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.

RfC: "Paul Ryan's Super Pac" runs racist ads

Every single source that covers the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) links the super PAC to Paul Ryan (multiple sources simply refer to it as "Paul Ryan's Super Pac"). The Congressional Leadership Fund (which is the highest-spending super PAC in House races) has earned a reputation for running racist or racially charged ads (and every RS that reports on this reputation notes that this is "Paul Ryan's Super Pac"). There is a RFC[1] on the Paul Ryan article where multiple editors argue that it's a BLP violation to cover the fact that the CLF is known for running racist ads because Ryan was not (as far as anyone knows) personally involved in crafting each and every ad for the Super Pac identified as "Paul Ryan's Super Pac". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Same scenario as the Gavin McInnes section above. Just because someone runs or manages an agency of that size doesn't mean they oversee the content the agency puts out; ultimately Ryan would have to answer for it if it was deemed a legal problem. But just because the Super Pac puts out ads that third-parties deem racist should not be reflective on Paul Ryan's bio page. --Masem (t) 00:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan doesn't run or manage the CLF, nor is he a member of their leadership. And I haven't seen any reliable source report that Ryan has overseen, produced, directed or been personally involved in the CLF putting out racist ads, so it's not a legal problem for Ryan. However, I do agree it doesn't belong on Ryan's bio page. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The sole reason why the CLF is the most powerful PAC in House races is because House Speaker Paul Ryan directs donors (per every reliable source) to the PAC. Ryan could kill the PAC or the change behavior of the PAC by outright condemning the cancerous racist ads that it puts it or by very simply directing donors to a PAC which does not put out racist ads. This is why every single news outlet describes this as a variation of "Paul Ryan's Super PAC." That Wikipedia editors are deciding, contrary to what all RS report, that what's important here is whether Ryan himself is legally listed as the chairman of the PAC or as the producer who creates these ads is absurd, demonstrates a failure to understand the role of PACs in American politics and the nature of politicians' relationships with them, and is a perfect demonstration of why WP:OR is a prohibited here. The notion that the chairman of the PAC or a board member has more influence on the PAC than Ryan is absurd - and if you or anyone else truly believe that to be the case, ask yourself why no RS mention these individuals when they run piece after piece about the CLF and its activities? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That Ryan is connected to the PAC is fine, but adding the facts about the PACs racist as to the Ryan BLP page, without direct statements the day Ryan authorized, created, or was involved with the ads is coatracking. It is fine to discuss the racist ads on the PAC page, but not in Ryan's page, as the RFC have properly identified. --Masem (t) 04:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You are using your opinion of why the sources say things to justify adding it to his page. I have yet to see a reliable source that says the CLF is the most powerful PAC in House races because Paul Ryan directs donors to the PAC. I also haven't see a single reliable source that says if he condemns the ads they PAC would change the ads. What source says: "This is why every single news outlet describes this as a variation of "Paul Ryan's Super PAC.""? If anyone is doing original research here it is you. The sources don't say he has anything to do with the ads, the sources don't say he has more influence than the chairman or a board member. The sources only say the two are aligned not that he has any control of the PAC. That is what the source needs to say. ~ GB fan 12:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan has been criticized for the connection to the CLF. Columns and straight news coverage in Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian and NBC News mention Ryan in connection with the Delgado ads. I think the proposed paragraph lays this on a little thick and should be trimmed, but reliable sources connect Ryan to the ads - and several of those reliable sources mention the CLF involvement in discussing his legacy as a politician - which suggests that this is important for his bio. Whether or not editors believe that critique is "fair" is kind of beside the point: Wikipedia reports controversies and editors aren't responsible for taking a side or determining who is right. Nblund ^talk 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider the line already present in the article on Ryan "The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads." which summarizes the problem with the CLF and the racist ads, and doesn't seem up for debate. Of those sources, the first is an opinion piece (says so on the byline) so can't be used as fact, the NYtimes only names Ryan in passing, and the Guardian at least puts something that the association of Ryan with the CLF tarnishes his reputation. None of these give enough weight to go into specific ads and details on Ryan's article, though are far game over at the CLF. --Masem (t) 18:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"doesn't seem up for debate." The line "The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads" was removed from the Paul Ryan article with the edit summary that there was a "clear consensus" to remove to it[2] and it's no longer in the article. We are apparently only allowed to mention that Ryan is linked with a super PAC and nothing else about this super PAC, even though it's the most powerful super PAC in the country and is renowned for filling the air with cancerous racist ads. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's an opinion piece. I'll spare you the policy citation here, you know what I'm going to say. Lots of (straight news) reliable sources indicate that Ryan is affiliated with the PAC - although the exact nature of his affiliation is unclear (that's sort of the point of a Super PAC, after all), most of the coverage suggests that he had a major role in the midterm strategy. Opinion pieces in the Washington Post, Mother Jones, NBC, Huffington Post among others, argue that his affiliation with the group had some relevance to his legacy as a legislator. The affiliation is a fact, the moral culpability is a prominent opinion. It shouldn't be the center of the bio but it's hard for me to see how we would justify ignoring the fact that "his" super PAC raised record-breaking amounts of money in the midterms and spent it on ads that generated lots of coverage. Nblund ^talk 19:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Some relevant sources about the weird relationship that politicians have with super PAC[3][4], in this case Ryan and CLF. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's not an issue of saying he's associated with the CLF (that's clearly sourced), and that as per the indicated RFC, the existing text that says the CLF has run race-baiting ads is fine from the sources. It is the additional details on the specific campaigns that are unneeded on Ryan's page because no source directly associated Ryan with the creation of those ads. In other words, refering to the RFC, the bolded text is what cannot be added to Ryan to be compliant with BLP. What remains still points out Ryan's connection to the CLF and that it runs racial-baiting ads. The bolded text of the RFC can be added to the CLF page with no issues as well (and as well there mentioning Ryan's connection). But unless stronger sourcing can be used to say Ryan had a direct involvement in the specific ads in question, it is inappropriate to accuse Ryan of being associated directly with those ads. --Masem (t) 20:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this even a question? Congressional leadership fund = fund related to congressional leadership, i.e. Ryan as pretty much every RS agrees. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Can the CLF be described in any way whatsoever on Ryan's page?

The RfC about whether CLF's specific ads can be mentioned concluded with a consensus against including it. One editor insists that the RfC demonstrated no consensus for including any mention whatsoever of the CLF, despite 6 votes in favor of doing so in the RfC and only 4 against. And then there are two editors here (who did not vote in the RfC) who supported inclusion of a description of the CLF. So, now the issue under dispute is whether we can describe the CLF at all on Ryan's page.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That Ryan is connected to the CLF seems 100% fair to include given the RSes. It's just attaching the ad product of the CLF to Ryan that I felt was the problem. --Masem (t) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Calidum 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the line "The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads"? A few days ago, you said it didn't "seem up for debate", "was fine" and that the problem was getting into the weeds of specific ads that the CLF put out. That's the only thing's up for debate now (including a description of the CLF as the most powerful PAC in the House - which mindboggingly was removed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that line can stay, it was the specific ads being called out that was a problem (too much emphasis on what the CLF was doing without knowing how much a role Ryan had in those specific campaigns). --Masem (t) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, in the interest of time, I will put aside your mischaracterization of my concern and will simply restate it. I have no objection to the inclusion of the following sentences:

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC, has been closely linked and aligned with Ryan.] Ryan has directed major GOP donors towards the CLF.

I object to all of the language that you wish to include after that because it is POV coatracking that lacks encyclopedic tone.SunCrow (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Baraboo Nazi salute photo

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.

---

Article text is fine, it's the photo that I'm questioning. Here we have a recent group photograph where:

• The people are entirely private persons
• Who can be identified
• And who are minors, or some them anyway
• And who are doing something embarrassing and potentially reputation-damaging
• On the spur of the moment, apparently
• Which they're not proud of and would rather forget, or some them anyway.

That's way to many bullet points for my taste.

As to identification, the image is low-quality and you can't easily recognize the people directly, but you could pretty much recognize them if it's pointed out. Specifically, if 23 years from now you have "Red circle and arrow in [this photo] shows State Rep candidate John Doe giving a Nazi salute". Which is precisely the scenario I am concerned about here. Let's give these kids a break, shall we? Does this have to follow them for the rest of their lives?

OTOH, the article is about the photo, so one could say "Obviously it'd be nonsensical if an article about a photo didn't include the photo, and the article is legit and has passed AfD". OK but first of all the article is not really about the image in the same way that The dress or Taking a Stand in Baton Rouge or The Red Ceiling are about their images, where we are interested in the background of the photographer and the composition of the image and the equipment used and you kind of need to see the image. Here we could just say "the famous photo shows a high school class of about fifty kids standing on some steps, and most of them are or appear to be giving the Nazi salute" and you're not really losing any crucial info.

So you have a not-strictly-necessary photo in a marginal article, against what I see as the BLP violation of publishing a potentially reputation damaging photo of minors. To me it's an easy call, but what do you guys say? Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve removed for now. There needs to be strong reasons to publish a photo like this of minors. No objection to restoring if there is consensus, but this needs to be discussed more broadly before being restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• This is almost a case where even if this a reliable sourced thing (which I don't question), the lack of long-term enduring coverage of this coupled with all the BLP issues involved (even establishing the name of the school (just under 1000 students) that its almost better we didn't have an article on this at all. Minors (even if these are high school age) have much stronger privacy rights so we should say as little as necessary. (If anything, what is currently at the high school's page is sufficient - that it caused a stir but there was little that could be done due to minor's rights). --Masem (t) 03:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, a group of teens dong something dumb in a viral photo is not worth having an article about, and may violate BLP even without the photo. I have PROD'd the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: PROD was contested, article is now ad AfD. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (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.

Chris Stokes (director)

I just scrubbed some stuff from the article; the internet is full of what may be rumors on the various hip-hop sites, or they may be quite real. I hope a few knowledgeable editors will have a look and maybe update/improve the article. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Colin O'Brady wiki page - Defamatory and trolling on biography of a living person page

I am writing to report defamatory editing to the page Colin O'Brady. O'Brady recently completed a world record accomplishment for the first crossing of the continental land mass of Antarctica solo, unsupported and unaided. The New York Times tracked this accomplishment with six articles throughout the journey among many other media outlets.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

O'Brady's accomplishment of the crossing has been widely tracked and reported on by additional highly respected sources including but not limited to: National Geographic [12] Associated Press, [13] NBS News, [14] Today Show, [15] CBS, [16] USA Today [17]

The accomplishment with all the proper citations is regularly edited and removed and replaced with the criticism only. The "controversy" that is currently on O'Brady's page is poorly sourced and cited with opinion pieces and social media links [18] [19] [20] including citations for articles that do not support the critics material and conversely, are in support of the accomplishment of O'Brady that is continually removed from O'Brady's biography. [21] [22] [23] [24]

O'Brady's page is being trolled and edited regularly by Murk and JSFarman in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed00 (talk • contribs)

welcome to wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Informed00 is trying to make this wiki page acknowledge that Colin O'Brady's expedition in Antarctica is a universal accepted "world first accomplishment". It is correct that O'Brady's claim of the expedition being "the first unsupported, unaided, crossing of Antarctica coast to coast" was reported by various news sites. But since then the claim has been widely disputed by polar experts and explorers. As it is strongly disputed, it can not be seen as an encyclopedic fact.

Informed00 is wrongly stating that the "controversy" is poorly sourced. The dispute is sourced by referring to news media, exploration authority sites and social media: The New York Times [25], NRK [26] [27], Outside Magazine [28], Wider Outdoor [29], Explorer's web [30] [31] [32] [33] and social media (like Instagram [34] and Facebook [35]] [36] [37] [38]).

It is strange to consider the mentioning of a debate/dispute as trolling. Further more; it is natural to mention the debate on social media, as O'Brady chronicled his journey daily on just social media. The social media quotes are just referring to antarctic authorities like Børge Ousland, Eric Philips and Damien Gildea. In addition: it is not defamatory to mention facts about an expedition, or the debate around it. The page has no personal characteristics or other language that can be deemed as defamatory.

If someone is trolling, it must be Informed00, who on two occasions has deleted major parts of the page. And replacing it with a non-neutral homage of Colin O'Brady.

--Murk (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You cannot use Facebook or Instagram posts to support contentious material about BLPs, but its certainly the case that at least from the NYTimes article there's clear controversy if he did properly complete a world-first. (Though as per most RSes that I see, most consider it a legit world-first, so we have to present it as such , and then those that argue he cut corners/etc.) --Masem (t) 18:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. There is just one statement that needs a Facebook-reference, the rest is referenced elsewhere. I can remove the one that is not referenced well enough. On a general note; why do you mean that social media, as a modern platform for debate, can not be used as reference? What about presidents writing tweets, or social media movements like "#meeto"? Should we not be able to use "first hand sources", and expert opinions, even if they are on social media? Even if it challenges a claim of a BLP?

All authorities on arctic explorations that have all the information are questioning this as a "world first". We can not claim this to be a "world first" when the people who are experts say that it isn't. This "world first" is not a fact, it is an "opinion" -- and it should be described as one. --Murk (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed Facebook-references, and a statement from one polar explorer. --Murk (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Social media can be used for non-controversial elements, though they are primary sources and should be used cautiously. But you cannot state something controversial sourcing it to social media, particularly BLP related.

While I can see some do state this was not a world first, most RSes are considering as such, so it is inappropriate to try to frame it another way. We can't do much if our RSes are not taking into account what these experts seem to be saying, we can only treat that as additional commentary. --Masem (t) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In general: Why do you value the opinion of a journalist in a news paper more than that of an University professor on social media? Should not the integrity of the person be more important than the plattform where the opinion is told?

In this specific matter: it is certainly not appropriate to frame a claim as a truth. It is well known that definitions like "unsupported" and "unaided" in arctic exploration is under debate -- already before O'Brady went on his expedition. We can not demand that the media has deep knowledge of Arctic exploration, but we as an encyclopedia should weight experts and news media in a proper manner. O'Brady's claim should be conveyed as an opinion, since it is not a fact. The press release from O'Brady told the press this was a "world first", and they believed him --- and liked the story. Professors, explorers and other experts on the field say that it is not so. --Murk (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Social media in general are SPS sources and should be treated carefully, regardless who the author is. But on the larger point, it becomes a bit of OR for us to determine who are expert sources and to make up for things that media sources do not say because they aren't covering these expert sources. If they are well-established experts, the media should be fairly asking them to opine if the crossing was a record or not. If they are failing to do that, we can't take that mantle up ourselves. Clearly that there is doubt that this is a world first is out there in RSes, but we basically have to look to how those sources present it first and foremost. --Masem (t) 20:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert Devereux (civil servant)

Robert Devereux (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The text currently reads: Sir Robert John Devereux, KCB (/ˈdɛvəˌruː/; born 15 January 1957) is a retired senior British civil servant, who served as Permanent Secretary for the Department for Transport from 2007 to 2011,[1] and then the Department for Work and Pensions from 2011 until his retirement in January 2018, where he retired aged 61 with a £1.8M pension not before raising the retirement age for firefighters, police, nurses and other public sector workers to 67 and destroying their pensions entirely .[2][3]

The last statement of this paragraph is both subjective and malicious, and should be removed. I was prompted to look at this biography by a Facebook post so would suggest that there is a potential for the material to be re-inserted if the page is not locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.187.50.163 (talk • contribs)

It was added in this diff by an IP editor, without sources. It has been removed as it is completely unsourced info (about how much his pension was and the secondary claim.) --Masem (t) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Horridly written "BLP", alas. I am uncertain that the use of a primary source for his salary even belongs. Collect (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is what's a primary source? The data was unsurprisingly repeated by secondary sources albeit without discussion of his salary considering it was far from from the top of the list or otherwise significant compared to the rest [39] [40]. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Salary is one thing (I would expect the salary of a public/government employee to be open data in most democratic states, though I would only include it if secondary sources made an issue out of it). The issue at hand is the pension amount, which is not usually reported in the same manner. (And of course the claim he got this huge pension at the same time as ruining pensions for others). --Masem (t) 19:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Saad Uddin

Saad Uddin - No verifiability, content in the article is fictitious and fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.62.134 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is sourced and has a photo. More and better reasons needed.--Auric talk 00:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Sweeting

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

Wikipedia got a passing mention, but not in a good way..I found this accidentally, after reading this. For those who don't want to wade through a tabloid (I blame insomnia); the relevant bit is "Unconfirmed reports and an uncited entry on Sweeting’s Wikipedia page claim after this he became addicted to pain medication". Well, they got one thing right, it was uncited. Now removed, and the IP who put it in 6 months ago sent a message. Some more eyes on it might be an idea in case it comes back, or if anyone wants to try and find a reliable source for it. Curdle (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Describing clemency recipients as "convicted murderers" in the present tense?

Cyntoia Brown is the article I'm concerned about, and I'm not a legal expert but our pardon article defines it as government decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense, as if the act never occurred, which would seem to indicate that once she has been granted clemency we should then describe her with Cyntoia Denise Brown [...] is a victim of sex trafficking who was convicted of murder before later being pardoned rather than what the article currently says (Cyntoia Denise Brown [...] is a victim of sex trafficking and a convicted murderer). But then, not a legal expert, so I don't know, and am unwilling to make such a radical change without getting a second opinion. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources I quickly found didn't say she was pardoned; they say she was granted clemency. Her sentenced was reduced, but she is still in jail, and will be on parole when released. That is not an absolution. Discussion of differences here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if it was a pardon, I don't think it's a settled question in US law that pardons do what they are claimed to do in the wikipedia article. For example, recently former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio requested that his criminal contempt conviction be vacated, and the federal judge refused to vacate his conviction. Her reasoning was that a pardon exempts a person from all legal penalties from a crime, but it doesn't "blot out guilt or expunge a judgement". "A pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it" (quotes from other rulings she uses to justify her own) [41]. Of course, Cyntoia Brown was never pardoned, she merely had her sentence commuted, so the nature of the pardon in US law is irrelevant in this case. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Kimberly Renee Dunbar

This article is about me and my name is not Kimberly Renee Dunbar It is Kim Renee Dunbar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C501:6EB3:A85F:2D:3F91:46BB (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Because none of the reliable sources use "Kimberly", I have moved the article to Kim Renee Dunbar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Gary Popkin

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

I apologize if this is not the correct place to report what I believe is wrong with this article.

The majority of the article appears to be written by the individual himself. A section of the article that was written entirely by the individual, in the first person, without sources, had proceeded the External Links section before I removed it. The inclusion of the individual's entire bibliography and filmography also seems strange given his primary identity as a political candidate. I also question whether or not the individual is notable enough to warrant having an article on Wikipedia.

edecaudin (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good place. Good edit:[42]. While not glaringly promotional, it's not a good article/BLP. It may merit deletion, but I haven't done any WP:BEFORE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

john dingfelder

Previous article for John Dingfelder had sources and was cited correctly. Individual, or representative for, is running for political office and continues to change article to be self promotion without any cited references or sources. The version being changed to is neither a Neutral point of view (NPOV) or Verified (V).

Link to diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Dingfelder&diff=877526024&oldid=877416208

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dingfelder — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalTampaPolitics (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looks very non-notable. Good AfD candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Very much so. Will reply on the AfD discussion. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information about me on Wikipedia Ram Bahadur Bomjon page (and yet again and again)

The article [Bahadur Bomjon] mentions my name Zsuzsanna Takacs as one of the victims of Ram Bomjon. Yet the information given in the article is untrue and based on a very dubious new-age style personal blog source (https://lalitmag.com/the-eternal/) while there had bee published numerous serious Nepali and Western media articles about my case, which are accurate. Moreover, this very propaganda source writes this: "We already know from first hand accounts that stories about kidnapping, etc, are all false… I carry the wind that the universe blows." By this the person who edited the article wanted to manipulate with the readers and try to give a sense that my kidnapping, torture, beatings and rape were made up. I protest against Wikipedia using their pages as a propagnda tool for a cult which caused my all-life handicap and caused hellish suffering to me and my fellow victims! Please correct the untrue information as myself am that victim and know best and replace it with a quote from one of the below links. This Wikipadia article had been a tool of manipulation by Bomjon's followers repeatedly, always sticking inside some of their own sources to alter the very clear information from dozens of mainstream media links.

This whole paragraph is not true:

"In 2012 Nepal Police announced that they had rescued a Slovak woman from Bomjon's followers. The woman had been held captive for over two months.[14][15] A Slovakian woman called Zsuzsanna Takacs had been taken from a hotel by two men of Bomjon on a motorcycle and kept tied to a tree for three months, accused of practicing witchcraft to disturb the Boy’s meditation. When she was released she had a broken arm[16]. A week after her release, Bomjon's siblings accused him of holding his brothers captive overnight, and for beating one of his brothers and his sister.[17] Soon after, followers of Bomjon assaulted five journalists and destroyed their cameras after they had recorded one of Bomjon's sermons.[14]"

1, It was not the Nepali Police who rescued me! Nepali Police cooperated with Bomjon. I had been released only due to the pressure of media and my foreigner friends, and only after the 5 journalists had arrived to Bomjon's Maitri Puja to investigate my whereabouts (and their cameras were broken by them). So the chronology in the article is wrong: First journalists arrived, then I was released by Bomjon due to the pressure and not rescued by police. See also

2, I was not rescued from Bamjan's followers only, but from Bamjan himself! Followers did not act separately, but at the order of Bamjan and he was the main torturer.

3, I had been held captive 3 months from 28 Dec 2011 till 24 March 2012, not just "over two months".

4,I was not "taken from my hotel" as I did not even live at any hotel at that time, I lived in Simara's Buddhist monastery! I had been kidnapped from the highway road at Halkhoriya Jungle! See "She stayed in a local hotel for some time before moving to a monastery in Simara."

5, Bomjon kept his siblings hostage 5 days and not "overnight"

Two women held captive in Bamjan's ashram Bamjan's aides free Slovak woman Buddha's men detain two women Buddha Boy men detain two women One foreign and one Nepali woman held captive

ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna TakacsZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)