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.

Jesse Taylor

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

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.255.154 (talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

Katy Tur's Personal Life

User:Knope7 and I believe the famed journalist's relationship with Keith Olbermann, having NYTimes as an RS, is a key part of her personal life that should be documented without tabloid style details. But User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:Mirokado thought otherwise. To not get any of us into trouble on editing war, I am filing this notice. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:RSN or WP:DRN instead? Yashovardhan (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RSN is unnecessary since her personal life with Keith is well documented by RS. I thought I should head over here before I go to WP:DRN. Supermann (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Jason V Brock

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

---

COI - the subject or persons involved with the subject have or are creating content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsand21266 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

And where is your proof backing up these COI assertions? Meatsgains (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:COIN is likely to be a more appropriate place to discuss a possible COI than here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Rsand21266 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Cassandra Clare

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

I outlined an edit request, including an update to language around legal disputes over at Talk:Cassandra Clare a week ago. I realize the requested edits list is backlogged and that "there is no deadline." However, was hoping one of the editors who regularly visits this noticeboard might be willing to take a look and give feedback. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the controversies section as a BLP violation. We cannot use primary court documents as sources, so anything of that nature needs to be removed at first sight. I haven't addressed your other request, but did a brief scan of the article. I see a lot of dead links and primary sources, so it might be worth it to look into this a little deeper, if someone is interested and has a few minutes to spare. Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I might add, as an aside, that "controversy" is probably best defined as "a lot of public disagreement about a topic or issue." Unless there is a lot of media coverage, and people everywhere are debating it, then it can't really be called a controversy. (ie: Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal were controversies.) A dispute between two parties does not come close to rising to that level. That's why I believe that a "controversies" (notice it's always plural when there is usually only one) section is not only a dumping ground for POV, but the title itself often lends undue weight. Zaereth (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This dispute has received very high-profile coverage (NY Times, Entertainment Weekly) and likely deserves mention in the bios of both involved authors. A more difficult question is to what extent the Clare bio should mention the earlier. similar allegations regarding her fan faction which have now actually achieved RS coverage in this context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That's different. I cut the section based solely on the fact that the only source was a court document. However, in my opinion I'd say if information about the dispute is to be added, then it should probably be worked into the timeline of the article. If there is a controversy, and the sources document the wide public disagreement, then that would be relevant to a section titled "controversy." Zaereth (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman and Brian D. Litman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Brian D. Litman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user claiming to be the subject of the article which is currently discussed at AfD left me a rather long message at User talk:SoWhy#Brian Litman Afd in which they are (among other things) asking to remove a keep-!vote from said AFD which mentions FOIA requests because of various reasons. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to remove a !vote from an ongoing discussion but since BLPs get special treatment, I'd like to invite others to weigh in. The rest of the message is something for WP:RSN but I'd be happy with help with that part as well. Regards SoWhy 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:SoWhy, The FOIA thing should be deleted as it violates the spirit (if not the precise letter) of WP:NLT. It's a suggestion to use a legal procedure that would have a chilling effect on the target. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with redacting the comment. I don't think rev del is necessary because it certainly isn't a legal threat (even if it does violate the spirit). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that PaleoNeonate (pinging) reverted an user (probably the same one) removing the comment already. I'm off to bed now and tomorrow I'm probably not online until late in the evening, so if someone else can implement whatever consensus reached here, that would be great. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of that other message on SoWhy's talk page. I also received a message on my talk page in relation to that AfD discussion, but it wasn't a request to change my vote (or to delete that particular keep vote), and was not from an IP address. I indeed restored back the keep comment from an IP address that was partially removed by another IP address, but if someone else removes it because it is inappropriate, I have no objection (also make sure to also remove its associated SPA template tag if doing so). Although I did not understand that vote's rationale at the time, the discussion really needed more participation and I was glad to see another vote. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

After reading that request on SoWhy's talk page, I see no real issue with it. It would be even better if WP:VRT was used to confirm that it is not impersonation, but I also see no strong evidence that it would be. —PaleoNeonate - 21:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the !vote now. Thanks for the input. Regards SoWhy 16:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming subject inline whose removal from government was compared something out of Game of Thrones?

[1]

I made this edit, but I'm not sure about it. It seems a little tasteless to me for The Age to be making tongue-in-cheek comparisons of real-world power-politics with political outcasts who are now in jail for life to Game of Thrones and for us to essentially mirror them, but it also seems more useful to readers of our Game of Thrones article to link the relevant page than just give some vague malarchy about "power struggles in the Chinese government".

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cara Santa Maria

• Cara Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She appears to pass GNG, but there is a high amount of unsourced content that really detracts from article being up to par. I get the impression that editors of the page have added OR from the point of view of a fan. More eyes are needed on the page. Delta13C (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Attn editors:

my fourth book is published this month: please, add it to the list (Books section): Golubev, Mikhail (2017). Understanding the Sicilian. Gambit Publications. ISBN: 978-1911465102

also (in the beginning of Chess strength section), the ChessMetrics game statistics with the incomplete Biel 1995 performance (there were 11 rounds/games in a tournament, not 6) hardly makes sense at all, imho

With best regards, Mikhail Golubev (Odessa, Ukraine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikhailGolubev (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

jack posobiec

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idekoe (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This entry appears to be self-produced and self-aggrandizing in order to promote the subject's self-published book on Amazon. Is it relevant, noteworthy, or merely an attempt to use Wikipedia as a justification for popularity? Idekoe (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeated unverifiable claims at Mike Doyle (actor)

• Mike Doyle (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several or more IPs attempted to add unverifiable "updated" info about the actor's relationship breakup. The attempts have been reverted repeatedly. Also, the matter was discussed in the article talk page, but that happened before another IP user attempted to add similar info. I wonder what to do with the relationship info. Should I suppress the relationship info, or should I repeatedly face more IPs trying to update the status of the relationship? I tried finding sources to verify such information. I even told one of IPs that this video doesn't explicitly verify the update. --George Ho (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dieumerci Mbokani

Resolved

 – Page already protected Yashovardhan (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

During the last hours there is a continuous vandalism of Mbokani's article by multiple IP's. Can anyone protect it? Thanks! Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Already done by Keith D. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Eastbrook School

Could somebody please delete from the history the revisions that I just reverted? Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Neutrality^talk 14:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Austin Petersen

• Austin Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert (over the objections of three others), particular content (revert #1, revert #2, revert #3, revert #4) based on the following:

(1) "FreedomGulch" - an opinion blog post by a law student, consultant, and libertarian activist;

(2) an anonymous blog post by "Zeroth Position" on a self-published website (another opinion blog);

(3) an anonymous blog post on "Libertarian Republic" (another opinion blog) by someone under the pseudonym "R. Brownell" (a self-described "shadow contributor"); and

(4) "TruthInMedia.com" - website of unknown reliability that won't let you read it without a username and password.

I don't think these sources are sufficient to make claims (especially negative claims, and especially in Wikipedia's voice). More eyeballs and comments at Talk:Austin_Petersen#NAP_opposition would be much appreciated. Neutrality^talk 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thomas L. Tedrow

Thomas L. Tedrow

This article is of an irrelevant, little-known writer. One source proves that statements he made about the Laura Ingalls Wilder series he wrote were untrue, as he misstated the book print run and broadcast production:

There is no properly-sourced material confirming his stature as worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Chuck Mall 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutthegirls (talk • contribs)

References

Prodded by User:Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thomas_L._Tedrow&diff=786499977&oldid=760202612 Govindaharihari (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken Maiuri

Hello,

I am brand-new to using Wikipedia (besides as a search/research tool). A fan of one of the bands I'm in recently made a Wikipedia page about me. He did this on his own, and though I am thankful he was inspired to do it, it is full of factual inaccuracies and personal information that I would not want included. I removed the incorrect and unwanted information and attempted to update the page with correct information. All seemed well.

But then I received this message:

"You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Maiuri. KMF (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)"

I didn't mean to "disrupt" the website...maybe the way I attempted to edit the page wasn't following an important rule? If that's the case, I apologize. But this is my first time being "represented" on Wikipedia, and I do not want the page to exist in its current form. I need help. And thank you for your time.

- Ken Maiuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereo45 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted a link about this talk thread at Talk:Ken Maiuri, and would suggest you also post information there. Technically, by Wikipedia standards, it's a conflict of interest for the subject of an article to be also editing it. However, it's also good that you posted here. Perhaps someone will post a more definitive answer for you here. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing to remember is articles need to be verifiable. That's why we stress that information in articles—and especially biographies of living people—be sourced to reliable sources. We prefer sources to be secondary sources, independent of the subject.

Maile66 noted the conflict of interest situation. Let me take it a step further: other editors have no way to verify your claim that you are Maiuri. We will assume good faith that you are, but we will also err on the side of caution that you could be an impostor. How would you feel if somebody else logged in, claimed to be you, and changed the article? That's another reason we prefer published sources, so anybody can look up the source (either online or at a library) and verify the information; we're then not relying on anybody's claims about their identity.

(There is a mechanism to have your identity verified, but it involves sending email to the Volunteer Response Team. Follow that link for instructions. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred offers good advice. For the purposes of this discussion, I will assume you are Mr. Maiuri.

I am seeing several other problems. This appears to be an article built entirely out of original research. Most of the sources are things like facebook, youtube videos of him playing the piano (so that we can list a piano as one of his instruments), chords to his songs on Riffstation.com, an op/ed piece from Crypticrock.com, etc... The only thing close to reliable sources are the actual news articles from The Daily Hampshire Gazette, which are articles written by the subject himself, intended to show that he does indeed write articles. This is the perfect example of OR. There is not a single, reliable, secondary source that is about the subject.

I fear this probably qualifies your article for deletion, so you may find it posted there. Since you likely know what has been written about you, perhaps you can find some reliable sources, and bring them to the talk page of that article, so that we may salvage it in a respectable manner. Zaereth (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cut all but the basic info due to a total lack of reliable sourcing. Also removed any info in violation of BLPPRIVACY. Per the subject's request on the talk page, I recommended taking it to AFD. (That's a whole process I don't have time to deal with right now.) Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Debórah Dwork

Debórah Dwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone take a look at this page? An editor has expressed major concerns with the article's content (seems promotional and barely sourced) as well as its major contributors (IP editors) on the article's talkpage. I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, hence the request. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have the same answer here as to the section below this one. It is written like a resume, in pseudo-third person, but obviously by the subject herself. The only three sources are articles written by her, none of which are about her or contain any information found in the article. I'd also recommend this for WP:AFD Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Tiago Mattos

The article about Tiago Mattos seems really a promotion about the person, repeating few facts with vague information such as "awards: multiple recognitions".

The article seems to break the Notability Principle, being an autopromotion and, maybe, not encyclopedic. He's a professor at some universities and a small personality. There are references pointing to his appearances in media, but in the end the article seems like just another media appearance, instead of being really a reference about him - his LinkedIn should be enough in such cases.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorsantos07 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see a single reliable source. It's written like a resume, in first-person (even though all the pronouns have been changed to make it appear third-person) from an egocentric perspective. A lot of puffery and weasel words. I'd recommend taking this to WP:Articles for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyo Chang-won

Hello, please could people consider this series of edits which seem questionable. I have examined them but I struggle to understand whether they are positive or negative but I feel quite strongly that at least some part may be inappropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This, at the very least, needs some very strong sourcing. I don't know much about the subject, but things like "he described his political opponents as having the mindset of rapists" seems to require elaboration. My gut tells me there is something being taken out of context here. Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

John Larroquette

John Larroquette was in camera store and he is not credit for the movie! I keep adding it to the list of his movies and someone keeps deleting it. Please help me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4651666/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuit777 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Was it a cameo appearance? If so, those are usually not included. —PaleoNeonate - 01:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Years of SPAs editing Laura Skandera Trombley

Can some other BLP-experienced editors please look into the content and editing history at Laura Skandera Trombley? The article has been dominated for years by SPAs who make the article as glowing as possible. I imagine, but cannot prove and don't really care, that one or more of the subject's employees have been editing the article for a long time. The SPA(s) also refuse to communicate with other editors and persistently revert without comment or communication others' edits to the article. It's clear that something has to be done but other than asking for the editor(s) in question to be blocked I'm not sure what can be done. Is that the next step? I'd appreciate any additional eyes, hands, and advice! ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Charice/Jake Zyrus

Some BLP-savvy editors are needed to help out with the article about Charice, a performer from the Phillipines. The issues here are about how to handle pronouns for a transgender man. And about whether the sources support "transgender" or whether the article should say "transvestite" or "cross-dresser".

There's been some edit-warring and there's a fairly clueless thread started on the talk page. That's where the transvestite/cross-dresser issue is raised. I've added my two cents to the talk page thread. Sensitive assistance from experienced folk here would be a big help, whether you agree with my take on it or not. David in DC (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Clueless? Yeah, I would agree that someone tagging a Filipina as transgender without understanding LGBT culture in the Philippines is pretty clueless, I'm glad we agree on that point. The problems here are that Charice has not identified as male or transgender, she fits the image of "tomboy" in the Philippines, ie. a butch lesbian. She has said that beyond wearing men's clothes and having short hair, she has stated that she isn't transitioning to being a man. I realize that it's currently quite fashionable in Wikipedia to jump all over transgender articles and change all the pro-nouns while crying "but they identify as another gender" and that seems fair enough. However, I think it's a major step to assume that someone identifies as male, just because they are a butch lesbian. The pronouns should remain female or neutral, until such time as Charice actually comments that she identifies as male or transgender. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Four sources currently used in the article refer to Jake Zyrus with male pronouns. One quotes a representative of the singer who also uses male pronouns about his client. I've identified all four on the talk page thread. David in DC (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Reagle updates

Hello all, I abstain from editing the substance of my biography Joseph M. Reagle Jr. but provide a page of User:Reagle/Bio-factoids should anyone want to improve/expand it. I'll note that the biography is now out of date with respect to my position. I haven't been formally affiliated with the Berkman Klein center for a couple years now and was (recently) promoted to associate professor. I have provided many verifiable factoids and citations with which the biography can be improved. -Reagle (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Eric_Deis

Article is a stub. I've added some additional topics and sources to the Talk page, which should be useful for filling it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photokunst53 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka

The page is inappropriately defaming the concerned person on whom the article is written. The page may kindly be edited appropriatley or removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IqraIQs (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Can be more specific? I don't see anything defamatory. -- John Reaves 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is to defame Waqar zaka so plz delete it as soon as possible he is a social worker and a brilliant man It is from someone who is non other than a hater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.117.103 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This graphy of waqar zaka the great is all false. I was not expecting this careless type of or false behavior of wikipedia that they are giving only half information, not even the one which is given on his verified social media pages and even his official website. Such a careless behavior... #BikGyaHaiWikipedia #GoNawazGo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.144.30 (talk) 12:33, June 23, 2017‎

I see nothing defaming or even remotely negative on that page. Can you please explain better exactly what the problem is? Are you referring to the English Wikipedia article, or another language Wikipedia? Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka is a great personality, In his Biography there is no mentioning of his great social work, I request wikipedia to resolve this issue as soon as possible and Upload the authentic Information about Waqar Zaka.Thank You. By Waqas Arshad.

We do not upload information, as that would be a violation of copyright law. Information is written in our own words based on what reliable sources say. If you have any reliable sources, then I would suggest bringing them to the talk page of the article and nicely asking that someone help you. Reliable sources are things like news articles, books, magazine reviews, or reputable websites. They are not blogs, facebook, promotional websites, or other user-generated content. (For example, you and I are not considered reliable sources.) I would be happy to help, but I live on the other side of the planet and have never even heard of this person. I need reliable sources for so that I can learn for myself. Keep in mind that, no matter how great this person may be, Wikipedia is not here to promote that greatness. We simply report the factual information and notable opinions. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

kindly post whatever is truth. Waqar Zaka's life and his social work is still unknown by many. be authentic and reliable in describing someone to general public. by Aman Hussain.203.221.145.151 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What is truth? If I ask you to post the truth about Jay Hammond, can you? Jay Hammond is a great man and did many great works where I live, but I doubt you have heard of him. How can you post the truth about him unless I give you a source to read? You must do the same for Waqar Zaka. Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove this Waqar Zaka page as it has incorrect info on hateful basis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.35 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE WAQAR ZAKA WITH HATEFUL THINGS AND WITH WRONNNG INFO

you have a wrong info about waqar zaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerfarooqsheikh (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Omerfarooqsheikh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article Waqar Zaka is not superb by any means. Since all of this has kicked off in June 2017, my guess is that the problem is being caused by the "Controversies" section, and a BLP article should not have one of these. Singer Ali Haider lashes out at Waqar Zaka for exploiting Aamir Zaki's demise looks to have a range of problems, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV. I've removed this, let's see if this makes the baying mob happy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

My name is Sehar Shahid. All this written about our well known celebrity Waqar Zaka is wrong and must immediately be removed from Wikipedia because this is really sick that you put up anything without confirmation. i strongly condemn against this unfair act. WAAAR ZAKA IS A SOCIAL WORKER AND ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN DONOR'S OF PAKISTAN. this this shot at once! he's a peaceful person and a patriot who helps people and talks about their rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehar.56 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC) — Sehar.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anthony Rendon (politician)

Anthony Rendon (politician) just pissed off a bunch of political activists and is being targeted by YouTubers. Last few edits have been defamatory and unsourced. Might need protected status short term. 76.168.4.212 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)