexiness stuff was given WP:Undue emphasis until the removals by Overagainst. This issue should have the briefest mention, with no particular details. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have not done such a thing. I have said that I though a consensus was needed before the entire section was removed. User Overagainst pushed me for an answer about my opinion about it. And when I said it I was basically told that my opinion does not count and I have no idea what I am doing. So please get your facts straight. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the section to do with its ostensible purport. The article already says she was very well known and specifies the nature of the publicity as a result of the court case being sexual in nature. The section eliminates the specifics of the sexual nature of what was said about her and says she was a big personalty " an Italian television poll listed Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni.[73] Barbara Walters named her as one of the ten most fascinating people of 2011". And this is after it has been mentioned that her family hired a PR firm. So the section is actually in counterpoint to the pre-trial publicity section, which made clear the reality of how she was portrayed consisted of widespread publicity about "unsubstantiated details of Knox's sex life".

Now a piece of gossip about money from a book deal states in Wikipedia's voice "Knox signed a book deal worth US$4 million. The source actually just says "The deal is reportedly worth $4m". Such gossip about financial details, given the context, and without mention that her book advance may barely defray the legal and other fees incurred in her defense, is negative. This section is intrusive and misleading about the living subject's personal life and finances, and is functioning as a WP:COATRACK.Overagainst (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A book deal is a notable event, as you can see by the many sources that reported it. I have added reported in the press to be worth 4 million in an attempt to alleviate your concern in regards to the book deal detail. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Any author gets an advance, so it is no more notable that she did than that, according to her (on September 15, 2013)" Of the $3.8 million received, I carefully dispersed it where it was due: to taxes, to my lawyers, to my family so they no longer had mortgages at stake. Part of it went in fees to my agent, part of it in fees to my collaborator. At this moment, I am negotiating the last of it with my lawyers in Italy for the latest legal fees. [...]If not for the book deal, I could have been facing a lifetime of financial burden of having to pay for a defense that could still stretch for years more. After a year, I do not know what I’m going to do. So at this very moment, I have planned and negotiated and made possible, with everything I can manage, for a year. After that I’m reliant on my parents again". You want to include how much she got but not that it's gone and she still has to appeal to the supreme court, and pay fees for the lawyers who represent her at yet another trial. So Wikipedia is your newspaper for publishing partial information about the ongoing lives of people famous for one event is it? Enough._Overagainst (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

She signed a book deal, reported notable event, simple, as for what she did with the monies, if you think the details of that are notable and have been reported then feel free to add them. Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It was reported, that makes it news, but not notable. If she'd came out a million ahead, or there was any reason to think that (like her buying houses and cars) maybe it would be notable. But back in reality Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and she is broke so there is no notability. Even if you disagree with that, you can't add one side of the story and then play the innocent about the impression that you're creating that she is millions up on this thing. It's on you to make your edits notable enough to be in an encyclopedic article, in summary style, and NPOV ._Overagainst (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact was widely reported in reliable sources, a book deal for millions of dollars is notable, whether she is ahead or not is irrelevant to the basic notability of the book deal, if it is notable that she is behind then feel free add the content Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser is right about this. Overagainst I find your way to handle discussions to be beneath you to be honest. It is very strange witnessing a user basically saying "You are wrong and you do not even have the right to have an opinion about this article because you see it as your own newspaper". Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondly I really do not have an interest in being part of this discussions further as I can see that some huge egos are at play. Remove it for all I care if that makes you Overagainst sleep better tonight. Or if for anything stopping you from a heartattack :) These discussions are perhaps at some users level but is simply not my cup of tea :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a very good argument for there not being an article on Amanda Knox, since it serve mainly to duplicate the "Murder" article. But we have one, and the only conceivable justification for it is that it can include information about Knox that is too trivial/tangential to include in the main article. It doesn't, therefore, make sense to sense to talk about structuring the article so that trivial/tangential information is excluded. There's certainly no BLP violation here. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean adding trivial information to BLP's is NOT a violation of WP:Notability or WP:Undue? Jodon | Talk 13:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It can be a violation of UNDUE, all depending, but something being trivial is not in itself a violation of BLP. Formerip (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That explains the contention here regarding inclusion/deletion. Either BLP is an exception to the rules Wikipedia itself has laid down (triviality allowed specifically on BLP articles only), or it contradicts itself (triviality is not allowed, but lets break the rule anyway). How does Wikipedia gauge levels of triviality or is this at the discretion of each individual editor to make his/her case? If its the latter this again would explain the contention. But it does mean such entries would be disputed ad infinitum. Jodon | Talk 13:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion seems to be section stays, trivia out on grounds WP:Undue, and balance mention of $3.8 mil advance with brief summary of what she said about it having gone to pay back debts incurred for her defense.Overagainst (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm B. Frost

Malcolm B. Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP was created by Afrosty (talk · contribs), and they seem to admit they have a COI [36].

I told Afrosty that, per WP:COS, You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. [37]

An administrator Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) told Afrosty to continue editing it. I questioned that, but the admin is adamant - saying, "I am happy to let him edit the article directly". [38]

I am not sure how to resolve this issue, because it seems clear to me that the behavioural guideline says Afrosty should not edit the article, but Buckshot06 is disregarding it. I've already tried to resolve it on Buckshot06 talk page, but seem to have reached an impasse. Hence, asking for help here.

Thanks in anticipation, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou 88.104.19.233 for your notification. My line has been to focus on what will be the end result: either an article which meets wikipedia's standards (I've got good experience of this, as I've created two FAs in my time) or an article which I will make sure is deleted. Afrosty is happy to let me mentor him to improve this article, and because he has the specialist data to add to the article, including references, I'm happy to let him do so in order to gradually improve the article. If the article doesn't reach the standard, or if he become obstructive, then I'll nominate it for deletion myself. At present, that necessity seems vastly unlikely. I would respectfully request the community to let me manage this article's development for a while, and mentor Afrosty, in the interests of the long-term development of the encyclopedia. Driving Afrosty away, rather than mentor him in the hope that he will become a competent editor on wider issues, doesn't serve the purpose of increasing rather than decreasing our editor base. Thus I would like to invoke WP:IAR for a while, in the furtherance of this process. Should the community so wish, this article and new editor can always be further reviewed at any later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that this is appropriate use of IAR, because in mentoring that user, you are teaching them that it is OK to breach guidelines.

Consensus has decided that it is a bad idea for COR editors to edit articles directly.

Instead, you could show them the correct, policy-based way to contribute.

You are applying IAR for a short-term case, but a) they might continue to edit this article for years - and an admin has said it is OK, and b) they and their friends, and anyone else seeing this discussion would see an admin saying it was OK for COI editors to edit BLPs.

I could write much more about this, but if debates get long, they tend to become boring and pointless.

Bottom line: consensus says, people with very close connections shouldn't edit BLPs. I see no reason why this one is 'special'. So please will you adhere to WP:BESTCOI, and instruct the user to not directly edit the article? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to punish Afrosty as an example to others, to warn them not to create articles about their family. Wikipedia does not purposely punish editors. Instead, Wikipedia ideally guides such editors into constructive and collaborative pathways. We are not going to put Afrosty's head on a spike outside the city gate to show others that this kind of thing is not tolerated.

The guideline BESTCOI does not bar a COI editor from editing an involved BLP, as you state incorrectly. Rather, the guideline says "Avoid making controversial edits to articles related to your associations." Non-controversial edits are fine.

On the positive side, the cleanup work you have been doing to the biography is generally good. My only complaint is that an article improvement template asking for better references for one section might be better than a half dozen templates scattered throughout that section. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit!

WP:COS is absolutely clear.

I assume you can read the link, so I will not repeat it here.

Why are we not enforcing that behavioral guideline?

Even if you do not agree with that, surely you can't argue with consensus on COI - COI editing is strongly discouraged.

So why is this admin encouraging it? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you (and others) will probably not read it, so I'll quote;

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics.

Going outside that is IAR, and I don't think it is an appropriate use of IAR.

Instructing a new user to break policy/guidelines on BLPs is not a good idea. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuart_Semple

Wanted to confirm an update is within the rules: A controversy section have been added to Stuart_Semple regarding a newspaper report of the individual not paying staff. It quotes the newspaper article. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

An entire section based on a single newspaper report seems undue to me. Also per WP:CSECTION, we discourage the creation of separate 'controversy' sections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semple's explanation, however, needs to be there. Collect (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two more blog posts from one person on the subject. There is also a statement from him. would linking, would that be enough? If There is no controversy section, where is best to put this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Substantial (rapper)

Substantial (rapper) is now weakly sourced was horrendously weakly sourced. I trimmed down a bit, but it still has a facebook link and no actually strong RS sources for much of anything. Is he even remotely notable? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the basic claim of notability seems to be related to his work in Japan, so I would think that we'd need some good Japanese sources for that. Certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO based on English-language sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack Edwards (sportscaster)

I was hoping someone could give some attention to a situation on this article Jack Edwards (sportscaster). There's been a slow motion edit war going back at least two months. Cliff note version, sportscaster criticized opposing player. Sportscaster was criticized for what he said. Sportscaster appologizes. One side thinks this is important to have in the article. The other thinks it's a minor incident unworthy of inclusion. Every few days it gets reverted from one version to the other. I am not neutral in this area, (Not real COI, just due to being a fan of one team). I won't add any other opinion except hopefully the article can be stabilized either in or out. thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian Litchenberg

Being at work I don't really have time to look in to this, but following an ANI report (the situation got ugly with legal threats), I think it's prudent to have this noticeboard take a look at the Litchenberg article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Miranda and Elytte Barbour

Newly accused/admitted murderers. Probably on the edge of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME could use additional eyes as the story gets wider circulation. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Important to distinguish the two. Only one has claimed to be responsible for multiple murders and those claims have not been substantiated by investigators. If true, we'll have to split the article. They would not both belong in "serial killer" categories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Defender miz

• Defender miz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History of creating unreferenced BLPs and adding unsourced information to articles. Multiple warnings by different editors to user's talk page, with no response from user.

I started two AFDs for unreferenced BLPs created by the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Thost and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Preis.

Would appreciate attention from editors here as well.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Problematic edit history includes prior creation of a hoax article, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing' Joe. — Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See also the deletion history of Rebecca Frasier and the multiple related warnings about that at User talk:Defender miz, I can't see the deleted history but it looks like the user may have re-created the page after deletion. — Cirt (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Achal Prabhala

I would like to bring to your attention a strange delate process which happened with the article of Achal Prabhala, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achal Prabhala (2nd nomination). My impression is that the discussion goes beyond the article and the notability of this person. I have met Prabhala at Wikimania and – working on African-related topics – I exchanged and discussed with him; I don't specifically like him, but I have worked on his article and from sources he seems defiantly notable. It would be healthy if someone else not linked to this person can check what has happened and if his article really does not meet the relevant requirements. thank you! --Iopensa (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jahi McMath—How do we handle someone whose death is contested?

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

Background: Jahi McMath underwent a surgical procedure in late 2013, suffered complications which included a bleed and a period of cardiac arrest, during which her brain was not oxygenated. Subsequently, she was declared brain-dead by the hospital's doctors. Her family disagreed and fought the determination in court, which may have failed (the article seems to indicate that the trial court found against the family). McMath has been declared legally dead, but her body is still on life support.

Issue: There's an ongoing dispute over whether to describe McMath as living or deceased, and perhaps more seriously, whether McMath should be described in the past or present tense. That is, "Jahi McMath is ..." versus "Jahi McMath was ..." WP:BLP applies: if McMath is dead, she's recently deceased and still within the scope of WP:BLP. While my normal recommendation would be to discuss the dispute, there are two problems. First, how do we handle the tense issue? I don't think "creative wording" will work satisfactorily. Second, I'm not sure there are sources yet on this specific case that adequately discuss the dispute over whether McMath should be described as living or dead. There might be more general sources, but I'm not sure those could be invoked without running afoul of WP:SYN.

One solution suggested is "is/was", which I don't particularly like. An explanatory footnote probably wouldn't resolve the dispute either. My personal opinion is that we're well within WP:NOTNEWS territory, indicating that deletion might be appropriate, but that still doesn't really resolve the dispute. Opinions are welcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting example of how to handle something like this is the article on Lord Lucan. The opening paragraph nicely side-steps the alive or dead issue completely by the way it is worded and then explores the issue in more detail later. So perhaps in this case careful phrasing may do the job too? Shritwod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this approach could work here if the opening paragraph was changed to read something like: "Jahi McMath (May 26, 2000 – December 12, 2013) was declared brain-dead following post-operative complications from medical procedures aimed at relieving symptoms from sleep apnea. On January 3, 2014, the Alameda County coroner’s office issued a death certificate for McMath with a date of December 12, 2013. A cause of death was not included pending an autopsy." This change would sidestep the issue although I don't know if this change conforms to style guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, a FA that manages to avoid a similar problem. Well, color me impressed. Maybe clever wording can be used to avoid the issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of points of clarification. The court ruled that McMath's body could remain on a ventilator until January 7. McMath's family removed the body from the hospital on January 5, before a previously scheduled trial could take place, so no further rulings were made on whether removing mechanical ventilation violated the family's freedom of religion and privacy, as their lawyer claimed. (Citations on these points are in the article.) As to whether McMath's body is still on a ventilator, no reliable, independent sources have documented the body's condition nor whereabouts since January 5. Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Jahi is not dead would seem to be a fringe theory. That does not mean I would not treat the article with extraordinary sensitivity - but BLP does not require us to ignore an avalanche of medical and legal evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to the Lord Lucan style being used but the editor who continues to undo/edit-war and revert has shown that they do not approve. How about saying, "(born... declared death...) in this case adding the modifier "declared" "Legally declared", or even "brain-death" or any other modifier to signify the circumstances?24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth or mischaracterize my actions. I would disagree that this case is similar to Lord Lucan and agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that the position that McMath was alive after December 12 is a fringe theory. However, in the interest of compromise I would support removing both the birth and death dates from the article and infobox and phrase the lede as suggested by Ca2james above, minus the dates: "Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead following post-operative complications from medical procedures aimed at relieving symptoms from sleep apnea. On January 3, 2014, the Alameda County coroner’s office issued a death certificate for McMath with a date of December 12, 2013. A cause of death was not included pending an autopsy." Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Maybe making sure that her age at the time she entered the hospital or some other reference to her age is in the article somewhere. It is not a perfect solution, but it would help make the article more neutral. And sorry Funcrunch-didn't want to speak for you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely do not believe we should remove the birth/death dates. Noting that she was declared brain-dead is fine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the only way you're going to get a compromise, and doing so harms nothing. Just mention the DOB and date when declared brain-dead later in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, then this is not an acceptable "compromise" and doing so is an unacceptable concession to a fringe theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's your position, NorthBySouthBaranof, I propose you are the one being unreasonable. Rephrasing the lead so as to not give credit to either side is not giving an endorsement to a fringe theory, and attempting to paint it as some huge concession is patently hogwash. I further propose that a consensus is emerging here that the article be reworked to reflect that consensus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "giving credit." NPOV does not require some fantastical notion of "equal time" or "balance" - it requires that we balance competing viewpoints in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. Far and away, the reliable sources in this case describe McMath as dead. Therefore, that is the viewpoint which must predominate within the article. Her family's claims to the contrary are notable, but they are not controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about removing the birth and death dates from the text of the article, or from the info box at the top, or both? As long as the dates remain in the article somewhere - as in the info box - I support this compromise.Ca2james (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that the article has been renamed to clarify that it is not a biography, it makes sense to me to remove the infobox. The article as it currently stands states the girl's age and date of death, and her nationality and parents' names aren't really relevant. Funcrunch (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the retention of the infobox, as per the precedent of Terri Schiavo case, after which this article has been renamed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I also support the retention of the infobox as per the precedent of the Terri Schiavo case. It doesn't make sense to me for these two very similar articles to have different infoboxes. I also think that the information in the infobox is relevant as it provides context for the case. Ca2james (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Liezl van Zyl

This person has been proven to be a false identity created by wiki user solarhyper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.92.130 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I have nominated it for deletion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So the Sportspulse interview is a fake?--ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am probably going to say that it is, or at least say some elements of it are fictional. There's no mention of this person on the internet outside of Wikipedia and that interview, and there are no sources which state she has competed at a game - the interview claims she has won dozens of awards and yet the rest of the internet is silent. Even if she is real, she is most likely non-notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Having done some digging into the history of Swimming at the 2007 All-Africa Games and Swimming at the 2011 All-Africa Games, I am inclined to agree with you. I have undone some longstanding vandalism substituting her name for a couple of medal winners. Looks like Sportspulse was duped too.--ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fatemeh Shams

Fatemeh Shams is a contemporary prize-winning Iranian poet and literary scholar based in Oxford University. She was born in Khorasan, Mashhad in 1983 and completed her studies in the field of sociology and literature after winning the silver medal in national Olympiad of literature in 2000. As a censored voice in Iran, Fatemeh, published her first book of poetry in Berlin, Germany in 2013 under the title of "88". The book contains socially and politically avant-garde poems that are mostly written in exile and echo the sense of displacement and diaspora. Fatemeh won Jaleh Esfahani poetry prize for the best young Persian poet in 2012. Her work has received scholarly attention by some of the leading literary critics and translators such as Dr. Ahmad Karimi Hakkak and her poems have been translated and published in other languages including English and Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoodnaderi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussions concerning issues relating to living persons in existing Wikipedia articles only. If you wish to create an article on Fatemeh Shams, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cara Delevingne

Hi, I could use some help with this please. Even the more reliable sources such as The Huffington Post and The Telegraph are quoting another party (other than the subject) in the Daily Mirror tabloid which is not a reliable source. HelenOnline 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also here in Michelle Rodriguez. HelenOnline 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary of this revert of my WP:BLPREMOVE by Tbhotch states "It's not that difficult to use Google News. The Mirror may not be reliable, but Rodriguez and Delevingne are". The Mirror article which supposedly quotes Rodriguez and another unnamed source is not an official press release or statement and it was definitely not quoting Delevingne. HelenOnline 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd approach the statement with caution at this stage. I note that the Independent, for example, caveats the story by saying here that "Earlier this week, Rodriguez also apparently confirmed the romance, though many initially approached her statement with caution, as it was printed in The Mirror from what appeared to be an undisclosed interview." Hchc2009 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the Independent article which is probably the most reliable source so far. However, the comment "I love her, she's great" is not exactly conclusive proof. The Independent commenters pretty much echo my own impressions of the whole story (not relevant here I know, but at least I know I am not alone), i.e. speculative gossip, possible PR stunt. Wikipedia is not the place for gossip, campaigning or commercial promotion and we should be better than the media at filtering such information. HelenOnline 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW the secondhand comment quoted in the Independent (from the Digital Spy website) was pretty selective. The full quote is "I don't know what you're talking about. I love her, she's great." (emphasis mine). HelenOnline 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: TMZ has updated their article noting that Rodriguez's rep told them that Rodriguez never spoke to The Mirror, and Delevingne was quoted in The Mirror today saying "I love her, she’s great. She’s a very good friend of mine – she’s wonderful." HelenOnline 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Valls

Manuel Valls is Minister of the Interior for France. He has recently undertaken an effort to ban anti-Semitic performances by comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. User:Blaue_Max has thus changed the sentence "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with Scandinavian-style Social Democracy and Blairism" to "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with the state of Israel" twice, and this is still in the article.[39][40] He has also introduced his own negative opinions of Valls into the article, referencing YouTube videos that are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.169.109.224 (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Arseniy Yatsenyuk

In recent edits, someone has added uncited text claiming a connection of Arseniy Yatsenyuk to Scientology. As the claimed reference amounts to "some guy in Russia said this" in a BLP article, the text should go pending any better cites. Since a blogger quoted this text the day it was added, I'm inclined to think it was the blogger himself who made the edit. As I am broadly blocked from editing any Scientology-related articles (even bogus connections), I'm bringing it here rather than removing myself. AndroidCat (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I just removed it. The source doesn't seem to show up at all in Google, the name mentioned DOES, but in multiple places, so, no telling who the source is, no way was that reliable in any fashion. I'll place a note on the talk page as well.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. AndroidCat (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edoardo Costa

Edoardo Costa, both in English and Italian has a potentially libelous section referring to an ongoing legal issue that is poorly cited from questionable sources (tabloid and gossip sites). The English version of the section appears to have been translated with poor results by an online translator, rather than a native speaker. The sections are replaced once removed, even while citing BLP guidelines on both versions of the page. The claims made on the page are rather serious and defamatory. The issue can be seen here.

Sharon Needles

• Sharon Needles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Controversy section is unverifiable, the sources do not link to any existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the section - the first reference was a dead link, and the second seems opinion at best, and off context after removing the first paragraph. I don't contest that the source on the second one is reliable, but it would have to be worded differently and doesn't really expand on the alleged use of racial epithets to justify a whole "controversy" section. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi

An editor seems to be on a vendetta against this person, using extremely insulting language on the talk page. I request fresh eyes on the article, and comments by someone willing to explain BLP policies. I had a previous disagreement with this editor, so perhaps I am not best for the job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

William E. Lori

Joeschultz22000 (talk · contribs) has been adding unreferenced and poorly-referenced BLP-violating material to William E. Lori. I am now at 3 reverts. Per WP:3RR, I am taking the report here for more eyeballs. Thanks in advance. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo

Edit war between Indiggo77 (talk · contribs) and 63.247.160.139 (talk · contribs). Indiggo77 is apparently the subject of Indiggo stated here. Indiggo77 is removing content, but providing sources. The anon is removing any additions by Indiggo77. Jim1138 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The "sources" Indiggo77 adds aren't legitimate. For example, they are saying they are American, and providing a youtube video that they made of photos of themselves. Also, User Indiggo77 is actually Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea (collectively, Indiggo) which is not allowed on Wikipedia, right?

I'm not sure if I am supposed to reply here or on Jim1138's page. Thanks. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over at WP:ANI regarding the confirmed shared COI account, as well as probable sock puppetry. Those issues can be discussed there, the article may be discussed here. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null

The current Wikipedia page on Gary Null does not reflect a neutral point of view (NPOV). The content is overwhelmingly negative and much of the more disparaging commentary is derived/referenced from a highly prejudicial source: "A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials"[41]. Essentially, the link is an attack page from Quackwatch, authored by an individual, Stephen Barrett, who states that he "has been tracking Gary Null's activities since the mid-1970s". Moreover, Mr. Barrett's article clearly indicates that Mr. Null's attorney has repeatedly advised him to "remove the offensive and libelous material from your website or face legal action."

Earlier today, I made edits to Gary Null's Wikipedia page and introduced biographical content from his Faculty Biography page [42] at Fairleigh Dickinson University with the intent of providing a more rounded perspective on the subject. I also included content that expanded on and clarified Mr. Barrett's involvement in the matter. All of those particular edits were quickly undone. I am relatively new to editing at Wikipedia and would appreciate further guidance in this regard.

Jpsanders (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• The independent secondary sources clearly shows that the primary source is inadequate. You attempted to spin the article, including aids denialism, into a positive light, despite secondary sources strongly disagreeing. That is against policy. Second Quantization (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to comment by Second Quantization: one cannot tell what,"independent secondary sources" and "primary source" you are referring to? Nor what "article" you are referring to. If it is the TIME magazine article on Null [43], on the subject of AIDS, it describes Null's position thusly in one sentence: "Null takes a similarly radical approach to AIDS, raising a long-discredited argument that one of the reasons traditional therapies are ineffective is that it has never been proved that HIV plays as great a role in the disease as scientists believe". If you saying that TIME magazine is espousing "aids denialism", please take it up with the Wikipedia editor who originally added the reference from TIME. If you are referring to Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch article about Gary Null [44], please be advised that Barrett's intense criticism of Null does not include an allegation of AIDS denialism. Barrett makes a single mention of AIDS in regard to Null's writing: "Other articles in the series promoted chiropractic and homeopathy and claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed...". Again, if you believe Barrett is downplaying aids denialism, please take it up with the Wikipedia editor who originally added the reference. Jpsanders (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Depending on the nature of Null's work at FDU (namely, whether his "Research Fellow" position is honourary or not), it seems reasonable to mention that he's on staff there. But the rest of that bio is hagiographic in nature, and I don't think it's independent enough to source other details on Null from. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

The reason the article is overwhelmingly negative is because Null is generally considered a crank and a charlatan. His "book", Death By Medicine, is an extended attack on the medical community and a tissue of lies form beginning to end. According to Null, if you're hit by a truck and die on the operating table, the doctors killed you. He's also an assiduous self-promoter. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is applying here in spades. It is unhelpful when people who're subject to largely negative WP:MAINSTREAM of their views are subject to the "you can't say that because of WP:BLP" treatment simply because Wikipedia's restatement of the mainstream position is considered an "attack page". Such editors either lack knowledge of the subject and massively misunderstand the subtleties both in the subject matter and WP:BLP because they're basically not competent, or they're fans of the subject or his work (and as a result may be knowledgeable about the subject but inevitably have a misunderstanding of the issues because they're not starting from a WP:MAINSTREAM point of view) and want to WP:POVPUSH on the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Salva Kiir

The section on the recent political crisis does not appear to be objective, since the question of whether there was a coup d'etat is contested by the two parties in the dispute. The article blames "one faction" in the crisis for "causing" the crisis by trying to overthrown Kiir. This is also contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.176 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is the problem the section entitled "Political crisis"? It seems reasonably impartial to me, but I've only a passing familiarity with South Sudanese politics. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

Ira Trevedi

The article Ira Trivedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is tagged as advertorial, rightly. Most of it was written by a WP:SPA whose image uploads indicate a connection with the subject. It contains many primary sources, a lot of which are basically press releases. However, the subject does seem to meet the notability guidelines, taking the content at face value.

I am uneasy about having a biography tagged as an advertisement and the article certainly falls well short of normal quality standards. If anyone has a special interest in Indian contemporary literature, maybe they could have a look? Guy (Help!) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reham Khan

This article has been vandalised repeatedly by specific users. It has been created recently with no verifiable sources clearly to use for numerous personal attacks on the person in question, Reham Khan. Extremely personal information such as the names, ages and location of relatives is regularly posted, of questionable accuracy but represents a huge invasion of privacy and threatens her personal safety. Other times, completely inaccurate and slanderous or libellous statements are made which have no sources. These are regularly made specific users, the most frequent of which is Somiya321. It should either be deleted since it is a stub or stopped from repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRoach12345 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Mathis

• Samantha Mathis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Samantha Mathis' own Facebook page says her birthday is Feb. 20, 1960. Your article on her says her birthday is May 20, 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.183.157 (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the article says May 12. I guess it's sourced to her IMDb profile, which is not ideal but it's all we have. I searched for but didn't find a Facebook page, not that we'd trust it more than we do IMDb to begin with. If you have a reliable source for the DOB, we'll take it. I didn't find anything other than a short TV Guide bio with the same date. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The article says May 12, 1970 (not May 20, 1960). HelenOnline 19:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Jim Flaherty

[45] removed a detailed statement about a medical condition which appeared unrelated to any biographical value. Another editor has demurred on the talk page saying it "looked fine" to him. Does medical stuff generally belong in BLPs? I had rather thought "minor medical stuff" was "right out." BTW, the claim was unsourced to boot. To me it looks more like "put anything remotely damaging into a BLP of a politician." Collect (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's no source, then of course it should come/stay out. But I see no value in a general prohibition; FDR comes to mind. If it's discussed extensively in sources and is therefore considered relevant to one's notability, then fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Um FDR? Might you show me any contemporary discussion of his paralysis? Cheers. And being paralyzed is a teeny bit different from taking medicine for a skin condition, I suspect. Collect (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reagan's Alzheimer's, then. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Weeeell, the FDR example is a bit off the point because the press' sensibilities about what the public 'needed to know' were also a teeny bit different seventy years ago. Heck, the active collusion of all of the media to cover up FDR's condition is used today as a canonical example of how reporting has changed in the intervening decades. (Whether or not today's politicians-live-in-a-fishbowl attitude is better or worse is left as a homework exercise.) Compare and contrast the openness of coverage associated with, to take a current Canadian example, Sam Sullivan: former mayor of Vancouver, and current member of the provincial legislature. The level of attention and coverage lent to his quadriplegia stands in stark contrast to the treatment of FDR.

That said, I do have trouble seeing how one satisfies the WP:WEIGHT concern in this case—while rare, the condition in question appears to be a relatively minor and manageable. No sources have been presented to indicate any appreciable effect on his political career, or any very significant effect on his personal life; absent high-quality sources (based on firm information rather than pundits' speculation) inclusion seems unwarranted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Kevin Ranker

The office of Kevin Ranker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has emailed OTRS and we've given them the standard advice; they are playing straight and have made some requests on the talk page, but the article's not on a lot of watchlists so they have not been reviewed yet.

I know several folks here are keenly interested in US politics, so could I ask one of you to review the talk page and merge in anything that looks to be appropriate. Thanks Guy (Help!) 17:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth

This article needs some neutral eyes. My past efforts to clean it up have been futile as two editors who started editing the article within a few days of each other have been dominating the article since 2011.[46] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Murphy

I am new to Wikipedia and hope that those with better knowledge than I about the intricate workings of editing play fair with me. Looking at the history of this entry I am concerned that all references to Stuart Murphy's homosexuality are removed very rapidly without reason. Murphy has gone on the record regarding his sexuality. For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/24/stuart-murphy-sky-battle-box and elsewhere. What precisely merits the censorship of this well known aspect of his life anymore than removing all references to Stephen Fry's homosexuality in his Wikipedia entry? Its removal is offensive to the gay community. Or have I misunderstood? I am happy to stand corrected if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.60.135.151 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've misunderstood.

If you're new to Wikipedia, why are you repeating the exact self-same comparison (of Murphy to Fry) that another editor posted on my talk page more than a year ago? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that he (or she), like me, simply looked at the history of the SM talk page and followed the link to your historical (and to some degree hysterical) "discussions"? Why are perfectly polite newbies on Wikipedia treated in such a hostile and suspicious fashion? He or she makes a very good albeit repeated point about Fry and I don't see you, Demiurge, adopting a helpful attitude here. Saying "Yes you have misunderstood" without explaining why isn't fair is it? So please explain why a man who is openly gay (and has said so on the record in the Guardian and to camera at the Edinburgh TV Festival) should have this issue removed from Wikipedia over and over again by you? Look at the history everyone. It makes for fascinating and revealing reading ! In the meantime if references to the guy's sexuality is removed again, I'll go onto the Fry page and remove those too. 50.60.134.27 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you? 50.60.134.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making threats above can be assumed to be the same person as the other 50.60.xx, although implying otherwise. I've blocked the range for a few weeks. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

WOW! I hear the sounds of grinding axes. This is generating a lot of heat but little light and blocking people for making a joke, which is how the Fry comment read to me, is a bit severe isn't it? It probably is the same guy but he makes good points. I see no light coming from Demiurge1000 just the rapid knee jerk revert revert. The ref to Murphy's homosexuality is going back on the page. Can we have a cool, calm, level-headed senior editor with no connection to this Murphy page to oversee it? What IS the big deal here? All it says is that the guy is gay which he has said many times? 181.41.209.19 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Should this article contain a sentence highlighting this person's underage arrest record? The issue here is one of WP:UNDUE. The "personal life" section is only seven sentences long, including the sentence at issue. I'm also concerned that editor adding this material is an WP:SPA, as he has edited no other articles, refuses to discuss on talk or adhere to WP:BRD, and originally inserted the material with the edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a tendentious edit. I think it might belong *if put in the context of what Coates wrote about the experience* rather than as a throwaway "he's a criminal" line. But it should be removed until properly rewritten. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor referenced above. This user did not post in the talk page or reply to my explanations; they just kept reverting. The sentence is relevant due to the subject's focus on issues of blacks and crime, and his own discussion of the incident in question, and my description of the addition is very neutral and straightforward. Also, if the section is very short, then adding to it seems like a good thing and not bad. I am a first-time, infrequent user of Wikipedia; that does not make me a WP:SPA. I have repeatedly explained my minor edit; this user refuses to explain theirs and violated WP:BRD by simply deleting my edit rather than try to improve it or discuss it. I have looked at this editor's previous disputes with users. I believe it is inappropriate to ignore WP rules, then go here and try to accuse me of violating WP policies. Try talking it out on the Coates Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you have WP:BRD all wrong. You boldly added the information, were reverted by Gamaliel and now have a responsibility to discuss your proposed addition and gain consensus for it. Furthermore, you have violated the three-revert rule in attempting to edit-war the material into the article despite the objections of two different editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Gamaliel had it wrong by failing to discuss my edit first. Reverting is supposed to be a last-option. Please re-read WP:BRD. Gamaliel also failed to explain his reverts other than "disagree". The only one startign an edit-war is the other users; i am trying to either edit the article or discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The user in question has now reverted five times, and has been reported on the 3-revert rule noticeboard. There is no question that this involves tendentious editing on a BLP, which is prohibited by policy. I call on User:Useitorloseit once again to cease edit-warring and to discuss their proposed edit, which has been rejected by two separate editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a question about its tendentiousness; i question it. This user simply announces his opinion as fact and tried to use WP policy to justify it. You should leave my edit in place and discuss it on the talk page; anything else and you are continuing to violate WP rules about reverting as a last option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. With BLPs we have to exercise the utmost caution, and sometimes that means reverting edits that may potentially violate our BLP policies. In this case that means your edit should remain out of the article until it is discussed on the talk page. If editors agree that your edit does not violate BLP and is appropriate, then your edit can remain in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess "potentially violates' is your word for "I don't like it and want it gone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you are determined to have a productive discussion regarding this proposed edit. Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this was a good faith accusation. Discussion on the regular page's Talk page was never even attempted by this user. If it had been, I would have (and still am) more than happy to address any concerns. I was going to donate money to Wikipedia but thanks to a "top 700" editor I decided not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

If Wikipedia's Top 700 editor, by applying the policies we have about living people, keeps the project safe from being sued, we are all better off. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How many times have we seen versions of "I was going to donate money to Wikipedia but decided not to" as an "argument" in an NPOV or BLP discussion? Useitorloseit, that merely makes it harder to take your reasoning with the seriousness it perhaps deserves. BTW please read the message from SineBot on your page about signing your posts. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Eliezer Yudkowsky

Hi! While this isn't exactly a report, I've noticed that this article appears to be somewhat controversial, and I'm interested in bringing it up to par. As it stands, the article is in a bad place: primary sources, blogs, and self-published sources abound. However, it is a vast improvement over the old version of the article. I bring this to the noticeboard for two reasons: first and foremost, the article is in need of desperate help, and I figured this was a good place to go. Second, the article has a long history of controversy dating back to over a decade ago. Many IP editors, single-purpose accounts, accounts with narrow editing patterns, and even Yudkowsky himself have edited the article, often advocating for the inclusion of contentious or poorly-sourced material. I bring this last fact not to the attention of the noticeboard because I'm worried that this will happen again (though it very well may, as there's been recent accusations of "anti-Yudkowsky forces" in the edit summaries! and yesterday there was a revert war), but rather because I think this is the perfect time to make both parties happy and improve the article. I encourage anyone and everyone who is interested to come help out, or even just leave a suggestion or two on the talk page.

Thanks for your time, Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Comments please. Page with longtime disputes and editor seeks to overrule others in using gossip column as acceptable source for negative articles, yet not use for positive articles. Please help. Is an active living person. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue is also one of WP:UNDUE and is about a lawsuit which one gossip column wrote about. when exact same gossip column wrote about a major purchase from a celebrity was disallowed. This issue is unnecessarily mean and unkind, as well as from a gossip source. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to add that the characterization of the dispute isn't entirely accurate. The above user wanted to include a news item about a real estate transaction which other editors on the article deemed to be gossip (and real estate news in Manhattan qualifies as gossip) and failed WP:NOTNEWS. Now, there was another news item, about Torossian being sued for libel, which the above editor does not deem Wikipedia-worthy. Which is well and all, but because both items were sourced to Daily News (New York), the editor interpreted it to mean all stories that come from the NYDN was gossip. And while I think we can argue over the amount of attention given to the libel suit, I think the complete removal of the topic is inappropriate.

A complicating matter with this article is that it, along with articles for 5W Public Relations and its interests, are occasional targets of SPAs and anonymous editors affiliated with the firm. And further complicating the issue are the nature of the topic's occupation - persuading media outlets to cover specific stories - and his reputation, accurate or not, for promoting himself and his firm as much as his clients. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Duncan Ferguson

I removed a lot of unsourced material from this article [47], which was undone by User:Yorkshiresky [48] "Deleting a lot of relevant material - tag where appropriate". The page has been tagged with a BLP unsourced section since January 2011.

I think all of the material removed falls under "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", as per WP:BLP and would like some feedback on clarifying the position instead of embarking on an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DElliott (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted several important aspects of Ferguson's career, including the first three years of his career at Dundee United, his call up to the Scotland squad, his record breaking transfer to Rangers and a good deal of his Everton career. I don't see anything particularly contentious in the material removed. Rather than wholesale excision of material put cite tags on those statements you find problematical or highlight these on the talk page. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A not untypical article on a footballer - most of it unsourced - including his career with Newcastle and Everton. Needs referencing and if you remove the unreferenced it will be a very short article.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Challenging unreferenced material in this way is fully compliant with WP:BLP; re-adding the same unreferenced material is not. GiantSnowman 19:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would allow little without a reference but as I was informed that wholesale removal of such would be disruptive editing suggest the key word here is 'contentious'. Just how contentious is the material here that is being removed? Take it out and entire periods of his career are missing. It that the way forward?--Egghead06 (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Material is considered "contentious" if it is likely to be challenged - which this material has been, by DElliott. There is nothing disruptive about removing such large chunks of unreferenced material from BLP articles, and anyone who tells you it is must be ignorant of how important BLP policy actually is. To quote Jimmy Wales - "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." I go one step further and say "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of any information about living persons." GiantSnowman 19:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null 2

I recently read through this article, Gary Null because of a source dispute. The source dispute is one issue which could be fairly debated from both sides, but more importantly the article is almost entirely pejorative, an attack piece. If there are editors interested in BLPs who might like to look in, that would be a good thing probably. I won't be posting on the article myself and have no opinion on the subject of the article, just looking for BLP interested editors to add uninvolved scrutiny on what seems to be a heavily-weighted article. Thanks. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC))

• I've just see another post on this article above. Apologies for the repetition. It seems there is a generally agreed upon opinion about Null and that surprisingly this opinion is seen a legitimate basis for the article slant-hardly a base line for writing neutral articles in an encyclopedia, no matter how much the subject is despised. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC))

Keith R. Kernspecht

I wanted to get some input on the notability of this figure before taking any action and I'm a bit rusty on my BLP standards. If anybody else would be so kind as to take a look and let me know their thoughts on his notability I'd be most obliged. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Larry Bird

In the entry on Larry Bird The sentence "Due to chronic back problems and having a vagina, he retired as a player in 1992." The highlighted phrase appears to be false and a derogatory/mischievous remark. Thought best to bring it to Wikipedia's attention.

Petty vandalism, reverted. Thanks for the report. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nugent RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this forum, of how to describe/qualify Nugent's comments about Obama calling him a "Subhuman mongrel" and Chimpanzee" Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, you actually mean 'how to describe/qualify Nugent's comments calling Obama a "Subhuman mongrel" and "Chimpanzee"'. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Alex McLeish

• Alex McLeish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, in this article, 2 users insist on adding material that states that fans have taken to calling him by an offensive nickname. They cite fan forums as a source, which I understand are not reliable, therefore not allowed, especially for something like this. I keep undoing these adds, but the IPs keep re-insterting this material. What can be done about this? Or am I off-base here? Advice and assistance appreciated! Electric Wombat (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I've stopped undoing them until a ruling on this is made. In my research, I've just noticed that 3 "reverts" is punishable, which I've exceeded here. My apologies if I've broken a rule, I will cease action on this article pending the outcome here. Regards, Electric Wombat (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you did right. Those are clearly not reliable sources, not to mention there's a clear undue weight issue and some kind of agenda by the IP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FrF. Watchlisted. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

John Mutton (Canadian politician)

There seems to be sourced and accurate material that was posted to this page which was then deleted by the original creator more than once. As the page suggests, this falls into the Conflict of Interest violation criteria, as the creator is a person close to or is the subject. The information should be re-posted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.245.242 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The lack of a conviction for allegations of what would presumably be a minor assault, means the material might be better left out of the article altogether, and certainly not maintained in the lengthy and detailed blow-by-blow nature that some are edit-warring to keep it there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Meryl Davis

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

Under personal life, the last sentence states "she can play the skin flute," which is slang for a penis and obviously offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.239.225 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for letting us know. This offensive vandalism has been fixed by User:Mosfetfaser. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Pembrey, Edward J. Steele, Eva Jablonka

I usually walk through pathehtic crap like this, but this takes the cake.

I recently heard about Epiegenetics and naturally I wanted to see what I missed the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Jablonka Intentionally missrepresent links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Pembrey Same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Steele Same....AAAND the Anti Deffemation Leage link leads to An American Politician.

None of them fo what I could see refeered them selves as Lamarckians.

FYI, these manchildren are still around, disengeniusly spamming Lamarckian page and "Nature versus nurture" and half the Biology pages. 84.202.109.61 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris DeStefano

So on January 25, 2014, Cdestefano (talk · contribs) blanked Chris DeStefano. A month later, Sethjohnson1987 (talk · contribs) put the article up for Prod because "Chris Destefano requested that this page be completely removed", and I quickly deprodded it. On Sethjohnson1987's talk page, he wrote that "I work for his music publisher (SonyATV/EMI) and he emailed me asking for it to be taken down. Though he might change his mind and have us update it for him." What should be done here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I find your message of 20:13 to be quite correct. The article looks fine and the subject wishing to delete it is not a criterion for speedy deletion. --John (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jim Murray (musician)

Please help in editing this article. Jim Murray passed away on March 1, 2013. THX https://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/570610/James-Rigney-Murray--70.html?nav=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

A lot of work needed to get this biography of the Ukrainian politician up to scratch. Many (most?) of the sources don't seem to be adequate for a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)