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.

Sean Gabb

Sean Gabb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated the Sean Gabb article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Gabb) on the grounds that the article, as originally configured, failed WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Another user has since argued that Gabb meets the notability criteria due to his role in managing a website prior to the 2001 UK General Election, which did receive notable media coverage (and has included additional references). I'm not sure whether this establishes notability. It would be useful to have some more experienced users comment. Thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the case could be made more for Candidlist than for Gabb (although it would be useful to have a bridging article between Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance - but it could be flypaper for BLP violations or self promotion. JASpencer (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Al Giordano

• Al Giordano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Al Giordano has been targeted for silly vandalism in the past, but there is a new SPA Botman34[2], aided by an IP with very similar goals and linking style [3] trying to add defamatory material based on rumors reported in Twitter and Facebook and (so far) one clickbait blog, which merely reports in detail the same Twitter and Facebook comments.

Botman34 was warned a few days ago about edit-warring, after which he became more subtle, making a few "improving" edits. These SPAs don't seem interested in wiki policy, what they want is to get defamatory material into the article, even if only briefly. Why? See for example this tweet from around the same time that Botman34 showed up: "What happens when you google your good buddy Al Giordano?" [4]'

If harassment claims show up in RS, then we can discuss adding them to the bio, although the MeToo claims against Giordano seem minor: that he made some inappropriate remarks, that others at his journalism school harassed people, plus several complaints that he asked women students to do things for no pay, which seems an odd complaint about somebody who runs a nonprofit group that needs volunteer help from many participants.

I don't know if it is the same person or not, but around March 4 we had a different SPA DonLemonparty,[5] again somebody who structures newslinks in a very similar way, trying to add the same material.

Semi-protecting the article might do more than continuing to debate policy with these SPAs, but what do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your concern about the sourcing of the harassment claims is a legitimate one. However, the claims themselves are decidedly not "minor." They include allegations that Giordano offered "roofies" to a male student at the School of Authentic Journalism[6], that he sexually harassed and degraded female students[7][8], and that he tried to silence and intimidate his victims[9]. Perhaps you should take the time to review the full allegations before making any more contributions to this page. ~BotMan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botman34 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not follow these allegations on Twitter or Facebook as avidly as you do. Some of these claims suggest serious crimes, for which official complaints to police should be found. If they happened. But until claims are vetted by some reliable source (not just repeated by some random blog), I remain skeptical. The AG bio, which has been on my watchlist for about a year, attracts many people who dislike AG. Until his haters hit the jackpot with MeToo accusations, their recourse (after AfDs failed) ran to "His baggy eyed tired look shows that he jacks off to much" (June 11, 2016[hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Al_Giordano&diff=prev&oldid=725545322]) or "He is a homosexual and a cuckold" (October 8, 2017[10].) The article has been semi-protected several times and set to "Autoconfirmed" in June 2016[11].

Until RS reports on these claims, they do not belong in a Wikipedia BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your preoccupation with Giordano's "haters" suggests a serious lack of neutrality here. It would be helpful if you could limit discussion to the edits in question. As far as your idea that "some of these claims suggest serious crimes, for which official complaints to police should be found. If they happened," I'm frankly baffled. You do realize that many crimes are never reported to the police, correct? That this is especially true in cases of workplace harassment, where victims fear retribution from their abusers? Furthermore, there are many reasons why women choose to come forward with stories of misconduct. Not all women wish to file criminal complaints. Botman34 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)BotMan34

I doubt that we would ever accept a Facebook post as a reliable source for negative BLP content. It is not so clear what to do about a web site like https://lawandcrime.com but you could ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The article on Law&Crime by Colin Kalmbacher does not seem to contain any completed interviews, though Kalmbacher says he tried to contact two of the women who complained. The article content is based on one Facebook post by the person who says she was harassed and a series of tweets from other women reporting their own experiences. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The roofies claim (if true) would be a serious crime. I have several BLPs of people I follow on Twitter on my watchlist, and SPAs trying to add malicious gossip to these articles are a frequent problem for many besides AG. The Internet magnifies many gossip circles, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that do some fact-checking before we include such items in BLPs.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delyan Peevski

Delyan Peevski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I noticed a very disturbing behavior on the page of Delyan Peevski. I am a new member of the Wikipedia family and according to Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons must be right. Viewing the history of the page everybody can see that there is a problem. [[12]]. The article is full with attempts to edit. I saw that people tried to add information with source but one user User:Quickfingers continues to delete it. I saw that a lot of users tried to delete information and add GOVERNMENT sources to prove their point but their attempts were blocked. I know that Mr. Peevski is a politician and it is very easy to add and control an article of Wikipedia but he is also a living person and a human being. I saw that in The References category there are archived references /No 1,3/, a template for [citation needed] , just main pages of popular cites /No 4,15/, with no relation to him No /5,6,20/, proven fake news /9,10/ and etc. There is a Germen version for him and the germen article is without any active sources or with the source for a different site /You see the title of the source but the web site is different and not related to this post/ or a blog with personal opinion. The articles make suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damage a living person. They create a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggest that he is a part of criminal activities. This is very serious. Defamation is a crime, saying somebody is part of criminal activities without prove is a crime. Trying to block everybody and undoing their edits from the articles without any reason or reliable source of information is against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don’t think that Wikipedia is the place for political battles. Just a thought in mind: the information of publicly listed companies and its owners is very easy to check. I checked it out in the Bulgarian Commercial Registry http://www.brra.bg/ and it turns out that the statements in the article are fare from the truth. What to do in case like this? Is there an active editor who can see what is happening? Can somebody notify Wikipedia about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaderp6 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jaderp6 I don't see any contributions by you on that page, however, I see contributions by User:Lee-ann-25 who is in a | bit of hot water for reporting a COI on this very individual, and also appears to be gaming WP:3RR by reverting only twice, then coming back to insert the same material the next day or a day or two later. That said, I see nothing improper about the post that was removed, but I can't see the source from my computer, so I don't know if it satisfies Wikipedia's policy as a reliable source.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  R.I.P Trip Halstead 13:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cathy Newman

• Cathy Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Our article on Cathy Newman, a British journalist, has been the subject of several protracted disputes for about a month and a half now. Following a viral interview with Jordan Peterson, Newman was heavily criticized on social media. She received death threats and a torrent of social media abuse, according to The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Varsity, The Times, etc. Editors disagree on whether we can say that Newman received threats, whether we should include opinion pieces critical of Newman, and whether the depth of coverage we give controversy in the article is appropriate for a BLP. How should we present this material? —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for information, the first part "whether we can say that Newman received threats" was already discussed as well had a 3rd opinion about it, with more-or-less agreement to keep it with attribution. The second part "opinion pieces/non-opinion pieces critical of Newman" is still under discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the talk page, third opinions are not binding. The dispute has since expanded to include multiple editors; there is no clear "agreement" to keep it with attribution. Miki Filigranski has previously used the third opinion to avoid addressing policy-based arguments attribution misrepresents the sources: "doesn't matter...discussion was finished". They have also accused others of conflicts of interest without evidence, and argued a defamatory blog post from The Conservative Woman discredits the threats, despite every existing RS treating them credibly. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 19:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not multiple editors for each of these points, there was an agreement i.e. majority of editors was for the attribution. You should avoid commenting other editors and instead stick to the content. I did not accuse anyone specifically, only warned that pushing of specific perspective could be COI. The article by TCW was used in discussion over a month ago (and not anymore), even 0xF8E8 respected its information until another editor recently questioned the reliability of primary/opinion RS for use in BLP. Not all RS treat the threats credible and without criticism, for example The Varsity, Irish Independent, or other opinion sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of these points are already discussed on the talk page, but I'll provide a summary here. BLPSTYLE guides us to be conservative and source criticism to secondary RS. Book reviews (labeled Indo Review here) are separate from the Independent's reporting. The Varsity says, directly, that there were threats: Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts. I did not respect TCW, but chose to focus on the more general BLPSTYLE/NEWSORG objections already outlined. The diffs concern Filigranski's actions, reasoning and proposals, not their person or character; it doesn't seem accurate to say I'm "commenting on the contributor" as outlined at WP:NPA. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally misgendering people?

I've been doing some MOS fixes on our Japanese bamboo weaving article, and noticed something potentially more serious. This person is definitely male, but someone on Wikipedia seems to have misread his name in an English source that used the simplified romanization "Suiko", which looks like a Japanese woman's name. It is of course OR to talk about some prominent female artisans in a predominantly male industry when you don't even know whether the people in question are female, but is this also a BLP issue? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Screw it. It's unsourced, and obviously inaccurate, so I might as well just remove it. If anyone thinks name-dropping him in the article is important enough, they can do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Anna Graceman

Anna Graceman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The database of the US Copyright Office is being used to support the birth year of this musician, as well as her actual name, as shown in this diff (highlighted, readded text under Early life section ... originally added with this edit, though with modifications made by me regarding the web site source itself). An editor is challenging whether the source is reliable (diff), and since this involves a BLP, I'm looking for justification whether this source can be used to back this kind of information. Even with that, I'm not exactly sure whether to restore the content, given the nature of the information, as the challenging editor has now removed it twice. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to add my point of view here right from the start.

• To call the copyright catalog of an official government office a dubious information source is incomprehensible. For copyright entries you need proof of (real) name and birthdate, otherwise you don't get an entry. There can be a lot of money involved with copyrigt claime. If there is one thing for sure, it is that they got the name and the birthdate right. Even though they are not disclosing the month and day for privacy reasons, at least the year has to be 100% accurate.
• The entries in the database for (Redacted) include all songs she released until 2016. Compare with the article itself. It is statistically impossible that there is another singer called Anna Graceman who wrote exactly the same songs in the same time frame as the one this article is about.
• In the copyright database there is first a contact address in Alaska in the entries. In the later ones an address from TN. The article itself states that AG moved from Alaska to Nashville, TN, making it even more unlikely to be a coincidence. The point the editor is making, that there might be other singers by that name, makes no sense, since he is just assuming without giving a single evidence. The burden of proof is with him, not the other way around.
  

The question for me is, why he is obviously trying to keep her name and her birthdate a secret, even though there is a reliable source. And this sourse is public, therefore no private information is disclosed that is not available publicly anyway. Even if the birthdate (Redacted) would be right, there is nothing on the official website to support this claim. The name of a link is no proof of any kind. An official government database entry always beats that any time. On top the link provided as a reference is a private link that is not publicly available. A google search reveals that this link is unknown to the web. It looks like as if the link was just created and it would be interesting to know how he got hold of that link out of the bliue, if it is not public and was unknown so far. Especially since he didn't correct the birth year information right away when he reverted the entries two times in a row shortly before.

It is not clear what his motivation is to keep the name and year of birth a secret and maybe he is even connected to Anna Graceman or the family in general, as the link he provided might suggest. In earlier entries he replaced two pictures in the article provided by another editor by two other pictures that he claims as his own work and of which at least one looks like an official press photo.

As much as I am for keeping really private information private, I can not see any harm done by adding her real name to the article, especially since she is over 18 now and no minor anymore, no matter if the birthday is in (Redacted).

After all Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a personal advertising platform where you can add and delete information to your like in order to fit your peronal agenda, even if the article is about yourself. This also applies to the deleted part about the AGT participation. The main reason why this might have happened is, because most references in that part do not exist anymore. The managers of Anna Graceman's social media accounts cleaned out everything lately that is older than 2 or 3 years, as if they want to erase her past in some way. And now the whole part about AGT in the Wikipedia article gets deleted by the same editor who added the two new pictures and deleted the USCO birthday reference without any justification. It almost looks as if the birthday and name dispute was used as a distraction to get rid of that part without raising bigger attention.

I think it is a general question how situations like this should be handled, if some evidence points to unjustified manipulation by an editor who has very likely a connection to the person the article is about. NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What NewWorldOrder2017 is alluding to on the (Redacted) birthday is this edit by Nightshade387 pointing to content in a post from her official website (which all I can see there is a link to a video for her song "Superstar" and nothing else). I'm not so sure we can call this reliable because even in the insertion of the content by Nightshade, after the source, it reads "There is debate about Anna Graceman's actual birthdate". If there is debate about this kind of thing, then the birthday shouldn't even be in the article in the first place, for that reason among others. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Tumblr source that was provided menawhile is a tricky thing. Tumblr entries can be edited at any time again and I am more and more sure that the person the article is about still does neither want to have her real name revealed, nor her birthday and that people around her play catch now with other editors. The latest revert was made almost instantly by an IP from Franklin, which is close to Nashville. Too many coincidences in my book. There is no question at all in my opinion that the USCO is a 100% reliable source. Otherwise we would also have to question if birth certificates are reliable sources. Very strange behaviour by these editors. I am out of this erticle. Like this it is just no fun. As expected her name and the whole part about AGT fell from the truck. Queestion is if Wikipedia should allow to be forced like this to alter the infomration on a page as it happened in this case? NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIMARY is applicable here - Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. The US Copyright Office is not an appropriate or acceptable source for personally identifiable information - including birth names or birth dates. WP:BLPPRIVACY is also relevant - we include full names or dates of birth only where they have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Inferring information from URLs is not a reliable source. Unless there is something better, and policy compliant, the information should be removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would go further and say the material should be removed full stop. The argument for using the copyright office is correct in one aspect - they require accurate information. Likewise anyone who has dealt with media personalities knows they lie about their age all the time - with some good justifcation given the rampant age bias in the media. So primary sources are unreliable for age and DOB where there is conflicting information. This does lead to an interesting question in cases like these (which I have not seen answered satisfactorily) if the copyright office has work A registered to person B, can we in biography C say they wrote A when we refuse to acknowledge the registered creator is the same person? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. First problem is, that the term "public record" is not properly defined anywhere. Is it dependent on if a databsse like at the USCO which is accessible for anybody to do ressearch is providing "public records" on the same level as e.g. birth and marriage certificatse? Is it necessary that a pubic record is provided by a government or can it be any other organization? The next thing is that the USCO provides only birth years, not full birth dates, excatly because of privacy reasons. So is just the year already too much? Or is it too little? And last the address argument. The record only gives P.O. boxes and business phone numbers. A P.O. box is practically not usuable to locate a person, since it doesn't let you make any connection to a physical office or private address. The same actually applies to phone numbers.

When I check articles about actors like e.g. Jeff Goldblum, birthdates are never referenced to a reliable source, but they are never disputed. Yet in this case we have a huge discussion if even the birth year is supposed to be in the article (based on a source that is 100% reliable). You find me puzzled over all this. With the same chain of arguments you would have to remove the birthdate of all biographies of living people in Wkipedia.

In the end it is OK to use an article in a newspaper as a reference whose soures are not verifiable at all, but it is not OK to use sources that are 100% reliable by their nature? This makes no sense at all. And when soembody decides to go into show biz, that person wants to be a public figure, otherwiese (s)he would become a cab driver. Being public is what they want, it is what they earn money with. I don't think that a real name and birthdate fall under a strict privacy policy in these cases. The public interest who this person really is, especially in a biography, counts more than being fed lies, even maybe if they are coming form the person the biography is about. Biographies about living people shouldn't be allowed at all then.NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What you really need to do is propose such changes at the WP:RS and WP:BLP policies pages as would allow use of official records being allowed. Absent that, we are stuck using what those policies state. Collect (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Annex Press

Julian Kabza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Annex Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note simultaneous drive to remove both this person's bio and the publishing company which he directs, Annex Press. Given the simultaneous delete requests it would appear that there is an harassment issue. I found that the article on the Annex Press was vandalized, i.e. most of the links and much of the important information relating to authors published had been removed by a physician, who it appears has multiple issues with multiple wiki contributors. I fail to see any for profit aspect to the articles and lacking proof of this contention suggest that the user / editor 'doc' should desist from further removal of information, or comment upon, unless proof is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideveon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's User:Doc James that Ideveon (talk · contribs) is referring to, and the AfDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Kabza and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annex Press. There seems to be some, possibly quite a bit, of COI editing, eg by Anpresses (talk · contribs). I'm also wondering who Idevon348 (talk · contribs) was who only edited the two articles. The accusation of harassment seems completely unfounded. @Ideveon:, do you have any relationship with the either Kabza or the press? Doug Weller talk 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

hi doug thanks, i don't but his films were shown in my classes art history and film too i have a 2 page c.v. bio. i am not highly skilled wiki user i don't need to conflict but does this guy and his work need to be removed based on your web findings i don't get it. there seem like adequate reasons to allow. you big dudes decide. i've enjoyed contributing and may again if i see new info that's relevant if the page makes it past your standards. enjoy.

Douglas V. Mastriano

Douglas V. Mastriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, Douglas V. Mastriano, is filled with laudatory, poorly sourced promotional material about a congressional candidate in central Pennsylvania. Mastriano -- one of seven candidates for the seat -- is a retired Army colonel and author, but his actual portfolio is far too thin to warrant this sort of gushing coverage.

It includes a segment on education that lists four unverifiable master's degrees, helpfully noting that "Mastriano was awarded the 2009 Eastern University Alumnus of the year in 2009 in St. Davids, Pennsylvania."[3]

The "Strategist" section is vastly overlong, consisting mostly of reprinted material from his academic thesis. The "Congressional Candidate" section fails to note the most notable aspect of his candidacy -- his willingness to campaign in uniform -- and includes largely fluffed-up assertions such as "Mastriano is considered an expert on Russia and the NATO security situation in Eastern and Northern Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristine2 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pristine2:, this definitely has every appearance of being put together either by the subject or some-one close to him. Half the edits and 60% of the text were contributed by Majorbuxton, a single-purpose account who has edited on almost exclusively about Mastriano. A large portion of the text about the subject's accomplishments is cited either to either a participant's biography for a symposium at Norwich University or to an article in a very small, extremely local newspaper from the same town in Vermont where the symposium took place. I am certain that the bulk of this was contributed to those outlets by the subject. Many of the other cites fail verification since they do not demonstrate what they are claimed to. For example, the statement about him being a "...much sought after [sic] public speaker..." can at best be considered sourced to a video of a one-time C-SPAN Book TV appearance. Large sections are completely unreferenced and can only have been added by an editor that knows the subject personally. For these reasons, I will be editing large sections out as failing the Biographies of Living Persons and Promotion policies. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There may have been some good material deleted in some of those puffery reduction edits – e.g., that he is an Eagle Scout and served in the first Gulf War and Afghanistan – although there was a lot of junk there that really needed deletion. I added a list of other publications. The section about his military honors is completely unsourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Jacksepticeye

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

A new editor User:Jackboi27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is claiming that he had died on March 1st. I see that he is still posting on twitter, so something is going on, hopefully just vandalism.--Auric talk 18:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim Armstrong (executive)

Tim Armstrong (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi page watchers! Can someone experienced in editing biographies of living persons look at the last paragraph of Controversies at Tim Armstrong?

In March 2018, Oath, Inc., of which Armstrong is CEO, fired four sisters working for the platform after it was highlighted that they were daughters of right-wing agitator Pamela Geller. Oath said in a statement that "The Morning Breath, an Oath social-media show, is being canceled immediately and we have launched an internal investigation and will take other appropriate steps based on the results of the investigation."

References

There are a few problems with this.

• First, I believe this detail should be removed from Mr. Armstrong's personal biography, as neither the sourcing included nor any other coverage attributes the show's cancellation specifically to Mr. Armstrong. If it belongs at all on Wikipedia, it belongs on Oath Inc.
• Second, it's more accurate to say that Oath cancelled a show that featured two of the sisters. Source: People.
• Third, while there is some conflict among the headlines about the reason for the cancellation, People magazine in both its headline and the body of the article make clear that the show was cancelled due to offensive posts by one of the sisters on Twitter, not the mother's identity. By comparison, the Daily Beast article currently cited never offers any textual support past the headline for the claim that the mother's identity was the reason. As it is phrased now, the offensive tweets are not even mentioned.

Can an editor, or editors, review the paragraph and determine if it is appropriate for the article on Tim Armstrong based on available sourcing? My suggestion is that it be removed, or corrected and moved to Oath Inc. Disclosure: I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to make edits to Verizon-related articles on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• We had a similar thing elsewhere recently. My person opinion is that business decisions should not be on the biographies like this unless its of direct relevance to the individual. I cant see from the sources there is anything that indicates Armstrong was personally responsible, so if it belongs anywhere its on the Oath article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Gagnon

Joshua Gagnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article reads like self-promotion, or at least puffery. I'm also not sure it meets the notability requirements.

I have trimmed the worst excesses. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Trim some more. There appears to be no noticeable actual news coverage of this pastor. Press releases in a local paper and an SPS fail, as far as I can tell, to establish genuine notability. Heck, AfD is in order I fear. Collect (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've spent as much effort as I think the subject justifies. I certainly wouldn't contest an AfD. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

After further removal of off-topic discussion and puffery, I reduced the article to two sentences, and submitted it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gagnon. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Peftiev

Controversial contribution of user:Czalex introduces WP:BLP problems, specifically:

• Poorly sourced exceptional claims (accusations and allegations of human rights violations and backing a dictator are linked to Russian-language web publications with no significant weight or not sourced at all).
• False balance of information attempting to equalize media allegations that support critical accusations with decision of General Court (European Union) that dismisses those accusations.
• Due to false balance and poor sourcing, possible violation of WP:NPV.
• Due to previous points, a problem of potentially libelous and defamatory article.

Discussion is still in progress with no obvious consensus, assessment from BLP perspective is required. More info on article's talk page. 93.84.44.122 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users with no prior Wikipedia contribution are trying to delete well-sourced information about an oligarch - while leaving the obviously self-promoting glorifying unsourced parts of the article, telling about Peftiev's charity and hobbies.

The information the anonymous users are trying to delete refers sources such as:

• Official EU documents accusing Peftiev of being a sponsor of the Lukashenka regime (doesn't matter if the accusations were lifted later)
• Malta Today stating that Peftiev may have Maltese citizenship
• Wikileaks
• France24, one of France's top media
• Ogonyok, one of Russia's top magazines, the detailed article about Peftiev was written by Pavel Sheremet, one of the best-known post-Soviet journalists
• Charter97, Narodnaja Vola, major independent Belarusian publications

These are reliable sources, removing information citing them is a direct violation of Wikipedia principles.--Czalex 20:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

James Milliken

I'm posting this on behalf of Cunydigital , who is now blocked. It probably would have been better if they'd raised their concerns here first.

Hi - This is being requested by Frank Sobrino, Media Relations Director at CUNY. Our office poses a conflict of interest to editing James B. Milliken's page.

CHALLENGED MATERIAL #1 “Upon accepting the appointment to the position of Chancellor of CUNY, Milliken's first controversial 'move' was into a luxury, penthouse apartment located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with a monthly rent bill of $18,000," according to the New York Observer, paid for by the public university system.^[12] Rudin Management reportedly leased Milliken's apartment to the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, a university affiliated nonprofit with the stated purpose of funding research and acquiring university facilities.^[13] Milliken himself no stranger to the perks of higher education administration, according to a 2013 The Wall Street Journal report of his annual financial disclosure statements, showed he had received numerous "personal gifts from donors, alumni and business executives" while at the University of Nebraska, including a pheasant-hunting trip, four Elton John concert tickets, and flights via corporate jets.^[14]”

OUR COMMENTS: We urge removal of this paragraph on grounds of fairness and context. It smacks of editorializing by someone with an axe to grind and distorts Milliken’s tenure. It leaves the false impression that Milliken has been controversial and been accused of financial impropriety from the moment of his arrival and has accomplished nothing in his four years.

Specific points:

1. The footnoted attribution for the first sentence does not back up the statement that Milliken's move into an $18,000 apartment was “controversial.” The first link is to an article about CUNY faculty protesting outside Milliken’s apartment because they had been working without a contract (for several years before his arrival). There is no mention of the cost of his apartment.

2. Though an article about the apartment is footnoted after a later sentence, there is no support  for the suggestion that the cost of Milliken’s apartment was improper. It's a mischaracterization to suggest it was or is regarded as unusually lavish or that it has been an issue during his tenure.

3. The information about perks at the University of Nebraska similarly has an editorializing tone and lacks context -- i.e. are/were these perks unusual, illegal or improper for presidents of major state universities? Further, gratuitously including this Nebraska information in the section about Milliken’s tenure at CUNY appears to be an attempt to advance the dubious claim that exploiting his public positions is a part of his record and reputation. There’s no support for that assertion.  ''--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made some small adjustments. The sources are really good (especially the WSJ). I'm not worried about the implications the PR guy is reading; we don't say that anything is "improper" or that it suggests that he "hasn't accomplished anything". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why this was proxyed here. The PR guy is soft blocked. All he has to do is get a new username to advocate his (or is it "our") position himself. There were no libel issues raised. Why are we shilling for a PR hack? I frankly could care less if the university doesn't like the spin. They can learn how to use Wikipedia, work to fix it themselves or they can suck it up. We've got to stop making it easy for PR hacks to get a BOGOF deal on Wikipedia. None of us are here to help the public relations industry earn a living on our volunteer labor. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But we are here to try to ensure that articles on living persons aren't a mess of unencyclopedic trivia-strewn news snippets, parts of which don't even accurately represent the sources cited. MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear -- using sources to make contentious claims which are not clearly so stated in the sources is contrary to policy in the first place. "Libel issues" are absolutely irrelevant, as everyone should know by now. Nor is it improper to avoid "spin" in any BLP -- simply saying We can promote spin, therefore we ought to promote spin or the like is absolutely contrary to common sense and common decency. Collect (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Leila de Lima

Leila de Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor at WP:ANI says:

I am not a admin or editor. Just some random noob who came across an article and was astonished about the unverifiable claims made without the appropriate sources and written with a lack of neutral viewpoint.

It seems these issues were brought to the attention since 2016 and the article has continued to sit for years.

Things like De Lima finds her son 'inspirational' How is that encyclopedic content? And then this section Justice and extra-judicial killings (EJK) "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences[sic]"

First of all, the section and the underlying content have nothing to do with one another. Two, trumped-up charges is loaded language and no concrete evidence is not a legal standard. Nor does the one article source prove or even indicate her opposition to Duetre is what led to her imprisonment

This is only the most noticeable examples as the article is riddled with similar problems throughout. I hope a neutral admin/editor examines the article and makes the appropriate corrections. Thanks. 72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A few egregious problems have been fixed, but some still remain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Judith Hallett

(Setting out my involvement, for transparency.) A controversies section was added to the Judith Hallett page, which in itself falls foul of BLP guidance, and also uses weasel words. As the page is one that our project edits (the controversies section addition was not made by one of our project eds), on 18 March we put a note on our project discussion board asking one of our eds to integrate or remove when time allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Women%27s_Classical_Committee#Judith_Hallett_page

Since then, the section was removed, probably by a newbie. This has been reverted by other eds several times now and is an edit war. The addition of the controversies section does seem to me to have problems, but given that it's a page that our project is involved with, I think it's better if more neutral editors could look at this please. I don't have access to the sources cited so can't fix the weasel words problem either.Claire 75 (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not simply change the section heading, at least for a start? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The section appears to be non-notable - not even hitting the importance of "he said / she said" for a BLP. "Controversy" sections are almost invariably a "bad idea" and where they are written as badly as this, ought be excised. Collect (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree in principle RE Controversies, Hallett's conflict with Heath/Hanson was well covered. There are plenty of sources out there that went into detail about it - albeit mostly book reviews related to it. here and here for example. There are quite a few more. But its about classics, so its hardly going to be mainstream. Of course when you start linking people who have savaged your work with the unabomber it tends to get a bit more press. If anything the Wikipedia coverage could have been written more strongly and still not been a BLP violation. If there was an article dedicated to the classics conflict (rather than the people involved in it) the content would certainly be easily reliably sourced. Adler's 'Classics, the culture wars and beyond' (which was used as a source for the WCC content) on Hallett's biography is specifically about the inter-classics conflicts and goes into extended detail - including Hallett's involvement in it (WCC) and her conflict with Hanson/Heath. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The controversies section at permalink is a shocker. The content is pretty bland—the shock is that such silly stuff should be in a biography (a 1987 protest "accomplished little"; someone claims Hallett was wrong in her comments in a 1999 spat in a webforum). Beam me up. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen J. Yates

Stephen J. Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article lacks substantive background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isp561 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Isp561:, it would be helpful if you specified in some way what substantive background information you believe is missing. Some links to reliable sources that substantiate the missing information would also be useful. Your request kind of expects a group of volunteer editors to guess what you think should be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Jan Grabowski (historian)

Non-involved editors needed at Jan Grabowski (historian) and Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Grabowski (historian).

Grabowski is an award winning, Canadian historian who has received positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals, described an "eminent Canadian historian" by CBC, coverage is generally favorable (as well as pretty wide) in mainstream English language media (as may be seen with a simple google-news check). Grabowski however has faced criticism from Polish nationalists which has even led to death threats, possible per the BBC part of "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media".

Our article at present has been tagged with a POV tag (without a clear rationale), and is filled with quite a bit of negative criticism from WP:FRINGE/WP:BIASED sources (mostly non-English sources). The article at present contains approximately 2120 words of prose. 261 words describe 5 positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals. 639 words (or 30%!!!) describe 4 negative comments namely 110 words for Polish historian Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed response in Haaretz to an article in Haaretz, 37 words for Historian Piotr Gontarczyk speaking on Polish Radio 24 reported via the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl,, 201 for words Łukasz Męczykowski (per [13] a PhD in humanities that is a fan of tanks and the British Home Guard and who is a school teacher) on the website/blog histmag.org, and 291 words for Bogdan Musial in a Polish publication. The latter two are of particular concern - inclusion of Męczykowski on histmag.org does not seem DUE under any reasonable standard. Bogdan Musiał on the other hand is known, however he is quoted without context, he is described in RS as belonging to an "ethno-nationalist school", as treating Żydokomuna (Judeo-Communism) not as an antisemitic canard but as historical reality, and has made widely repeated comments on Jewish religious beliefs.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Icewhiz's description of the issue is blatantly false. The criticisms are mostly from reputable historians who specialize in the topic and who've published far more on it than Grabowski has. For example Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute. Hence, Icewhiz is simply not telling the truth when he claims that these are "FRINGE" sources (indeed, it's sort of the other way around - while there has been some praise for Grabowski's book his finding stand in complete contrast to existing research and literature and as such are fringe themselves). In fact, when it comes to his comments about Bogdan Musial, Icewhiz is pretty much violating BLP himself. Musial is a very reputable historian and a specialist in the area of Polish-Jewish relations during WW2. He is also NOT a "nationalist" (he is in fact regularly attacked by Polish nationalists for not being pro-Polish enough). Icewhiz went and found a throwaway line in one source which lumps Musial in with some others, but that is clearly not enough to label someone as a "ethnonationalist". At the end of the day, it's true that Grabowski has been criticized by some "nationalists", but he's also been criticized by non-nationalists, and the former in no way invalidates the latter.

I should add that Icewhiz has been relentless in pushing a particular POV in this and related articles. Particularly disruptive and concerning are his constant references to other editor's ethnicities and especially his demands that we use ethnicity as a criteria on which to judge the sources (basically he appears to think that articles about Polish history should not use Polish sources - funny how nobody ever shows up to French history articles and demands that all French sources are removed, or British history, or Italian history, etc. - unless he personally approves them). The WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of his edits makes me think that a topic ban from Polish-Jewish relations might be appropriate although I'm not sure if it's risen to that level yet (and it's also true that there's a few disruptive IP accounts on these articles which are busy pushing an opposite POV).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to how "has a PhD in humanities" is suppose to be a point against a scholar. History as a discipline IS part of the Humanities!!! Basically, Icewhiz appears to be complaining that a particular source actually studied what is being discussed! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have referenced every single assertion regarding Musial above to a RS. Nothing wrong with being a PhD in humanities filling teaching roles (per his histmag.org profile) posting on a website/blog - this does not make a notable opinion for inclusion. I have not commented on editor ethnicities, and I believe we should use diverse sources (and have commented on this subject when we have not - on locations that are not part of Poland today one should note).Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Smith (cricketer)

Steve Smith (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Steve Smith admitted to Ball Tampering" has been added in the very first line in his wiki page. This incident just broke out, and should be analyzed further before adding it on to his wiki page. Moreover, Steven Smith did not tamper the ball himself. He apologized on behalf of his team's leadership group for his teammate's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.192.8 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it, it doesn’t belong in the lede. It might warrant a mention in the body of the article but that can be worked out on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I took out the new section that was added to the body as an unsourced BLP violation, as well. Page protection has been requested by Daiyusha Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh Smith,

Tricia Walsh-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to Wikipedia (Oliverdue)but a huge fan of Tricia Walsh Smith, so my first edit was her page as some of the information was incorrect. Unfortunately I have had my edit repeatedly undone by an editor called Oakshade. He has somehow stopped me revertng the page back to my version. As I am new I don't know how to get around this so I'm making an official complaint. I feel Walsh-Smith's page isn't non partisan and has a spiteful slant. It should simply state facts, not be detrimental to her reputation. I edited out "Dancing around London in bondage gear," a throwaway line regarding her Bonkers video. The song "Bonkers", is the theme song of the first play "Bonkers" that she wrote. She does not dance around London in bondage gear, she dances around London in jeans and tee shirt. The tone of "Dancing around London in bondage gear," is derogatory. I also removed material regarding her divorce as once again the tone was mean spirited and parroted peoples opinions. The wiki policy quite clearly states, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if it is potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue." I hope this can be sorted and Tricia Walsh Smith gets a page that is fair and no longer mean spirited. Thank you, Oliverdue Oliverdue (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "User called Oakshade" here. First of all the above user has refused to participate in any talk discussion of this issue already started on the talk page and has chosen just to edit war.

There are so many things wrong with this user's contention, I don't know where to begin.

Firstly the above user removed the sourced by The Times sentence, "Its video featured her in bondage gear and dancing around London" - not "Dancing around London in bondage gear" as Oliverdue claims (see straw man).

Secondly, and most importantly, they also removed over 7,000 bytes, mostly from the extremely heavily sourced "Divorce from Philip Smith" section [14][15] which not only is a very basic statement of facts and reporting on the analysis and influence of this case on the legal community, plus it's sourced by The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times, New York (magazine), CNN, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and MSNBC in which none are tabloids as Overdue claims and are some of the most respected news sources in history.

I should also point out regarding that sentence on the video, the (terrible) actual video itself shows her in bondage and dancing around London.[16]--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Khaled Malas Tagging

I believe the artist/architect/art historian Khaled Malas is notable. I also believe that his article has been written from a neutral point of view. i do not support the placement of tags by an albeit more experienced wikipedian than I.~~Articgoddess02~~