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.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

Someone claiming to be the subject of this article is making edits on the article and talk page. I dont see anything risible per se, but it wouldn't hurt to have some uninvolved editors keep an eye on it, at least for the short term. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same cast of 3-4 editors has been carrying on a slow-motion conversation with the (presumed) subject of this page over the past couple of years, without any long-term resolution. (The Talk page archive is helpful in this regard.) Perhaps it would help if another, heretofore uninvolved, editor were to review some of the recent discussions and assess whether the article has landed in the right place (IMHO it's an open question), and if so, help the subject understand the limits of his ability to shape the contents of the article. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Andrew

The Wikipedia biography of Neil Andrew DOB 7.6.1944 contains inaccuracy. Neil Andrew did not consider his electorate, Wakefield, unwinnable after a boundary change, nor did he seriously consider challenging Patrick Secker in Barker. This contention is without basis. Neil Andrew retired at the age of 60 having spent some 22 years in federal parliament. His decision to retire predated the electoral boundary change. He worked tirelessly to get the Liberal candidate, David Fawcett, elected to Wakefield in the 2004 election, having always regarded this as achievable. He has served as Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Authority since 2014. I invite you to correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.224.194 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claims to which you seem to object, partly as not supported by the cited source and partly because it is very unclear if "Crikey" is a sufficiently reliable source for these claims. It would be useful if more reliable sources could be found to describe what happened towards the end of Andrew's career. You could add these to the article yourself, or, if you have some connection with Andrew, you could add them at Talk:Neil Andrew with an explanation of how the article should be changed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've introduced citations for most of the article. I couldn't find anything to support the removed text. Hack (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge I. Domínguez

Subject was disciplined for sexual harassment in 1983; yesterday an exposé was published with new allegations. IPs are showing up to update the article with incautious language, repeating allegations in WikiVoice [1], and to vandalize [2]. Eyes would be appreciated, and WP:SEMI may be necessary. FourViolas (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And editwarriors are seeking to add as much defamatory material as possible on the principle that "if an article says someone made a claim, then we can put that claim to the BLP." This is past what is rational, I fear. I am estopped from making fixes to BLPs, so will someone please tend to this? Collect (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Richard Walter Thomas

Just looking for advice on if the article needs any work before going public as a regular article. Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the reference errors.--Auric talk 13:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know what was wrong with the ISSNs, lol... so overall it's good to go? Smkolins (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article has gone live, contributing edits from interested parties is still welcome! Smkolins (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in particular is extremely long - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". Currently the lead is six, very long, paragraphs - at over 1200 words, it is twice the length of the lead of United States of America, which I think most people would agree is a more significant topic. This should be cut down a great deal, to a summary people can read in a minute or two which explains why Thomas is a notable and significant person. The first sentence should also be devoted to his significance - at the moment it only mentions his race, nationality, and birthplace, none of which are relevant to this.

In general, it's a very long article. It's impressively referenced, but I think some of the material may be of dubious relevance - for example, the details of who organised a 'hootenanny' at MSU before Thomas even attended. There are also some very long quotes - the "Joined the Bahá'í Faith" section contains four long paragraphs from the same book, which I think may even be pushing legal copyright limits, as well as not being the best way to communicate the subject.

"Writings and projects" should be cut down to just a list of publications, and placed after the biography. Things like teaching and other projects should be mentioned in the biography, there's no need for a separate list of them here.

In general, I think it would be worth glancing at some similar articles on Wikipedia, such as those in the literature biography featured articles and religion biography featured articles, to get an idea of style; at the moment, this doesn't feel to me very accessible to give an idea of Thomas' notability, largely due to length. TSP (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this back to Draft for now The repeated use of bold and peacock language is a real risk fro G11. The lede needs to be shorter and the tone more neutral ,this reads as a PR piece by Bahá'í. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bold was, at least all through college, the norm of how books are mentioned. "Peacock language" is a misinterpretation. And I replied to the above points on the draft page. I can discuss them here too if need be but it seems salient there. Smkolins (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NSEL case

Jignesh Shah, one of the promoters of NSEL, is being accused of fraud even thou a court is yet to pronounce him guilty violating WP:BLP guidelines.

This recent edit with links to slideshare and scribd reeks of original research. The editor has in the past attacked other editors accusing them of being "Jignesh Shah's men".

I don't want to get into a messy edit war with the said editor but the page needs some serious restructuring inline with wikipedia guidelines. --Xzinger (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as why any court would have any affect on editing here. --Auric talk 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hoffman (businessman) - Wikipedia

This article is about me, and it is outdated and incorrect.

Steve Hoffman (businessman) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hoffman_(businessman)

I want to request that it either be updated and corrected, or else please remove it from Wikipedia.

Thank you!

Additional Sources of information:

Press & Media: https://www.foundersspace.com/press/

Amazon Book: https://www.amazon.com/Make-Elephants-Fly-Process-Innovation/dp/0349418837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520016812&sr=8-1&keywords=make+elephants+fly

Bio: https://www.foundersspace.com/hoffman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhoff (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your open disclosure and providing sources. Sorry to get all bureaucratic on you, but this isn't really the proper place for your concerns, unless there is something egregiously wrong that violates WP:BLP policies.

There are two things you can do: 1.) If you think the article should be deleted, the place to go would be WP:Articles for deletion. Follow the instructions on the page and be very clear about why you think it should be deleted. 2.) If you think it can be corrected with the sources, and would rather go that route, take them to the talk page of the article and request your changes there. Once again, you'll need to be very specific about what needs to be changed, and it is helpful if you can provide page numbers, quotes, or even a link to google books rather than an Amazon link. (We prefer links that aren't trying to sell you something. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous request here--Auric talk 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Monfared Arya

This person is branded as the First Iranian Woman Pilot in the article. She is not. These 3 were: http://women.ncr-iran.org/famous-women/1831-the-first-women-pilots-in-iran . This article is incorrect and the creator of the article has not provided any substantial evidence to the fact. Please delete and remove the article altogether. I have tried numerous time removing the "First Iranian Woman Pilot" part from the article but the user Chakmehhh keeps reversing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.109 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Branded is a rather strong word, implying some sort of shame. Even so, that isn't a good reason to remove the article.--Auric talk 22:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I notice the three you mention (Effat Tejaratchi, Ina Avshid and Sediqeh Dowlatshahi) don't have their own articles. Have you thought of doing more research and creating them?--Auric talk 22:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bio was created by spa Akrammonfaredarya and the reverts by Chakmehhh also have a single purpose of burnishing the claim of being first iranian woman pilot and promoting the subject. Seems to be a case of marketing and conflict of interest using socks. --Xzinger (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside questions of the subject's notability, there are no English language sources cited in the article (all are Swedish or Farsi). If the article is to include that she holds the distinction of being the first female Iranian pilot, then at minimum a translated section of one of the relevant sources should be provided. Although she appears to be an accomplished female Iranian pilot, her age makes it improbable she was the first. StvnW ^talk 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney family

Hello,

On the Disney family page, in the "Family Tree section," please add the following member of the Disney Family. Raymond Arnold Disney and Meredith A. Disney had an adopted son in addition to their son who is Charles Elias Disney (b. 1940.) Please add the adopted sons name of Daniel Harwood Disney (b. 1956) should be indicated in the family tree alongside of Charles Elias Disney. Reference/source: Find a Grave for Raymond Arnold Disney.

THANK YOU!

David Brown 1st cousin of Charles Elias Disney and Daniel Harwood Disney.

Browndevelopers (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot use Find A Grave as a source due to problems with the reliability of the site's information. Do you have any other published source we can rely on? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Randolph OLD INCORRECT info suddenly turning up in search, PLEASE HELP

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

This is OLD version of my current Wikipedia page. And incorrect birthdate was entered here - I believe by someone who was harassing me online at that time - and again, because it was incorrect with no source to verify it, it was deleted.

However, it is now showing up on iPhones under "Siri Knowledge" when someone begins to search for name on a web browser, i.e. Safari, citing Wikipedia as the source.

Wikipedia is NOT the source though as that info is not on my page anymore because it was incorrect.

Can someone please help me permanently delete this page...? THANKS SO MUCH if you can!

Again, here is the OLD version of the page with the INCORRECT info: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

Bonnar212 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt anyone here can fix this. Also, don't use allcaps in your text.★Trekker (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the issue has been resolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bland

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

Needs review of recent additions. Especially concerning privacy issues and not-so-veiled accusations of antisemitism. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have reverted to last good version. Additions included unreliable sources, op-Ed’s used for factual claims, guilt-by-purported-association smears, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "archive board"?

For some reason, this page with incorrect info is coming up for "Siri Knowledge" and giving out incorrect info.

Is there a way to remove this page from the "archive board" for my page?

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

Bonnar212 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonnar212. As a matter of policy, we retain the complete edit history of every single article on Wikipedia, going back to the first few months of the project in 2001. Wikipedia is not responsible for any errors by Siri Knowledge, Google Knowledge Graph or any search engine or service unaffiliated with Wikipedia. You need to take your complaint to Siri. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the issue has been resolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Pilkington (director)

This is just a mess...Includes a note allegedly from the real James Pilkington disputing accuracy of information, an odd, unsourced line about cheese rolling and Sweet Valley High. To be honest, the whole page can probably be deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.197.97 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an exact copy and paste of the About section at http://jamespilkington.com/ so I've nuked it as a copyright violation. Fish+Karate 15:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Ogden Stiers, recently dead (yesterday) BLP, reliability of sources re coming out.

MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary ResultingConstant (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been thoroughly discussed. "Gossip-boy" is a blog on Wordpress. It fails WP:RS utterly and completely, and sources which credit that blog are no more usable than the blog in the first place. That some people use the blog as a reliable source does not mean Wikipedia should do so. In addition, raising the issue here is actually suited WP:RS in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sandusky

Two new accounts have added "innocence" material to the Jerry Sandusky article. As many know, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse. The material added by these two ~~new~~ accounts concerns a book and other stuff arguing for Sandusky's supposed possible innocence. Thoughts? I started a discussion section at Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Case for Innocence section. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Only one of the accounts is new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need some opinions on this. Collect, any thoughts? I've argued WP:Undue weight. We have Aerkem going on about Mark Pendergrast and how he is "a well-known writer, and a specialist of repressed memory." And we have AmiLynch going on about an additional investigation and research. In my opinion, material on this is not much different than conspiracy theories on matters that are reported as fact. There are those who believe that Darlie Routier and Scott Peterson are innocent as well. When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are way to many "maybes" in that addition, including phrases like "he maybe feared". When anyone starts speculating on what is going on in someone else' mind it makes me suspicious. First, as I interpret it (and others may disagree) BLPCRIME works both ways. We rely on the courts to determine guilt or innocence, we shouldn't be trying to make a case for it either way. (Sure, innocent people get convicted all the time, but this isn't a court room in which to fight those battles.) It's a little more difficult to argue this since the subject is very notable and the case high profile. However, all I see is rank speculation by someone who is apparently (at least as written in the article) a mind-reader. If this was a scientific article I'd classify this as fringe material, definitely, no matter who it is from, because every theory needs facts to back it up. In this we have none, and a theory without facts is just a hypothesis, and Wikipedia doesn't report hypotheses. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest problem? The possibility that this is promotional material for a single book. Actually probability. Collect (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that hit's the nail square on the head. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, it is not. There are plenty of facts contained in the book, and in reviews in publications like "The Skeptic." The author is well-known in his field. He does not need to be promoted on Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't reviewing the book, only the addition to the article. (I might add that, as someone who is very familiar with neuroscience, especially in cognition and memory, I'm not a strong believer in repressed memories. Very few of us have total recall and even fewer eidetic memories. Most people don't even realize their memories are filtered and stored based on emotional salience (in computer-speak, compressed for easier storage), that memory involves as much imagination as it does cognition, and thus a memory is not a faithful recreation of actual events. However, as written, the addition would read as fringe even if written by Einstein.) Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the book is also being pushed at the Penn State child sex abuse scandal article; see Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal#Where do I mention Pendergrast's book?. Permalink here. Jeff in CA is supporting mention of it there as well. Anyway, it should be clear that I agree with Zaereth on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this edit and other edits by Jeff in CA at that article. Goodness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: If by 'pushing the book' you mean 'mentioning a relevant and reasonably reliable source', yes I am pushing the book. You wrote that 'When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section': would that be appropriate in this case? As a newbie I would appreciate some feedback on my now deleted edit (before AmiLynch's further edit): was it problematic because written under 'Case for innocence' rather than 'Further reading'? or for other reasons? Aerkem (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your newbie status, I have my doubts about that, but that's a different matter. Did you read what Zaereth stated above? Such a section is not typical. It is like the other two editors in particular are trying to make a case for this man's innocence. We don't give WP:Undue weight to books in this way. In BLP cases, when books have gotten a lot of media attention, they are likely to get a section or simply a paragraph in the article, but I'm not aware that this book has gotten a lot of media attention. As for mentioning the book in the "Further reading" section, yes, in my opinion, listing the book there is better. Or a single sentence or two on this matter, but not a whole section for it. Previously, you added a single sentence for it. This can simply fit under the "Imprisonment" section. When you made that material into a section, it was expanded, as very small sections and sections in general often are. AmiLynch's additions were more concerning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe this book will get a lot of media attention, as it contradicts the narrative of every major media outlet. The media is so homogeneous now, should we really let its coverage determine weight on Wikipedia? AmiLynch (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for the advice, I have now created that Further reading section. I meant newbie in this corner of Wikipedia, and unused to having long debates about short edits. Aerkem (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lone mention in Skeptic Magazine along with a lot of primary source links to the book. That is pretty much textbook promotional. Also, that table insertion at Penn State child sex abuse scandal is atrocious, an info dump of personal opinions and unsourced assertions about child rape victims. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree substantially with Valerian and Zaereth's comments. While repressed memories are a dubious source of information on past events at best, the replacement notion that Sandusky was railroaded by a conspiracy of law enforcement and therapists requires much better sourcing than one book, no matter how well-respected the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little digging into the source. I didn't have time to read it all, but skimmed through some of it and looked at reviews. The author is definitely trying to make a point, not that the subject is innocent but that he was convicted on junk psychology. He may very well have a good point, but herein lies the problem. Anyone can create a theory to fit any facts; that's what lawyers are for. It's a common problem in science (and especially junk science), because if you go out trying to prove a theory, you can undoubtedly cherrypick the facts to make them "fit." Show a moon-landing denier all the evidence, the millions of people involved in over 70 countries (I mean, it was the Australians who first spotted them returning) and they can spin those facts all away. (A wise person once said, "A sufficiently paranoid conspiracy theory can never be disproven." --scot) Any good scientist is acutely aware of this human tendency, and is careful to gather all the facts before formulating a theory --especially the ones that don't fit. (Another wise person once said (something like) "There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." --Enrico Fermi)

The problem I see with this source is this author is someone who is trying to make a point, using the subject as the sole example (more like an attorney than a scientist). I think he has some good points, and had he taken a more scientific and neutral approach, using many examples, this could have very well turned into a great source and possibly a scholarly reference ... for the repressed memory article maybe. The subject was obviously chosen for his high-profile status (sells more books that way) but in my opinion the author is writing from the point of a personal agenda, that is, to prove a point. If this were a medical article we would require a source like this to be peer-reviewed, and I'm afraid The Skeptic doesn't qualify for that. Since his point is obviously one of psychology, to me that doesn't seem much different.

Then there is the problem of BLPCRIME. Should we set a precedent where a people convicted of a crime can fight for their innocence on Wikipedia? If we do that, then shouldn't we allow the other side to fight for their guilt, just to maintain the guise of neutrality? One of the key factors in deciding if a source is reliable is if it is neutral. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This book is about Jerry Sandusky. The author has already written books separately debunking repressed memory theory (and it is widely debunked, not just by this author, and repressed memories are supposed to be inadmissible in court). AmiLynch (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being the subject of a book and the point it is driving at. Zaereth (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: The book in question may not be as objective as one would wish, but in this case, can we hope for much better? If I understand correctly, the case for Sandusky's guilt is based on testimonies which came years after the alleged facts, and which may well have been biased by financial incentives. In order to have a balanced approach, your 'good scientist' would have to account for the systematic bias that results from these incentives - although I am unsure whether a good Wikipedian should do so. Aerkem (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the content can be modified in a few places to make it completely objective. I don’t see any factual errors though, as surprising as some of the facts may be. Given that primary sources are unacceptable, this book is one of the few sources we have available (some of you are dismissive of it, but it is extensively sourced and well-cited itself). Other useful sources may exist though. As I wrote on the Jerry Sandusky talk page: Special Agent John Snedden investigated the case for the FBI to evaluate whether former University President Spanier’s Top Secret security clearance should be renewed and found there was no sexual abuse at PSU in this case, nor a cover-up. John Ziegler, another author (he is also a documentary filmmaker and former broadcaster), also did years of research and came to believe Sandusky was innocent. AmiLynch (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to sound like the fervent activism around Amanda Knox that overtook many discussion boards on the internet years ago. I do not mean that as a positive commentary. TheValeyard (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input.

Everyone knows the majority opinion (and it is an overwhelming majority) about Jerry Sandusky, and it is represented at length on his Wikipedia page. And wikipedia guidelines seems to place undue weight on majority opinion (imho), so maybe it is too soon for this to happen, but I don’t see the harm in having one subsection summarizing the reasons that some somewhat prominent people who have taken a hard look at the case conclude that he is innocent. It would be informative and thought-provoking, yet still be far outweighed by the material on the rest of the page. AmiLynch (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A respected, well-regarded researcher digs into a legal case in which a person was tried and convicted. He reads the transcripts of the trial, pores through written and recorded police records, and interviews victims and other individuals that had a role in case. He is diligent in ascribing attribution. He writes about what he found. He quotes extensively from the transcripts and records. He ends up with a description of the facts in the case that is more comprehensive than what had been publicly described previously. He publishes this material in a book. In the book, he comes to a conclusion based on what he reported. When he is later interviewed in a web broadcast about the material in the book, he predicts that the book will be ignored by all of the media. He states his belief that the media is so heavily invested in its own reporting that no major outlet will ever mention it. What has he done wrong? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He (the 'researcher') has done nothing wrong, but Wikipedia is not here to judge or assert or deny his guilt. In these circumstances, the Wikipedia article should mention his conclusions. But no more. And that's it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say there are millions of words on Wikipedia from such sources; words that do not mention innocence or guilt, but rather mention facts reported in various books and publications. What is wrong with attributing facts to a source? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Meotti

Accusations of plagiarism against journalist based on WP:OR diff, as well as Marc Tracy (presently a college sports writer) writing in a Tablet (magazine)'s WP:NEWSBLOG The Scroll. In addition we have Max Blumenthal writing in 2 blogs/opinion pieces atributing part of his writing to Tracy, and a piece in iMediaEthics which is attributed in whole to Tracy in the Tablet, with the exception of a response by Meotti which they received themselves. No subsequent followup reporting since 2012.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is a fringe polemicist who was discovered plagiarizing other journalists in 2012 by two colleagues, Marc Tracy and Max Blumenthal. Two newspapers/magazines, Ynet and Commentary (magazine)Commentary then dropped him. Since then he appears to work for a minor Italian newspaper Il Foglio, a West Bank settler news organ and an American rightwing thinktank.

Somehow he got a wiki article, a piece of hype. When I noticed it, recalling his run-in with fellow journalists, I added the details of his plagiarism. It is all duly sourced to professional journalists: Marc Tracy wrote on Jewish issues for the Newe Republic, then the Tablet and now aspecializes in sports reportage for the New York Times. Max Blumenthal is famous. Both provided detailed textual evidence in their pieces, and quoted Meotti's responses. Meotti did not challenge the evidence which anyone can see is serial copy-and-paste journalistic hackwork. He merely said he had been careless, lost his notes, and was being persecuted because he is preo-Zionist. I,e, he was a victim of proxy antisemitism.

What Icewhiz is trying to do is to remove the very sources where Meotti himself appears, is cited, and asked to respond to the evidence. It is not a BLP issue because Meotti himself has never denied the dozen or so cases of him copying other authors verbatim. Read the evidence of the sources carefully, where he is said by Ynet to have 'admitted' to copying and much more, and the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meotti has been employed by Il Foglio since 2003 [3]). It appears that in other outlets he was unpaid and/or regular contributing op-ed. As for "admitting" - his response has admitted only the following but did carelessly fail to attribute a few isolated sentences in my own articles. I will not do so in future. Many others journalists and writers... [4]. Max Blumenthal (who is a diametrically opposed polemicist) to Meotti's writing in opEdNews and in his blog in pro-Hezbollah Al Akhbar (Lebanon) - is not a RS. None of alleged people from whom isolated sentences and fragments are alleged to have been lifted from have commented.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is an admission. Max Blumenthal is citable for his own views in whichever venue he chooses to publish them. The fact that a newspaper may be pro-Hezbollah means nothing: most of the Israeli sources we quote every day are pro-settler, ignore IDF terrorism etc., but not for that do we refrain from using them. People are not 'alleged'. They exist, and, as journalists, comment on the flaws of their peers, as did Tracy, Blumenthal and Smith. They quoted Meotti's responses and admissions, and the two newspapers/magazines who severed their connections with Meotti did so after examining the evidence provided by Trecy and Blumenthal, who are paid for their contributions and widely published, unlike Meotti. So far, you don't have a technical leg to stand on for exclusion, and the objections look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, regarding material introduced to balance a page which was sheer hype, with no mention of the criticism his peers made of his work. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rather strong technical leg here is WP:BLPSOURCES - a single NEWSBLOG source + Max Blumenthal's opinion (which may be notable as such, may be not) - is not appropriate sourcing for such an accusation in Wikipedia's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy you cited: it reads

These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

As to the second part, Tracy, and Blumenthal's evidence (that of acknowledged professional journalists) was clearly reviewed by the mainstream media that subsequently dropped their arrangements with Meotti. I.e. Ynet has a fact-checking process (In all of his fields Tracy is an evident tracker of how news gets to be news, i.e.this. He is not a sports blogger but has ranged widely on intellectual history, reviewing books such as Berman's which deal precisely with the same ground as Meotti's; or sexual assault on campuses and regional sociology, on Jewishness, which, in one aspect, is what Meotti, a goy, was attacking. The Tablet, the New Republic and the New York Times do not employ him as a blogger. And we recuse blogs if they are opinionizing esp. by minor figures, not when an accomplished mainstream journalist uses a magazine's scroll venue to lay out a carefully documented case for plagiarism by one of his peers, alerting the profession to a neglected problem. Precisely because he noticed with close analysis what Meotti's practice was, did Meotti's employers cancel their connections with him, accepting Tracy's evidence on the issue, in what is effectively an informal peer-review process. Therefore, you are skewing policy to defend Meotti's right to have his record untarnished by facts that have been accepted as true by Meotti, and the journalistic community.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem Meotti continued at his regular day job at Il Foglio, and that he has been picked up by other organizations. A source for "accepted as true by Meotti, and the journalistic community" is lacking here. In fact - there seems to be a distinct lack of coverage of this - in particular lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This got little secondary coverage because Meotti is a very minor figure. He was caught out plagiarizing and since then has no mainstream employment, being acceptable only to extremist organs like Arutz Sheva and Gatestone Institute. The rest of the highly competitive world of serious journalism is too busy to take notice of him, which, contrary to your expectations above, does not translate out as meaning that nothing serious journalists noted about his copy-and-paste hackwork may be alluded to on his wikipage. As to Il Foglio, it has a circulation of 25,000 and is partially funded by a politician and business man undergoing 4 charges for corruption. Meotti was confronted with the evidence, and did not rebut it: he waffled on about being a tad careless, losing his research notes, being persecuted because of his views etc. If Meotti is to have a wiki page, it has to be accepted that exceptions will not be made to whitewash to a glowing positive the facts of his career, but all angles, adequately sourced, will inevitably have to be covered. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Newman (political geographer)

I came across these edit summaries in the article's history, apparently by the subject himself:

"It is my name which is being slandered here and I would exect you to publish a balanced and accurate account of the story. As I mentioned previously I am willing to let you, or any neutral adjudicator, to have all the official documents to read and reach a decision, on the condition that they would not be published as I do not intend to infringe university regulations of non publication."
"This is an extremely one sided version of events and does not reflect, in any way, the actual rulings of the disciplinary committee. A previous edit (not by me) gave a much more balanced account. The new references do not reflect what is written in the account and it is clearly published, systematically, with the intent of further damaging the reputation of Newman and , as such, I make no apologies for inserting the changes myself. This causing much personal damage. I am happy to let the adjudicator see official copies of the rulings (although it is prohibited from publishing them) for them to make their own decisions. You would then see how innaccurate the latest edit is and how one sided. I respect the right of the public to know but this is part of a personal campaign being waged against me and causing me a great deal of anguish. It distorts the entire entry and I would respectfully ask that it be removed, or an agreed balanced and accurate version be inserted."

Given the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look at the article. Judging by the editing history of Special:Contributions/Newmanthfc, this appears to be an auto-biography, so there's a concern there as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked two of the recent WP:MEAT accounts and semi-protected the page for three months (consistent with the previous protection; there appears to be history of socking at this article). I'll leave scrutinising of the content to somebody else. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman and Alex Shih. I have trimmed this article in 2009. Isn't user:יניב הורון yet another puppet of the same puppeteer? I see continued edit warring and similar summaries in several entries. Also extensive knowledge for an account opened a week ago. gidonb (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman and Alex Shih, just refreshing tags. Alex, thanks also for the recent DYK! gidonb (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I agree, but I am not sure which account it is related to. I'll keep a close watch too, thank you for your work on this, and no problem! Alex Shih (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Thank you for caring so much about WP! It looks to me as one of AndresHerutJaim's puppets. This would further show that the extensive and severe inclusion of BGU's disciplinary findings and related coverage is based on the political enmity of an actor in Israel's far right (whether living in Israel or not) to an author and speaker on Israel's moderate left. By punishing one's sock puppets and not all the others we are left with a BLP problem which is how K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) started the discussion. I believe that the disciplinary section needs major trimming and the rest of the text is too fluffy and far from current as there was lopsided interest by all recent editors. This is how content grows in all directions except towards a better Wikipedia article. BTW we see this at all Israel and Palestine articles. Topics get buried under well referenced and ever growing content from "right" and "left" to the extent that little else of the people, locations, and histories can be seen. Bottom line is that I could work on this 9 years later but do not look forward to the potential edit warring. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Mustafa

Interested editors may wish to participate in the RfC at Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations, which was relisted on 11 February 2018. This is a contentious, multi-part issue that sorely needs attention from cooler heads who are well-versed in BLP questions. Any input is welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Living People Biographies with untrue and manipulative statements

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement GMG ^talk 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at ^[1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry ^[2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria ^[3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria ^[4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.

4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.

He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgelee78 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Haven't really read into this in detail, but I was wondering if Quickfingers could offer some insights into the situation. Alex Shih (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex Shih The complainant, Gorgelee78 is probably someone related to Peevski, or a paid editor. They should be investigated. Back in last December, the main editor of one of his medias, "Monitor" tried to cover up information about him. Check the related COI report for more information.

I note that the article has virtually no English-language sources. Given that inclusionists reject lack of English-language sources as a deletion rationale, we do have an interesting conundrum: how do we ensure BLP (and NPOV generally) when only a tiny proportion of the Wikipedia editor community can read the sources? Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find an active editor and ask/bribe them to take a look at it. Per policy we dont exclude non-Eng sources, we *can* require a brief translation posted to the talkpage but short of someone with a good grasp of the language actually looking at it - it is a trust-based/agf that the source references the material. What would be helpful would be a list of unreliable tabloid sources for various countries so at least if we see biography with contentious info sourced to X tabloid, we know to get someone to take a much closer look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

though it does not provide direct support for the details, I give considerable weight to the Reporters without Borders source for the overall tone of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y&R ANZ

New editor now blocked for major edit warring over content they object to strenuously as, let's say, "misleading". I'm sometimes blind in these matters, but due diligence requires that I ask for a review of the now removed contentious material. dif is here. Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Pierce

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

I just removed some WP:BLP content that appeared to me to be agenda-driven, and largely not about Pierce. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also !admin, can we get a rev del on BLP grounds as well as the fact that the content appears to be copied and pasted unattributed excerpts from the sources. GMG ^talk 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman

Regarding the BLP for Peter Ruckman, apparently his son PS Ruckman Jr. committed suicide right after possibly shooting to death his own two sons in the family home the other day. You can see this information has been added to the Peter Ruckman biography at the tail end of the personal life section (first section in the article). Two questions: 1) Should we be concerned about having that statement before the authorities conclude their murder investigation, and 2) if confirmed, do we keep it permanently in the article? Just so we're clear, my guess is that it's true and he probably did kill his kids, but also keeping in mind that PS Ruckman Jr. is not the main subject of the Peter Ruckman BLP. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mudar Zahran

I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Zahran is a Jordanian-born Palestinian. He was criticized—in very harsh terms—by Caroline Glick, a prominent and influential editorial columnist (and deputy managing editor) for the Jerusalem Post. Under normal circumstances, we would cite her column, attribute her opinion, and call it a day.

The problem is that Glick didn't publish her views in the Jerusalem Post, but on Facebook. Her Facebook post was cited the next day by Elder of Ziyon, a blog. Two weeks later, an opinion columnist in Globes, an Israeli business newspaper, wrote about it. The Globes column was re-published the same day by Glick's paper, the Jerusalem Post.

Can Glick's views be included in Zahran's BLP? Clearly Elder of Ziyon, a blog, cannot be cited. Can Glick's Facebook post? What about the Globes opinion column? Does the fact that the paper where Glick is an editor republished the Globes column give it any added credibility?

If you think this question is better suited for WP:RS/N, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Schneider (in this case writing in Globes) is one of Israel's leading political commentators/reporters - possibly more than Glick - and in this case it is not an opinion column, the original Hebrew is [5] (which Jpost probably translated 5 days later, and then this got republished by Globes in English - Globes English being a reprint of a reprint in this case). Some additional news here [6].Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globes itself (in Hebrew, the English version is very scaled down and lower frequency (weekly?) translation of a small portion of the daily Hebrew) has been Israel's leading business paper for many years. In terms of RSness it would be similar to Haaretz in Hebrew, with the advantage of not having a pronounced political slant. Schneider herself would probably be labelled as mainstream left (i.e. Zionist Union's vicinty) politically.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ahmet sik

Related article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Şık The following link is not a valid websites and redirects to a porn web site. Please remove it from external sources section.

http://theopinions.info/thearmyoftheimam.htm

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekabeyler (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David McGimpsey

The apparent subject of this article has been edit warring to remove information about about an alleged sexual misconduct that has been reported by the CBC. Given that he is a relatively unknown person, however, I think it is worth reviewing whether the considerations of WP:BLPCRIME come into play and whether mentioning it is giving it undue weight at this point. Bringing it here so uninvolved editors can review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME doesn't come into it. What's being covered here is a university inquiry, and the administrative matter of his teaching assignments. There's no obstacle to including this material, given the quality of the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would BLPCRIME not apply here? He's not well-known, and these are currently just allegations. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that sexual misconduct is a potential criminal allegation, even if it is being handled administratively. BLPCRIME involves material that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. The CBC article is completely ambiguous as to what the actual allegations are: whether we are talking about making a hostile environment through dirty jokes or some form of sexual assault. Sexual misconduct opens the door for the later interpretation when we do not specify what it is, so I think BLPCRIME does come into play, as there is the suggestion that a crime may have been committed, especially when one considers that the sourcing doesn't specify the allegations. I'm not arguing one way or another for inclusion (I'm leaning against it currently, but not enough to strongly object if consensus is otherwise), but I do think we would need a consensus to include it, and consider if we should exclude it per the principles behind BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's being investigated as a crime and that's what an editor wants to write about, then we should consider BLPCRIME. If what reliable sources report is that it's being handled administratively (not as a crime), then BLPCRIME is irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It matters the substance of the material, which in this case is highly sensitive and could imply criminal wrongdoing, and that is covered under BLPCRIME. It is a complete perversion of the intent of the policy to say that it is fine to report on things that are potentially criminal if no charges have been brought, but it becomes not okay to do so when they are filed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexual assault" is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction involved. In short, it precisely fills the bill for falling under BLPCRIME. Suppose someone was "being investigated for mass-killing" - no rational person would hold that the claim did not fall under BLPCRIME. "Sexual assault" is a crime in Canada. No matter who is "doing the investigation." In fact, it is likely that the issue is more critical if the investigator is not specifically trained in investigative work. Collect (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Draper

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

I noticed that a new user removed their post at this noticeboard. The post can be seen at the bottom of 09:09, 8 March 2018. The article has a lot of details concerning allegations of inappropriate behavior, with half of the lead devoted to the topic. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No big mystery here guys. I'm attempting to have libelous information removed from John T. Draper's page. I've followed Wikiepedia's instructions and am waiting for the info to be removed. If Wikipedia editors won't follow Wikipedia's policy, then further action will be taken. This is a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue of defamatory information being allowed by Wikipedia to remain published to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMP Bart (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:EMP_Bart you've identified yourself as his manager, that could violate Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. Second, in your original post you call this information libelous, and now you're calling it defamatory, uh, you could explain why it's showing up | over at this website that's not a blog, has editorial oversite and likely qualifies as a reliable source? It appears on others as well, Slashdot, dailydot, etc... and it's been an open secret for years. I'm personally old enough to remember him being mentioned in TAP magazine, and back when the original phrack was still being published, even then it was an open secret, the only difference today, is, now he's gotten him self banned from a very well known hacker con because of it. That being said, if you can cite reliable sources to the contrary, you may have a case, but as it stands, the information , as long as it's reliably sourced, should stay. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, it doesn't matter what my relationship to Mr. Draper is, the material is defamatory. Second, libel is a sub-species of defamation. It's a little concerning that you're being standoff-ish about that fact. Third, you sound bias yourself, so maybe that is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You could possibly be receiving money to keep this information up? I identified myself and relationship with Mr. Draper in order to be 100% transparent, so maybe you should do the same. And finally, it doesn't matter how many times and places the information has been repeated as it is defamatory. I'm making a request in good-faith for the editors to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and remove this libelous information. This is my fourth request and have even gone so far as to show how the information meets the legal standard for defamation (of which libel is a type).

Please remove the libelous information about John T. Draper.

Sincerely yours, [User:EMP_Bart]

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Black Panther member Abu-Jamal was convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. As detailed in our article in sections Appeals and review and Popular support and opposition, Abu-Jamal's conviction, guilt, and status are all controversial.

On 19 February, CityOfSilver added this text to the first sentence of the lead:

Mumia Abu-Jamal is... a convicted murderer...

This was reverted by Bbb23. The edit has been edit-warred over continuously since, with current iterations making "convicted murderer" the very first description of the lead and article.

This edit was originally made by an IP 18 months ago [7], though I promptly reverted them [8] at that time. As far as I can tell, since the article's creation in 2001 it hasn't attempted either to label Abu-Jamal in this way, nor to declare that wikipedia has discovered the WP:TRUTH of his status as a "murderer."

I think it's clear that given the incredible controversy over Abu-Jamal's case, and his own insistence on his innocence, that we cannot describe him as "a convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:LABEL, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This would be wrong anywhere in the article, but in the lead, and in the first sentence, this editorial mistake is especially egregious.

More eyes on the article would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been semi-protected by @CambridgeBayWeather: yesterday. Given that the same revert war returned with registerred accounts today, I have upped the protection to full-protection. Discussion should occur on the article talk page, and once a clear consensus emerges, we can remove the protection. --Jayron 32 19:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumia is a convicted murderer, he was convicted in court and the conviction was upheld every time. Therefore it is 100% acceptable to say that Mumia is a convicted murderer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to litigate this 1) Please use the article talk page to discuss article content issues 2) Repeating the same points over and over again is unlikely to helpful. Your position is clear from your comments on the article talk page. Let others weigh in. The weight of consensus lies not with the person who repeats themselves the most times. --Jayron 32 19:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to a BLP/N comment. The claim was it's a violation of BLP to call him a convicted murderer. I am posting on the BLP/N page to state that it is not indeed a violation of BLP. We are not calling him a murderer, we are calling him a convicted murderer, which he is and therefore there is no BLP issue. (I also don't think your protection should have been put in place after his edit, the discussion is now whether to remove or keep, but the consensus as current is to include and thereofre if you are going to fully protect the page, it should be as it was yesterday, before his edit. ) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. The article is protected in the state it is in when it is protected. I will make no attempt to decide whose version is correct, I don't really care. There were additional reverts applied after the semi-protection was used (indeed, pretty much all edits after the initial semiprotection was applied have been reverts of the same nature, back and forth) and as such, the full protection was necessary. I will not be editing that article in any way. AFTER you have achieved clear consensus at the article talk page for any particular text, THEN we can talk about unprotecting it. Not before. --Jayron 32 19:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32 and CambridgeBayWeather: this article has been around for a long time — since 2001 — so with or without protection, and with or without the right/wrong version, I'd love for outside input from this board and other experienced editors (which is not to say those involved are not experienced, as they certainly are). -Darouet (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a wonderful idea. I will not be holding any opinions or giving any input, as I have protected the article and am acting solely in an administrative role in this capacity. WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:RFC are all good resources to attract interested editors. You can also ask for input at related Wikiprojects. --Jayron 32 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melania Trump

The article (infobox, specifically) contains a claim about her citizenship without citation. Should be provided or the claim removed. 75.172.227.168 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue? The infobox states she has duel citizenship. She was born in Slovenia and would have become an American citizen after marrying an American. Is the issue concerning whether she retained Slovenian citizenship? freshacconci (✉) 19:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the lead states she became a US citizen in 2006, with two sources. Is the issue concerning the status of her Slovenian citizenship? freshacconci (✉) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's issue. 174.19.229.79 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a BLP issue -- she was born in Slovenia so it wouldn't be controversial to claim she's a dual citizen. It's about sourcing. The two sources that are there say she became an American citizen in 2006. It could be just an issue of someone mixing up citizenship/nationality/ethnicity. We could just remove Slovenian citizenship until a source is found confirming it. freshacconci (✉) 15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I found online, Slovenia does not revoke citizenship for those who become citizens elsewhere. As the US permits dual citizenships, she probably has dual US/Slovenian citizenship by default. Even is she "renounced" her Slovenia citizenship it would be merely symbolic as Slovenia would still consider her a citizen. However, there are no sources that directly state that she has duel citizenship. It may need to be removed even if common sense tells us that she would be (a dual citizen) because she can't not be. freshacconci (✉) 15:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it is non-controversial, and as such, doesn't have to be removed. I would add a CN tag on the Slovenian part and see if someone can dig up a source. I just did a good-faith google search, and it's hard to find any definitive statement one way or another. --Jayron 32 16:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that I found online that was a legitimate source was only about how she became a US citizen, which isn't of concern. According to one source, there is no question that she is now a US citizen; it's just a question of how. Anything I could find on dual citizenship was on sites like Quora and Reddit. freshacconci (✉) 16:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming someone is a citizen of a country when he or she is not is extremely controversial and offensive. I will remove it by next week if left without sources. 174.19.229.79 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's your call. I just don't see how this would be offensive. She was born in Slovenia. To claim she holds Slovenian citizenship is hardly libelous. If your concern is in regards to the controversy surrounding her emigration to the US and her pathway to citizenship, in this instance it's irrelevant as all legitimate sources state that she is a US citizen. As well, there are no rules regarding the citizenship of a First Lady, so her legitimacy as First Lady is not in question. I can't find any sources that help, so by all means remove it if you feel you need to. I would say a citation needed tag would suffice but it's not important either way. freshacconci (✉) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this offensive, but it is very obviously WP:OR to be analyzing Slovenian law, US law, and Meliana's life story to determine that she has dual citizenship. It might be difficult to find a more text book case of WP:OR. This should absolutely be removed and not restored without sourcing. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang Yin (scientist)

The IP address (14.141.50.250)based in Delhi, India has been repetitively inserting libelous, unsourced contents to this page since Nov, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.196.66.35 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours for vandalism. If they carry on in the same manner once the block expires, they can be blocked for a longer period. The IP never makes constructive edits anyway, so they'd be no loss to the project! Neiltonks (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail ibn Musa Menk

Name of Article Imail_ibn_Musa Menk

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

The references given for this person have been falsified in an attempt to defame a person and cause harm. It identifies the subject Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk which he has never self-proclaimed to be. This user profile GorgeCusterSabre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre) aims to put the subject in a negative light , the person writes bad things about people who don't belong to his sect of Islam. His views re not neutral in their tone. He repeatedly deletes any additions on the page even when they are referenced proeprley without explanation I want to know is this something Wiki pedia is encourages and allows ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Nuru

None of the information on the wiki seems to be true and she's mentioned almost nowhere on the internet despite supposedly selling millions of records. It looks like Isabelle Nuru has been inputting fake information about herself and then citing this wiki elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.139.22 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delyan_Peevski

[2] ttps://public.brra.bg/checkups/default.ra?

[3] ttp://mc.government.bg/index.php?l=2

[4] ttp://mc.government.bg/page.php?p=58&s=429&sp=67&t=63&z=436

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards