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.

Terry Brennan

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

Paul Horning was not the only Heisman trophy winner to come from a losing team. The first winner, Jay Berwagner. University of Chicago, was from a losing team. See Wikipedia article on him.

Raina Telgemeier

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

In New York State notices of marital separation are not made publicly available. In order that biographers more accurately describe Raina and Dave Roman's situation and stop confusing literary events booking them, I had been asked to make the changes to Raina's entry by the subject, and save the both of them the need to publicly post on the topic.

So no, I'm not going to have an external citation, and yes, I know this is not how Wikipedia works. But I've known the two of them for over a decade, have a Wikipedia account, and am not either of them so I can make the edits.

I'm just trying to make a complicated situation easier, and let both them keep their privacy as much as is possible when you're public figure.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randimason (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Info in a BLP like 'She is separated from X' would need to be sourced given all the info out there currently indicates they are married and still together, so I have removed the mention of her current marital status completely. A primary source would generally be acceptable for an uncontentious factoid like that, so if either of them social media it, it could be re-added if necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Paul Gregory (Producer)

I'm related to his nephew (son of his sister)...he was not aware that he had died, he was surprised and skeptical when I informed him said this on wikipedia...Gregory's sister is alive, age 101, nursing home in state of MI...he said she was speaking to him by phone regularly as far as he knew...felt certain she'd have been informed if he had died; and that she would certainly have mentioned this to him...but this sister is apparently Gregory's only contact with his family...can't find any obituary...he was going to ask his mom next time he spoke to her...68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ignore, solved for now..68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lark Voorhies

• Lark Voorhies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some citation needed and then noticed some bare links info, and places that could use some source improvement.

Would appreciate extra eyes on this one to help improve it.

Particularly with regard to cleanup of Personal life section.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See for example this bit I've since removed, at DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam Tanner footballer

I am Adam Tanner and I am increasingly annoyed at the inaccuracies being updated on my Wikipedia page. The fact of the matter is I was not sacked by anybody for failing a drug test which is repeatedly reported on my page. This is in fact libelous and if it is reported again I will seek legal advice. The fact is I did fail a drug test which I freely admit to and am happy for that to be documented but I WAS NOT sacked and in fact received fantastic support from Ipswich Town FC and went on to play numerous games after the drug failure. Please advise me how I can stop any further detrimental and false information being posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich78 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ipswich78: The article doesn't say you were sacked because of a drug test - and please refrain from legal threats. You should also not edit your own article. GiantSnowman 07:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman this is a supporter of Adam Tanner, I put it in the first person as I felt it would be dealt with sympathetically. I am only keen to add what I feel are accurate details of Adam and his career. I apologise if any offence was taken but I am new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich78 (talk • contribs)

I have had a bash at improving the article a little. Impersonating a real life person is a real no-no, Ipswich78, in addition to the problematic behaviours pointed out by GiantSnowman. Pinging @The Rambling Man:, one of our resident experts on ITFC, who may be able to help further with the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I remember watching Tanner play, a lot of potential. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a bash at tidying it up and making sure everything is referenced nicely. I have a book somewhere which may have more that I can add, just need to find it under all the dust and rubble... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Birth year question

I'd encourage BLPN regulars to take a look at Talk:Laura_Branigan#Consensus_discussion and give their views on the use of sources re this person's birth year. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources required?

Do I understand the policy right that sources are required for statements about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I tried removing some unsourced information about Mark Bloomfeld from American Council for Capital Formation, but it was immediately re-added by another user without any talk page discussion or edit summary. I've tried reaching out to this user on the article talk page to work with them, but no luck yet. The sentence in question is "Bloomfield openly expresses pleasure at the fact that half the members of the House Ways and Means Committee have attended his dinners"--Bloomfeld is a lobbyist, so the odd "openly" in this sentence is clearly intended to imply he's doing something wrong. So far as I can see, no source is given for the sentence at all, but this user has been adding and re-adding it anyway. I've removed it again for now, but I'm sure it'll be back when I sign on again tomorrow.

The article reads like a hit job generally--the entire “history” section is taken from a book by a Democratic politician and activist, even though dozens of nonpartisan sources are available-- but I’m not sure how your Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to groups. Is this editor (LesbianAdvocate) the final authority on this article, or is there someone else I could work with to try to improve it? (To be clear, I completely agree that the Democratic Party's opinions belong in the history--it just doesn't seem fair that they should be the only opinions.)

Thanks for hearing my concerns! I’ll try to focus my energy elsewhere in a bit in hopes that someone else can take a fresh look, and if I'm in the wrong about all this, I will happily cede the article back to LesbianAdvocate. Thanks, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

EllenMcGill You're correct, sources are required, so you were right to revert LesbianAdvocate. I left her a note on her page alerting her to this discussion as well. KoshVorlon 16:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, thank you for your help! -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoheved Kaplinksy

I am concerned by the outrageous adjectives used to label positions Kaplinsky held within the Juilliard School. "She is currently Supreme Leader of the Juilliard School (PBUH)... In 2008, she became Grand Führer of the Juilliard School's Pre-College Division."

These labels of positions within the Juilliard School are highly offensive to those who appreciate the educational institution as well as those who value the musicians and artists supported by the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.146 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism. This individual should get blocked for their username as well as their contribution. KoshVorlon 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Galloway Hoard

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

An IP editor is repeatedly adding unsourced claims of wrongdoing (on the part of the hoard's finders) to Galloway Hoard. I've reverted this several times and left warnings, but the user is persisting. S/he can't realistically be blocked as the IP address is dynamically assigned. Could the article please be semi-protected for a period? I'd suggest a week. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RFPP for how to request this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Christine Cusanelli

. Christine Cusanelli

I am reporting violations of the BLP's policy. I am the individual whom someone has created this page on. The content is erroneous, egregious and libel. I have attempted to modify the content whereby the administrator reverts back to his original page. I have attempted to provide citations and original proof of the additional information. This is to no avail as the administrator prevents me from adding or editing the information.

The administrator repeatedly violates the following policies on BLP's: NPOV- the administrator clearly wishes to illustrate a negative perception by using the content title "expense controversy". This section is simply an avenue to post defamatory news articles that attack the live person and make private family information public. V- There are false allegations, misquotes and false assumptions. I attempted to post new and verifiable information only to have it deleted. NOR- The administrator cannot verify the allegations via a reliable source of research. News articles that are cited cannot attribute the information that is alleged. For example: Cusanelli was asked to repay...is false. The article cannot attribute anyone as having asked or instructed repayment. No subsequent information can substantiate this false information. Wikioncc (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Offhand I can see why Bearcat reverted your actions. Your version of the article had some pretty promotional overtones in it like "fierce advocate" and "visionary leader". This is considered to be WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:PUFFERY, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia - especially as you outright removed the expense controversy section. I'm not necessarily saying that the section doesn't have issues - titling something a controversy does imply various things and the writing in the section does have some grammatical errors, but outright removing the content and replacing it with puff prose isn't the way to go about fixing this. Since it does seem to have gained some coverage I do think that it could merit a mention in the article somewhere, but I don't necessarily think that it warrants an entire section on its own with that level of detail. Offhand the entire article could probably use some editing as a whole since even the original version has some mild puffery with "keen supporter and advocate". I'd recommend opening up a discussion on the talk page about how to improve the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I culled it down to a paragraph (there were huge weight issues given the prominence given to what is actually a relatively common issue for politicians) with the relevant facts and moved it into the body rather than as a dedicated controversy section. Those are pretty much always bad when there is only one event involved. I also removed some unsourced and largely irrelevant info. The info can probably be sourced but it would lean towards puffery unless particularly notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 Agreed on a lot of your feedback-thank you. I am just starting to manage this site so, it's a whole new language and culture. Hopefully I can eventually see a page that accurately depicts who I am since it's bound to be around...forever! Wikioncc (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lucy DeCoutere

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

DeCoutere was one of three accusers in a high profile sexual assault trial in Canada where the defendant was found not guilty. An editor (Tamuren) has repeatedly been tendentiously editing the article to selectively and somewhat misleading include very negative information about DeCoutere, including allegations made by a defense attorney that were never proven to be true (but are presented as true in this article). I've tried reverting a couple times over the last few weeks, along with other editors, but the edits are being repeatedly reverted. The page includes sentences such as "Although she claimed to be traumatized by the alleged events, she initially told a friend that she was “excited for court” because it would be “theatre at its best"." This isn't true; the defense alleged that at trial, DeCoutere denied it, and the judge never ruled whether it was true or not. Hope some other editors can step in. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the basis for asserting that it's untrue that DeCoutere said "excited for court ... theatre at its best"? One wouldn't expect that a judge would declare whether a particular statement is true or not. The source presents it as fact that she said this (to a friend). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed that particular sentence as original research. Her claiming to be traumatized was not sourced. — Strongjam (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As Strongjam pointed out, the source didn't say that. Another example: "The court stated DeCoutere "... co-ordinated a covert network of women who have spent the last seven months sharing their assault stories with each other"." This is blatantly false - the court never said this, as you can see here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already removed that bit. The article it was sourced to was talking about DeCoutere becoming the point person for other women who wanted to share their own stories privately, and it was the words of the writer, not the court. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. I still am concerned about how other information is presented on the page about the trial. For example, why is the "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out tonight" and "love letter" in the article? I don't think either are necessary for a biography about DeCoutere or are presented in a neutral manner - there's no mention of DeCoutere's reaction to those pieces of information during her cross-examination, and nothing is presented from the rest of her testimony (which obviously would make her sound more sympathetic). The article can say Ghomeshi was acquitted without making it sound like this was written by the defence (for the record, I think Ghomeshi was properly acquitted. It's just how this is written is really questionable). Nor do I think it is necessary to quote the judge's reasons for acquitting - simply stating Ghomeshi was acquitted should be sufficient. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. @FuriouslySerene: What the source said was "Another comment that Henein used to discredit DeCoutere was a statement she had made to a friend that she was 'excited for court' because 'it’s theatre at its best.'” Are you saying you know it's untrue that DeCoutere said this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I was questioning the sentence in the article and how it was used by the editor to question whether DeCoutere was "traumatized," which is not supported by a reliable source. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for support by paper letter

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

The subject of a Wikipedia article made some requests for changes by paper letter.

They released the copyright of their text, and I uploaded their notes to Commons and posted them on the talk page of the article. Please see it at Talk:Tex_Watson#Edit_requests.

The requests seem routine. They seem to want the deletion of unsourced content and the addition of other sources.

This request is a bit unusual for being on paper and coming from an inmate at a prison. Thanks to anyone who can respond on the talk page of that article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Riddle

Debbie_Riddle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle Article states she wished to ban public breastfeeding by women with breasts larger than a c cup. Reference is politicops.com, a non-news/satire source. Information is not verifiable, and potentially libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.65 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the claim has already been removed. Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Scotty Bowers

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

Engleham created this biography simply because he wanted a counterpart of the book, Full Service (book). I tried to convince him that the notability of this person is based on the book without avail. Also, the subject himself isn't remarked; neither is his supposed relations with celebrities. Only the book article explains it already. Perhaps I might be wrong on this... --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)

IP editor 115.188.178.77, who calls herself/himself “Claudia” and loudly expresses regressive and occasionally racist views of Maori culture and New Zealand colonial history, has for some years waged an online crusade against the highly respected New Zealand historian James Belich. Claudia has accused Belich of bias, shoddy work, ignorance and errors.

Some examples of her tirades are here, here, here, and — more stridently — in the four threads archived at the Belich article talk page, here.

Claudia has launched a new attack on Belich at the talk page of this article on a British army officer who fought the Maori in New Zealand, returning to the theme that Belich is ignorant and usually wrong. Claudia here (as she often does) cites the authors Pugsley and Richards in her derisive comments, though when challenged recently to produce the actual statements of those authors, she could not.[1]

I deleted her last Belich comment on the grounds that it was an attack not relevant to the article; she has restored it and added a further criticism of Belich: see Talk:Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)#No Personal attack on Belich.

This is a problematic editor who was been blocked in 2012[2], 2013 and 2014, with the latter report including references to Claudia’s history of faking citations. Her recent efforts have also included adding a fictionalised “quote” within an article which was nothing more than a stab in the dark of something she had once read (see this and this thread.) BlackCab (TALK) 04:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

BlackCab: I've reverted the latest outburst, if there's any non-BLP-violating content there you're welcome to reinstate those parts.

everyone else: there's quite a bit of history about this editor (BlackCab has touched on the most relevant parts). Currently BlackCab is the most active in clearing up the messes she makes, many others have helped as well.

Just to clarify slightly: James Belich (historian) is the living person here (Duncan Cameron died in 1888). Belich's own article has not escaped the hand of Claudia (see its history and its talk page); she purposefully conflates Historical revisionism (sober analysis and reflection at a distance) with Historical revisionism (negationism) (denial and deception) in order to blacken his reputation. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor's edits have been a multi-year issue for many of the participants of Wikiproject New Zealand. I think that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Well-meaning_but_clueless_IP_editor in particular speaks for itself. I think the only thing that appears to have changed since this was last bought to the attention of admins is that James Belich, a historian the IP loves to criticise, has been appointed Beit Professor of Commonwealth History at Oxford University. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Aécio Neves - Drug addiction

The section Aécio Neves#Drug addiction contains some pretty strong accusations against this high-profile Brazilian politician. Could someone take a look at this? Hack (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer recently appeared in the Did You Know? section on the Wikipedia Main Page. In the version that appeared, like the current version, in the section "Subsequent developments", five of six paragraphs relate to connections between a named living person and the disappearance, and all of this material, including text like "his client's ongoing refusal to take a lie detector test" is sourced entirely and solely to a student newspaper. (Also including statements about what people told the student newspaper, and about whether particular police detectives returned phone calls made by the student newspaper.) Is this OK? MPS1992 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger

Dr Greger whom is well known as the leading veganism expert in the world is someone that does a lot of good free things for the community but is getting an unjust review made in a blog by skeptic Harriet A. Hall linked in his biography. Hall doesn't have near the expertise in nutrition that Greger has yet she accuses him of dishonesty even though his work under fire is all cited to mainstream peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. I've observed Greger as someone who keeps up with the NutritionFacts.org site and shows concern for accuracy, and seems genuinely appreciative of corrections sent his way. When he's made mistakes, he's owned up to them. He gives thanks and credit to whoever has pointed out errors in his work. The hostility seems unfounded unless there's some other agenda he does draw fire in other places for presenting the evidence against certain kinds of quackery, including homeopathy, dietary supplements, "ionizing" water machines.. When I give good reason for removal along with support from other editors one editor User:Alexbrn accuses me of edit warring, and even false accusations of sock puppetry and blocking my participation with warnings on my talk page. Any help from anyone with expertise in this area would be greatly appreciated.Timpicerilo (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)