Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 140.142.225.96 (talk) at 22:02, 12 December 2016 (→https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_Mohamoud: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:

    Reuven Bar-On

    Reuven Bar-On is not a notable researcher in this field. In particular, a detailed reading of his papers reveals that his research is complete quackery. Bar-On clearly created this Wikipedia biography about himself for the purposes of self-promotion. Indeed he links to his own website in the External Links section.

    The wikpedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Bar-On should certainly be deleted, since Reuven Bar-On is not a famous or important person.

    Therefore please delete "Reuven_Bar-On" in its entirety.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs)

    Thank you, Paulsheer, brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuven Bar-On for a deletion discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Badr Jafar

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

    • The article was discussed at BLPN October 2016.
    • I put a summary of the situation at Talk:Badr Jafar#Jafar Jafar under Per the above I have removed the "uncle" claim.
    • The point relevant to this report is "OTRS ticket 2016050310022619 states that Jafar Jafar is not the uncle of the subject of this article".
    • Mawlidman has just reverted my edit (diff) with an inflamatory edit summary: "restored from clear censorship and lies".
    • Mawlidman was reported at AN3 October 2016 regarding another claim at the same article.

    The contested text is:

    His uncle, Jafar Jafar, is a nuclear physicist who lead Iraq's nuclear programme under Saddam Hussein.

    Per the talk page, the first reference (nbcnews.com) does not mention the subject of the article, and the second (thenational.ae) does not mention "uncle". The text asserts a family relationship that is poorly sourced and is contested by an OTRS statement. No publication has commented on the alleged relationship other than Wikipedia. Does the text satisfy WP:BLP and WP:DUE? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging editors from the previous BLPN: Drmies + Fyddlestix + Mawlidman + Nomoskedasticity + Only in death does duty end + OoBJ. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The source (thenational.ae) doesn't use the word "uncle", but it does tell us that Jafar Jafar is the brother of Hamid Jafar who is Badr Jafar's father. "Uncle" is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase for what the source tell us here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolute whitewash by those who seek to delete the statement. The National article clearly says the following:

    • These days, Mr Jafar, 63, keeps a low public profile, preferring to leave the day-to-day running of his family's regional business empire to the next generation. His sons Majid, 34, and Badr, 31, are the public faces of Crescent Petroleum. and
    • The general manager of the Dubai-based Uruk Group is Jafar Jafar, a nuclear physicist and Hamid Jafar's younger brother, who headed Iraq's nuclear programme under Saddam Hussein.

    There is no inference involved, as the other editors like to claim. It is clear from point one that the Badr that is mentioned in the news source is the same Badr in the wiki article and the son of the subject of the news source i.e. Hamid Jafar. It is then clear from the second point that Jafar Jafar is the brother of Hamid and is the same person of the wiki article Jafar Dhia Jafar. Jafar Dhia Jafar is not some distant relative, as some blatant liars are claiming. Let me summarize The National's relevance to this discussion: News source is about Hamid --> Says Hamid is the father of Badr (of the wiki article Badr Jafar) --> Says Hamid is the brother of Jafar Jafar (of the wiki article Jafar Dhia Jafar) --> If Jafar Jafar is Hamid's brother then he is absolutely and indisputably Badr's uncle.
    There is no inference because there is zero conjecture or doubt involved in this statement that Badr's uncle is Jafar Jafar. I'm not sure what the agenda of OoBJ is in going to such lengths to suppress such clear info or why Johnuniq is his willing advocate but i know that this smacks of nothing other than censorship and i would like to report the actions of all those involved in supporting this egregious removal and abuse of authority. Mawlidman (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well this is fun. We have a source saying one thing, and an OTRS ticket saying another. The National is state-owned, if our article is correct, but that is in itself not yet a reason to doubt this information; on the other hand, I can't see (nor could Mdann, I imagine) what the credibility of the ticket is. Given that source, I am inclined to lean toward inclusion. Of course, if Mawlidman wasn't so eager to press the point in article space, this might have been handled earlier already. Johnuniq, what make you of this source now, after Nomodekasticity's comments? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted what the sources say on the article talk page.
    • The nbcnews.com source concerns Jafar Jafar and does not mention Badr Jafar or his father.
    • The thenational.ae source does not comment on the relationship between Jafar Jafar and Badr Jafar.
    • The only publication that has commented on that relationship is Wikipedia—that raises WP:DUE concerns.
    • The claimed relationship has been denied by an OTRS ticket.
    The thenational.ae source can be expected to have checked claims like who is a general manager of what as that is what the article is about. However, there is no reason to believe such a source would carefully check family relationship details, so the OTRS denial is plausible. The text has been edited a lot, yet it still contains the typo "lead"—how much thought has gone into it? Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The National article didn't just state that Jafar Jafar is Hamid's brother, it specifically said that Jafar Jafar is Hamid Jafar's younger brother. Could it be so specific yet wrong? Why should we doubt it has its facts right? Wikipedia doesn't operate upon conjecture, especially when such sources clearly state otherwise. Mawlidman (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about a business journalist writing in the business section about business. It's not as if it's a genealogy report where family relationships are the point of the article. I'm not saying it's likely the source is incorrect, but under the circumstances that is a reasonable conclusion. Given the OTRS claim, it is not satisfactory that Wikipedia should be the only publication that has commented on the relationship between Badr Jafar and Jafar Jafar—the source did not think that relationship was worth a comment. What is the reader supposed to learn from the article text? That Badr Jafar has an uncle who would be regarded negatively by many in the West? Or that he has a very clever uncle? What does that say about Badr Jafar? Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why your heart is so firmly attached to this when you are not the OTRS submitter. What is the reader supposed to learn from the article text? It learns that Badr has a notable uncle just as it learns that he had a notable grandfather. Why do you differentiate between these two? That Badr Jafar has an uncle who would be regarded negatively by many in the West? Or that he has a very clever uncle? What does that say about Badr Jafar? Whether his uncle reflects posivitely or negatively upon Badr is beyond the point: a reliable source indisputably mentioning a notable close relation has every right to be included and not censored because someone claiming to be close to the subject deems the inclusion would be bad publicity for the subject. That proposition is galling and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Mawlidman (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us understand the spirit of WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE, and I regard the OTRS claims as plausible. My heart is not involved, and I have not been blocked for edit warring at the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We clearly see this very differently. I strongly believe i have not broken either WP, and i question the motive of the OTRS claim. Mawlidman (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the change and explained on the Badr Jafar talk page. The issue is factual. Jafar is not Badr's uncle, but a distant relative. Does anybody need an email from Badr Jafar to state that Jafar Jafar is not Badr Jafar's uncle? OoBJ (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @OoBJ: What would really put this issue to rest is if The National issued a retraction or correction. Look, I don't have any particular interest in this issue -- I'm just an anonymous editor who keeps track of some of the issues that are brought here. What matters for me is doing things the way that generally works for Wikipedia: mainly, go with what reliable sources say. So I'm not on a crusade here about this individual -- but I don't want to end up in a situation where subjects of biographies are able to determine content. So I'm not going to restore the material again. But someone else might. And the best way to prevent this is to deal with the source, get them to acknowledge/correct their error (if error it is). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you @Nomoskedasticity:. I had contacted Badr Jafar before making this edit asking him to get The National to change the information. I haven't had a response yet - but hopefully The National can publish an erratum. OoBJ (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Controversies surrounding Marina Abramović

    Hello, This is regarding Marina Abramović. As described in her "controversy" section, she has gone through a wide range controversies (cited using reputed journals). Therefore, keeping Wikipedia neutrality, since a living or dead personality can be described as "popular", a criminal can be described as a criminal in the introduction; similarly, citing her numerous controversies and nature of art performance, it seems neutral and logical to describe her in the following way- which simply is a neutral and cited reflection of the fact that she has been surrounded by wide range of controversies-

    Marina Abramović (Serbian Cyrillic: Марина Абрамовић, Serbian pronunciation: [maˌrǐːna abˈrǎːmoʋit͡ɕ]; born November 30, 1946) is a Yugoslavia-born controversial[1][2] performance artist based in New York.[3] Her work explores the relationship between performer and audience, the limits of the body, and the possibilities of the mind. Active for over three decades, Abramović describes herself[4] as the "grandmother of performance art." She pioneered a new notion of identity by bringing in the participation of observers, focusing on "confronting pain, blood, and physical limits of the body."[5]

    However, there have been repeated attempts to keep only her popularity and suppress the not-so popular facts about her. Therefore, I want to know how to resolve this issue. In any way, these citations/texts do not give a declaration or judgement but just provide information on her controversial past and their citations from highly reputed journals. It does not include non-cited and extreme words which violate this-"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." It is rare for a reputed journal/newspaper to explicitly write an article to label someone as disgusting, but yet http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/arts/design/20marina.html?pagewanted=all helps us know that there do exist people who find it is controversial- "<quoted text from article->Such visceral, unsettling art used to generate disgust, outrage and the occasional police visit."

    Kindly also have a look at the controversy section of her article. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pppooojjjaaa—is your question whether or not she should be described in the lead as "controversial"? Is that your question? Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Bus stop, thanks for the patience to read the entire thing - it was just to support my proposal. Whether using the word "controversial" as above is ok (why) or not (why not) is indeed my question. :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think Marina Abramović should be described as "controversial" in the lead of her article. I've responded briefly on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's not so much the word "controversial" as almost all the rest of the article that really needs attention. It is written in an unencyclopaedic tone and often (apparently) in Abramović's voice, perhaps due to the excessive number of quotations and the acreage of pseudo-intellectual artspeak.
    But to answer the question: being controversial is such a routine part of what artists do that it hardly merits a mention in the lead. There shouldn't be a Controversy section either, there should be a balanced discussion of reactions to her work, based on what is written in independent reliable sources. I suggest "Reception" as a title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "being controversial is such a routine part of what artists do" - artists like singers, dancers, actors, painters etc are not necesaarily controversial. "There shouldn't be a Controversy section either, there should be a balanced discussion of reactions to her work"- calling aboriginals dinosaurs, not crediting artists for inspiring her work, being accused of inviting politicians to spiritual cooking- these are "reactions to her work??"" Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the things you list are not "reactions to her work" (comparing aboriginals to dinosaurs, although it could be a reaction to her memoir). FallingGravity 09:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "unending agony of Marina Abramović".
    2. ^ "Marina Abramović Apologizes for Controversial Comments".
    3. ^ http://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/story/461/svet-poznatih/2400189/marina-abramovic-ja-sam-nomadska-eks-jugoslovenka.html
    4. ^ "Performance artist Marina Abramović: 'I was ready to die'".
    5. ^ Demaria, Cristina (August 2004). "The Performative Body of Marina Abramovic". European Journal of Women's Studies. 11 (3): 295.
    Ignoring the opinion that writing on walls with pig blood (and inviting diplomats to it) and racist opinions, stealing ideas of other artists and not crediting them are attributes solely related to professionalism and work, I want to write an update here that a consensus has been reached on the talk page to remove the word "controversial" from the lead. Thanks everyone. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Pppooojjjaaa, I think the "Controversy"section of the article is fine. I am only objecting to describing her as "controversial" in the lead of the article. (It could be called a "Criticism" section, but that is a minor point.) Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Bus Stop :) Yes, I made the change. Majority always important. I am happy we sorted things out and contributed to the article like it appeals the most. Good day! :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good day, Pppooojjjaaa Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Spirit Cooking

    Now that the word "controversial" has been removed from the lead sentence, can we talk about how the article is written to promote the "Spirit Cooking" conspiracy? Pppooojjjaaa has taken it upon his or her self to remove sourced material that disproves the conspiracy because of "consensus" supposedly reached here. FallingGravity 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciate your initiative. Just one point- I am adding sourced material- not removing it- I am adding and you are removing this from the controversy section- ""Another controversy came up during 2016 US Presidential elections when it was leaked via Wikileaks that an email invitation from Abramović read, “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining?”[1] ""Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/nov/04/marina-abramovic-podesta-clinton-emails-satanism-accusations. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    In the paragraph that I added and you keep removing, it explains about the invitation. FallingGravity 00:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I am sorry. I just noticed the first edit- in which you removed this content but did not add any new content. I assumed your reverts were just the same. I completely welcome your cited content- but I have conflict when you remove the content from controversy section. Thanks. Please add your content, or I can add it back if you wish. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keaton Jennings

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

    This report is not about defamatory or libelous material, but about vandalism on the article where people have have been constantly editing the height of the individual. Was not sure where to report that. If this is the wrong place,sorry. Appreciate if someone can direct me to the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaguru (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Edaguru, I've requested protection at WP:RFPP. Sagecandor (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    R. K. Mudgil

    R. K. Mudgil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    No significance of this person is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobotprofile33 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Autobotprofile33, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. K. Mudgil. Sagecandor (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Category discussion on commons

    Please see commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Pizzagate.

    Bringing here due to WP:BLP concerns as the only two images are of Comet Ping Pong restaurant and also it is redundant to have 2 categories with exact same 2 images. Sagecandor (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Gunn

    For some months now, someone has consistently edited the Tim Gunn biography and personal life sections to claim he identifies as asexual. The first post on the talk page questioning this is from September 2013. The sources cited for the claims of asexuality are two articles which, if you read through them or CTRL+F for 'asexuality', do not mention asexuality at all in any way. Tim Gunn self-identifies as a gay man who is celibate by choice; asexuality is not a choice, it is a unique sexual orientation one is born hardwired towards, just as homosexuality and heterosexuality are.

    I will copy what I put on the talk page for the Tim Gunn article showing discrepancy between asexuality claims and the cited sources:

    "If you see the reference they cite for this claim of asexuality, it clearly says he is celibate.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/tim-gunn-celibacy-sex.html

    • "If you watch the above video until the end, you'll see Gunn speaking in halting sentences, holding back emotion, as he explains that his decision to remain celibate by choice followed a difficult breakup and is partly "psychological." He cites health, and fear of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.
    • "Do I feel like less of a person for it? No!" he said. "I am a perfectly happy, fulfilled individual." He said he started his self-imposed celibacy as AIDS began ravaging the gay community, and that he and many other people simply retreated from that danger."

    Celibacy is not at all the same as asexuality. Celibacy is a personal choice; asexuality is a sexual orientation which you are hard-wired towards from birth, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality.

    In the Biography section, someone also edited it to say "Tim Gunn used to identify as gay but now identifies as asexual." They cite this source:

    http://www.metroweekly.com/2007/09/naked-gunn/

    A quick CTRL+F of this article shows absolutely no mention of the word asexual. I don't know if whoever keeps putting in these edits is doing it as a joke but I think it accounts to vandalism at this point. This has been happening for months and I continuously edit it back but someone keeps inserting unsourced claims of aseuxality."

    Every single time I try to edit out the claims of asexuality which directly contradict the articles cited, it gets reversed within a few hours. I'd really like it if this issue could be resolved somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.112.126 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert B. Pamplin, Jr.

    Your attention is drawn to the removed references at Robert B. Pamplin, Jr., which I describe over at Talk:Robert B. Pamplin, Jr. § Unsubstantiated reference. I'm not sure what should be done, so I'm leaving it up to WP:ORE and WP:BLP. YBG (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    hi this article is about navid faridi he is an ex football player in iran he's living person and he want people see his biograpy when they search him please help us to do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadegh1993sadegh (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A Voice for Men

    A Voice for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a controversial organisation in a politically controversial subject area. Note my declared CoI in respect of the subject organisation.

    The BLP issue is that, as currently written, this article imputes income to Paul Elam based on un-dated, 3rd-hand information from a self-evidently biased (and therefore not "high quality" per WP:BLP) party that cannot be independently verified by anybody who doesn't have access to Dun & Bradstreet reports which, I imagine, would be most people. I elaborate on these assertions, particularly vis-à-vis RS, in my post to the article's talk page. Because of my role in the organisation, I am uniquely in a position to know for a fact that Elam does not receive income as described and has not since February 2015, if he ever did.

    By suggesting that Elam benefits from income he does not in fact obtain, this article materially misrepresents his position politically and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:V by virtue of the inability of the public at large to confirm what the article claims in respect of Elam's income from this organisation.

    Thus, I know the article to be inaccurate and incorrect concerning a period of nearly two years or more, and yet I am told by Administrator Bbb23 that a) I ought not edit the article (on grounds of CoI) and b) this BLP matter ought be brought here.

    In accordance with Bbb23's directions, I posted to the article's talk page the changes I believe to be appropriate concerning this and other matters. Bbb23 was very quick (ie, in under 10 minutes) to revert my edits (whether they knew or not of my connection to the organisation) and yet nearly six hours later I have received not a single response from my post to the talk page. Given apparent lack of interest despite close monitoring of this controversial article, I therefore wish to flag the BLP issue here and request that I be authorised (or someone else) to edit the article in question to clear up the misattribution issue. Ideally, such edits would also include reference to the LLC set up by Elam because that, too, is materially relevant to Elam's personal and political disposition.

    — Strix t 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23's edit was correct; you were making improper use of primary sources. Your approach here is appreciated -- bringing the issue to this noticeboard was the right thing to do. But the evaluation offered by other editors is unlikely to meet your hopes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not complaining about Bbb23's revert; I may not agree with it, but that's a completely separate matter. This is BLP/N, so I'm not here to appeal the question of primary sources.
    Being BLP/N, the only relevant issue here is correction of factually inaccurate content about a living person pursuant to WP:BLP, and WP:V in particular. According to WP:BLP it would seem that I would be entitled to go in and fix the problem directly but, given the CoI, I felt it more respectful to the WP community to try to resolve the issue here than enter into a revert war which would almost certainly end only one way and end badly at that.
    Pursuant to WP:BLP, the only thing that matters per policy — and, therefore, to other editors (in theory) — is what is demonstrably true. The claims in the article in question cannot be verified and therefore should be removed unless a more reliable source can be found. (If so, have at it. Like I said, all that matters is what is true regardless of my own interpretations of it.)
    As it is, I know that the (implied) claims in question — namely that the organisation currently has annual revenues of $120k, and that Elam is the sole beneficiary of that revenue — to be false, therefore it should be fixed. Neither Elam nor the LLC should have to produce their 1040 and 1120 respectively to prove otherwise. The onus is on the Wikipedia community to maintain the integrity of its content by assiduously adhering to its own standards.
    In this case, those standards call for the removal of some content, and yet I am actually calling for a more moderate approach of rephrasing the offending material in the past tense (thereby allowing for the possibility that it might once have been true, but that nobody can be sure of it), but is undoubtedly no longer true (if it ever were) and setting out the prevailing circumstances. At the very least, the D&B report containing the alleged income should be dated, and it is not. And so far as I can tell, nobody can discern when that unscrutinised report was dated. Do you see why there is currently a problem that needs fixing?
    If you are prepared to entertain a claim which cannot be proved, then you should not have any reason not to take my word for what those circumstances are. — Strix t 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look at your proposed change on the talk page. The issue of source date can perhaps be dealt with: "An article published in 2015 noted that...". But we're not going to put anything about more recent changes that can't be verified by a reliable secondary source. Have you had a look at WP:OR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just putting this out there for anyone who's never had access to it, Dun & Bradstreet is not a reliable source. This also goes for similar private databases like Accurint. Some of what's on D&B specifically is supposed to be evaluated by living breathing people. But as a default position, these databases should be treated with the same trust as a Google search. They are, for the most part, information dumps from algorithms. As an example, Accurint once told me that I was a pastor of a church in a city an hour and a half away. Spoiler: I'm not. TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dun & Bradstreet isn't being used as a source; our article cites a secondary source which itself makes reference to D&B. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If WP depends on BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed depends on D&B for the veracity of the claim in question, then WP ultimately depends on D&B so yes, D&B is the ultimate source of this claim in this instance. Even if D&B were reliable (and I take User:Timothyjosephwood's point that it may not be), it isn't verifiable. Either way, it violates one or both of WP:RS and WP:V. — Strix t 15:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's up to Buzzfeed to determine whether it is satisfied with the truth of the claim, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that the claim is untrue. I know you're not going to like it, but that's what our policies amount to: go with what secondary sources say, and don't do your own research about what's in primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle, WP editors don't need to evaluate the truth of a secondary source because readers can follow them up and make up their own minds. That model is broken in this case because the D&B report is not available to the general public. Suppose BF had completely fabricated the claim and attributed it to a source that is unverifiable, how is anyone to know? WP:BLP demands a higher standard when positive claims are being made about living individuals. That standard requires verifiability, and that is not possible in this case. It says so right there in WP:BLP. If you won't adhere to your own policies, what does that say about the integrity of the WP project? I'm sure I read something about the primacy of that somewhere.
    If you can honestly tell me that you believe that the BF cited article is reliable and that WP:V doesn't apply (despite BLP policy to the contrary), and that the fact that I know the claim to be false is irrelevant because my knowledge isn't verifiable (even though the BF's verifiability doesn't seem to matter), then I guess there's nothing more I can usefully say.
    I don't think WP's policies are fundamentally broken, but I think there is some reason to think that there is bias and partiality in the way that they are enforced. And there's nothing I can do about that if you aren't willing to be open to the possibility that things need to be fixed. — Strix t 16:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim is verifiable with reference to the source being used to support it: readers can look at the Buzzfeed article. No-one is proposing to ask readers to consult D&B (and indeed it would be a violation of our own policies if D&B were being used as a source here). The notion that V isn't satisfied because D&B isn't easily accessible is your own invention; it's not relevant here. (By the way, there's no requirement that a source be easily accessible, e.g. clickable/on-line -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- but again that's not meant to imply that D&B can be used even if most people don't have access to it, because we're not using D&B as a source.) As I see it, the recourse open to you, if you genuinely believe that Buzzfeed has erred in its reporting, is to approach Buzzfeed and ask them to retract the article and/or print a correction or update. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've brought this Buzzfeed article up before, and I'll state my opinion on it again. Financials on AVFM are too close to Paul Elam, and you can't separate the two. This means we have to have BLP compliant sourcing if we're going to put it into article. In turn, I would say that buzzfeed article is a good example of what BLP is out there to protect against, and we shouldn't be using it in the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • D&B here is a red-herring. They are a data/report/analyst etc being used by a secondary source. We would not cite D&B directly in a BLP. The question to answer from a BLP perspective is 'Is Buzzfeed a reliable source for a controversial claim on a BLP?' I would hesitate to say they are unreliable given they are an organisation with an editorial board, staff writers etc. But they are far from being what I would personally consider reliable to get financial news from. But as a BLP violation, the source is verifiable and satisfies the criteria to be used on a BLP. I personally would not however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. D&B is the actual source. That someone at Buzzfeed did a D&B search and decided it was good enough for them is less important. If they cited the National Enquirer instead of D&B, their decision to take the number from a tabloid wouldn't make the number itself any more reliable than if we sourced the tabloid directly. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No the reference/source is Buzzfeed. D&B are merely buzzfeed's source of information for their article. This is basic sourcing 101 here. Per WP:V we do not do original research on sources. That is their job. That is why we source articles to secondary sources. D&B would be a primary source for the claim. That a secondary source has chosen to use D&B is in fact the most important part of verifying a reliable source - do they exercise editorial judgement. You way would have us work on the basis of 'Do we believe the primary source is correct'. Which is not how WP:V works. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And we regularly consider the primary sources that secondary sources use, such as discounting official press releases for the purposes of notability, regardless of whether they were reprinted in another publication. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And unless you are indicating Buzzfeed printed a D&B press release how is that relevant? We disregard press releases for most things because they are primary sources. Where a press release has been printed verbatim by a secondary source we treat it as a primary source. Do you actually have a genuine argument that Buzzfeed are either an unreliable source incapable of doing their own research? Or in some way violate WP:V or WP:BLP? Because at the moment your only argument has been 'D&B are wrong' which isnt relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What I am indicating is that a secondary source is not a magic wall that prevents critical thinking about the material that is reported and where it came from. And yes, if their journalistic judgement in this case is that a D&B search is good enough for them then it's not good enough for us and certainly not as it relates to BLP. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not how wikipedia treats sources. Either in biographies or anywhere else. That you want to engage in original research to disqualify a secondary source based on your interpretation of *its* sources is actively prohibited by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not original research to say it came from the source they say it came from. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Hughes (attorney)

    Page seems quite lopsided against this guy.

    Not sure what to do about it, so bringing it here for further analysis.

    Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The pipelink to "War profiteering" describing a company that had government contracts in World War II was a particularly nice touch. The article definitely has issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clean-up and pruning would probably be a good thing, or maybe even WP:AFD ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hughes (attorney) nominated by NatGertler. Sagecandor (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Trump / Mike Pence

    Donald Trump's (and possibly the Mike Pence) article needs to be rewritten by a professional in good faith as someone suggested in Trump-talk. The info box editor(s) do not allow for his "state" of birth (?). If you see how the introduction was written before I started editing there (in good faith), you can see more of what I'm talking about. I (username) was banned (banded) there while referred by an administrator as "they" instead of YS or "he or she". YahwehSaves (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You're topic banned from "all things Donald Trump" - posting this here was not a good idea. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: FYI. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Fyddlestix. (The ping didn't work, and I see why in the history, compare WP:ECHO: "if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.") Warned, since it's the first infraction. I'm surprised the user would go on about the "they" thing again, and on a new board, after I explained nicely, or so I thought, to them that singular they is standard usage on Wikipedia when a user's gender is not known.[1] But it is what it is. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    Pizzagate drive-by original research tagging

    Bringing here due to WP:BLP issues previously documented.

    Please see Talk:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory)#Drive-by_original_research_tagging. Sagecandor (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Also added an edit-request at Talk:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory)#Widely_debunked. Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ana Braga

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

    I have noticed that violators have been posting inappropriate and false information about Ana Braga. For now, her page is accurate and age as 35 years old which is correct. Can you please keep an eye on her page please? I also noticed they have removed her references as well. This has been occurring frequently. You can check the old edits. Thanks so m much for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busyme11 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    José Ramos Muñoz

    José Ramos Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Bibliography has been vandalised several times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemariacarrascal (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Ridpath

    Michael Ridpath I am Michael Ridpath and I feel that the last paragraph of the entry referring to me is unfair and inaccurate. The paragraph states: "His works have been subject to some scrutiny, however, notably some Amazon reviewers have noted that his novels are "very short stor[ies]...the book equivalent of about 30 pages".[2] On the other hand, his lengthier novels have been criticised as needing to be "whittled down" by a paid editor.[3]"

    These are gleaned from two of the hundreds of reviews I have received on amazon. The average star rating of my reviews is above 4.0, which is quite high. The two reviews quoted, while negative, also happen to be factually incorrect (i.e. the reviewers were incorrect). The first review relates to Edge of Nowhere which is a novella with the book equivalent of 60 pages (not 30). The second review refers to On The Edge, which was edited by Beverly Cousins, crime editor at my publisher Penguin Books, who was therefore paid. The point is, clearly this paragraph has been inserted by someone with an axe to grind who wishes to make my books appear bad. Removal of the paragraph would make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.92.180 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazon reviews are not a reliable source, so I have removed it. The article is not in great shape though, lots of unsourced information - it needs more/better references. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not seem to be much unsourced material now. I apologise to Michael Ridpath that these violations of our Biographies of living people policy were not dealt with sooner. MPS1992 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about a biography of a living criminal

    I am posting here not to report an incident but to ask advice about an article still in my sandbox. Below is a communication I sent and the response I received:

    I'm working on an article about a prominent Nashville businessman who turned into a major cocaine smuggler (as in Breaking Bad), Russell Brothers. It is a fascinating story but I have had second thoughts about it because the subject is still alive and due to be released from prison in December of 2016. Even though his name and exploits have been on the front pages of many newspapers in Tennessee and elsewhere, something about this gives me pause. He still has an opportunity to live some more years. I'm sure he will eventually be on Wikipedia, but I'm inclined to hold the article for a while, maybe even until his death — he is 78 now. He reportedly enjoys his bad boy image. Anyway, please take a look. Your thoughts ?
    Regards as always, Eagledj (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Eagledj. As always, you're doing a bang up job in composing the article! By the sources you've uncovered and cited it appears his criminal convictions were rather notorious, with a fair amount of coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. These are convictions so there's no WP:BLPCRIME issue. So I guess the question is, is he sufficiently a public figure? Is this beyond just routine news coverage (I think it is). However, you are not just using newspapers but court cases as sources to verify facts about his criminal history, which seems to be in conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. What I think you should do is ask for some more eyes, of people who are very familiar with these issues, to give you their opinion, and the forum for that appears to be the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's true that that page's statement of purpose indicates it's more for reporting potential BLP violations, but it seems the best place to find people highly experienced in this area to take a look, and I can't imagine anyone turning you away because you're not reporting an incident but seeking advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    erin fleming movies

    This article is about my sister and there are several factual errors. I am her younger brother and she had two older brothers. She had parents--not two men (in fact I don't know who they are) Doctor David Russell Fleming, and Evangeline Fleming. I don't know where they got a fictitious middle name--Erin Leslie. She chose Erin as a stage name but her real names were Marilyn Suzanne.

    Another curiosity is that I am on a laptop and get a picture and a short blurb before I click on Wikipedia, and ny wife gets another picture. Hers is the correct one and mine is not.

    Everything else appears to be correct.

    Richard Fleming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:84E0:631:614F:81D5:263A:1846 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the very first opening section, the following is written:

    "Standing as an opposition candidate, he was elected as President of Narnia—a self-declared republic that is not recognized by a single human Delusional region of Somalia—in Somaliland's 2010 presidential election.[2]"

    Obviously this article has been tampered with by a malicious user. He was elected President of Somaliland - an autonomous nation that has struggled to receive international recognition and is apparently the target of quite a bit of hatred from some Somali nationals.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=754479355"