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 Jaderp6 (talk | contribs) at 13:15, 19 March 2018 (→{{la|Delyan Peevski}}: 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:

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

    Brock Pierce

    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. GMGtalk 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the worst section --- IMO it is intrinsically violative of a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and appears to be intended to attack a person rather than provide encyclopedic information of value to readers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 13 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]

    Acts of progeny are not generally of encyclopedic value for their parents. If the progeny are notable, their acts belong in their articles. Note that we do not, for example, list "drunk driving" cases of children of notable persons either. The article about the notable person is about that person not children and grandchildren. Collect (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to elaborate on what was said above, if the child is not notable enough to have their own article, something about them needs to be significant to the parent, other than merely listing them. Bill Cosby's son was murdered and there was significant coverage and impact on Cosby to warrant an article on the murder (Murder of Ennis Cosby), although not for an article on the son himself. Another concern would be Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. This just happened and the impact is unknowable. Per BLP, there are too many questions that can't be answered for this to be mentioned at all in the article. freshacconci (✉) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that WP:BLP still applies to the son as the events are recent. The excision I made was instantly undone by an editor who has repeatedly added nugatory material. This biographical article appears, alas, to be basically in the nature of "Peter Ruckman was an evil religious bigot who managed to get his own son to be a murderer" sort of material. Even most of the cites have lengthy quotes about Ruckman which are an eensy bit less than charitable. Will someone please join in there? Collect (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For interested parties, please see Talk:Peter Ruckman#Death of Ruckman's Son. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    John Draper

    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] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, User:EMP_Bart/User:2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 Are you talking about me, in regards to getting paid? I sure hope not, you'll need to back that up with something called proof. To be sure, your relationship with Captain Crunch does matter, please take a look at WP:COI and you'll see what I mean. That being said, claiming material is "defamatory " or "libelous" can't be used as a trump card on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources that say that he doesn't do the things he's been accused of, post them, also , be careful of throwing around accusations about people. For the record, I don't personally know anyone associated with this post, nor am I getting paid or receiving any compensation in any form to keep the article in it's current state. Finally, please login with your regular user ID, not logging it, while not in and of itself a violation, might look like one .  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  14:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd never heard of Draper before I just read the entry, through the link on this noticeboard. Content is well sourced, relevant. It is debatable whether it should be featured so prominently (right now it's several sentences in the lede) but there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed completely.Bangabandhu (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The WEIGHT given to each and every allegation approaches UNDUE in the body of the BLP, and the lead definitely exceeded that standard. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ismail ibn Musa Menk

    Ismail ibn Musa Menk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    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]

    Actually Kindmind, I merely want the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. What value will this article have unless it is neutral in tone, accurate and well supported by reliable third-party sources? I have no position on Mufti Menk (for or against), and you do not know my sect of Islam, if I even have one. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nucleya

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

    The author is subjective in his account, no citations for claims, poor quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.241.54 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have cut this back and removed large sections which were hopelessly promotional. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    nabil gholam

    reads as a formal press release/paid advertisement with little to no verifiable sources.

    Nabil Gholam has been tagged since 2012. Trimmed it right back and tagged it for notability. Could be expanded and he is probably notable enough to survive AfD, but I've no time/interest to expand it. Edwardx (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sole source is SPS from his firm in the first place. Not even close, unless we let every architect auto-qualify as notable. Collect (talk)
    Poor sourcing is not a valid deletion rationale. WP:BEFORE applies, and quick searches of Google and Google Books (other search engines are available) suggest that there is enough out there. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Nabil Gholam to take a look at this. Agathoclea (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seth Meyers

    Seth Meyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I recently removed some content from this BLP that I felt was not reliably sourced enough, and other content that did not seem to be reflected by the source. This revert was recently undone, and I wanted to know other editors' opinions regarding whether the content that I removed and which has now been restored complies with BLP. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the information for being WP:UNDUE and having poor sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yuka Kuramochi

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

    This article needs a LOT of help. I happened upon it and it's nearly nothing but trivia about her and non notable appearances. Her appearances list is longer than some A-list celebrities. Also a lot of it is in broken English. "Sentences" like "Because her hip size is large, some swimwear and the swimsuit wearing with the passage of time into the butt flesh quickly into nature and always going to "T-back state", so the charm point is called "fully automatic T-back" and has a distinctive commitment such as "T-back never wears"." I don't even know where to begin to fix this, so I'm asking for some help by folks more knowledgeable. That or nuke the thing. As it stands now it's a mockery of Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually nearly every article created by User:CrisBalboa is a mess. Taking this up with ANI here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CrisBalboa --Tarage (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is certainly a mess. I'm going to go through and remove most of the unencyclopedic content. Meatsgains(talk) 01:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proper for Japanese Wiki - maybe. Not notable for Wikipedia AFAICT at all. Collect (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You're gonna have to look at all of his articles. There are many just like this one. --Tarage (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at small handful, and you are correct. Everything I've seen is very similar to this article. The user has created well over 700 of these articles, of people who are mostly unknown outside of Japan.
    I would suggest refining your request at ANI to include more examples, especially since Meatsgains has done some clean-up to this one. At ANI, though, you'll want to be very clear that this is more than just some bad grammar, but we have a lot of BLPs without any sourcing, some are just lists without any real info whatsoever, and where there are sources almost none are in English. I have to agree with Collect, that most of these people are not notable outside of Japan. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do my best, but I'm not super familiar with BLP stuff so it's hard for me to find examples. I'm going to copy what you said here though at ANI and hope that I can get some more eyes on this. If you wanna stop by and echo my statements that'd be helpful. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is simply post some of the various articles there, so people can easily look them up. (You'll get far more replies that way than by simply saying, go look for yourself.) Zaereth (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome! Thanks for your help with this Atlantic306. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jane Golden

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

    The first paragraph of Jane Golden's listing contains this completely unsourced statement: "She is the only hold out to keep up a wildly reviled mural of former Philadelphia Mayor and notorious homophobe and racist Frank Rizzo. Despite public outcry and several vandalisms, she is pushing for the mural to be kept up."

    I don't believe this is accurate, but in any event there is no source for these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:700:171:41CC:3C7C:AE04:B5FC (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the obviously non-BLP-compliant statement recently added by another IP user warned them on their user page. Thank you for the notice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnny Antonelli bio

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

    Your bio of Johnny Antonelli states that the Giants traded him along with Harvey Kuenn to the Cleveland Indians in 1960. This is not correct regarding Harvey Keunn. Keunn was in fact traded to the Indians by the Detroit Tigers for Rocky Colavito. Keunn was the 1959 A.L. batting champ and Colavito may have been the 1959 A.L. home run champ. This trade was very unpopular with the Cleveland fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.59.202 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Floyd McKissick Jr.

    Floyd McKissick Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Was wondering if some others might take a look at content that IP 96.10.12.142 has been continuously trying to add to the article. The content has to do with an incident between McKissick and his former wife. A source is cited, but it seems quite WP:UNDUE and might be a case of someone trying to WP:RGW. If this incident is inded something meriting a mention in the article, then I think much stronger sourcing (at least more than the brief mentionin the indyweek source) should be provided. It would help though, to know what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that the content that the IP (and others before them) is attempting to add consistently lacks the information that the subject was acquitted of both of the criminal charges that the IP is trying to introduce to the article, despite the fact that their own sources report the acquittals. The IP is clearly interested primarily in damaging the subject's reputation by incompletely reporting the facts surrounding the claims. This has been going on since May 2017. General Ization Talk 22:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another problem is that the cited source seems to be (indirectly) quoting McKissick with respect to both the incudent(s) and the claim(s) of acquittal. It does not seem to me to be a factual reporting of the incident, but McKissick’s explanation of it and the reporter does not seem to have tried to confirm what was said (at least, that’s how it kind of reads to me). Now, if someone feels making such a distinction in the actual article content would fix things, then maybe including it could be agreed upon; however, that still seems a bit UNDUE to me and citing secondary sources which better discuss the incident(s) and basing the article content on such sources would be much better In my opinion. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be reading a bit much into the source that may not be there. I only interpret the first sentence of that paragraph as being in the subject's voice. The remainder of the paragraph seems to be in the voice of the reporter, whom we have no reason to suspect failed to verify the material they wrote. (E.g., does not say that McKissick pointed out he's "been cleared of other accusations"; it states that as fact). Likewise the unambiguous "He was acquitted in both cases". In the absence of information to the contrary, I think we have to assume that was verified by the reporter. We agree it should stay out, but not because the source is questionable. General Ization Talk 01:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be misreading it, but I think the "And" at the beginning of the second sentence is what's causing me concern because it does seems to connect the two sentences. Regardless of whether it's a case of misinterpretation or poor writing, I don't think the source is automatically bad for that reason; I just think it has to be used a little more carefully and that corroborating sources should be also cited. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor appears to now appears to be engaging in WP:SOCK to re-add the content after being formally warned about WP:EW. A WP:RPP has been made for the article (I was in the process of doing it) but General Ization was a bit faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cynthia Ross Friedman

    There is a message at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"My" Wikipage., that may require attention in terms of BLP policy. I am simply providing this information, and I do not know anything about the merits of the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Hoff Sommers

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers There is contentious source material referring to Christina Hoff Sommers as an anti-feminist, and as a feminist. Past talk discussions have been unable to agree on what to put in the page. Users are attempting to shoehorn in anti-feminist comments, even though discussions going back a year have not been able to agree. The subject in question disagrees greatly with the labeling of anti-feminist. S806 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be a IDLI issue to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been discussion of this going back years. No consensus was ever reached. This is extremely contentious, and Christian Hoff Sommers herself has expressed great disagreement with the labeling. This is especially relevant because there are legitimate sources calling her both, yet only one is allowed in. It's clearly defamatory. S806 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know enough about Sommers from the issues around GamerGate that we shouldn't ignore the criticism directed towards her as anti-feminist, though that should come after the article explains her views on feminism and why she calls herself on. The article presently does identify that there different realms of thinking around what "feminism" means, so starting with what she says she stands for, then what her critics say, is fully reasonable per BLP and NPOV. --Masem (t) 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why sources labeling her as a feminist are not being allowed? This has all been discussed in the talk archive, and there are sources for both sides (feminist/anti-feminist), but only one side is allowed in. That's the whole point. S806 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I must be missing something on the current page that her views aren't being allowed. I do agree both her view on why she considers herself a feminist and those that say she's not need to be presented, but I'm not seeing much of the latter in the article in its current state. --Masem (t) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Christina Hoff Sommers page has been protected four days by User:NeilN. The filer of this report, User:S806, has been blocked as a sock per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist. In case of further trouble the page is covered by WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBGG. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Debatably non-self-published straight translations of a blog?

    Our article on Hayao Miyazaki currently cites a translation of his son's personal blog in three locations. WP:BLPSPS allows for self-published sources only under very particular circumstances and only sources by the subject himself (not a member of his family), but if "nausicaa.net" (which apparently has an editorial team) publishes what appears to be a straight translation of his son's (presumably self-published) blog, does that satisfy? As for content, two instances could probably be cited to reliable sources (if only in Japanese), but the quote in the "personal life" section (which I will not repeat) seems concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Ugh. I just found tracked down the original "blog" here -- does being on the company's official website mean BLPSPS doesn't apply? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A "translation" of a blog can not become more reliable than the original blog. This seems a tad self-evident. Collect (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, but with BLPSPS, isn't reliability technically irrelevant? It's a primary source attributed as such inline, which normally would be acceptable except that the policy doesn't allow us to cite self-published sources, reliable or no, and in this case it isn't technically self- published. (I'm playing devil's advocate here; I personally would prefer not to cite it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Gabb

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

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

    Daniel Biss

    I have a concern about a statement in the page for Daniel Biss . I don't know him and have no connection with him, but as he is a candidate for political office (contentious Democratic primary for IL governor), he is probably under extra scrutiny right now.

    Under "Personal life, education, and mathematical career", there is the following statement: "Nikolai Mnëv, a mathematician at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St. Petersburg in Russia, found that the proof written by Biss in his article was "seriously flawed". When Mnëv found the flaw, Biss did not immediately retract it; it took nearly four years." Reference # [15] is given for the second sentence. Reference [15] is from the personal blog of another mathematician named Doron Zeilberger.

    In the blog post, Dr. Zeilberger states "It took the Annals of Mathematics many years to finally accept, very reluctantly, Tom Hales' seminal, computer-assisted, article proving Kepler's 300-year-old conjecture, because they didn't trust computer proofs. It took them only a couple of months to accept a human-generated proof, by Daniel Biss, that was later found, by Nikolai Mnev, to be seriously flawed (and even though the error was pointed out more than five years ago, it took them about four years to publish a retraction)."

    Dr. Zeilberger's words are ambiguous as to whether it was the journal, Annals of Mathematics, that failed to publish Biss's retraction, or whether it was due to Biss failing to submit his retraction until four years later. It could have been a combination of delays on the part of both Biss and the journal. However, at least just going by this single source, what is stated in the Wikipedia article - that "Biss did not immediately retract it" i.e. putting the blame solely on Biss - is not correct.

    Furthermore, Dr. Zeilberger specifically names his blog "Dr. Z's opinions" - he clearly does not intend for his blog to be used as an academic or journalistic source. (See http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html )

    I think this statement, cited only with Dr. Zeilberger's blog post, might violate the policy of Verifiability. The statement makes Biss look bad, and is poorly sourced. Sources should be added to back up the fact that it was actually Biss's fault that the retraction was not published for four years. If no other sources for that statement exist, the statement could be more accurately edited to something like "After Mnëv found the flaw, the retraction did not appear in the journal for nearly four years." - this would be (1) more neutral as it reflects on Biss and (2) correct according to information in the citation.

    Ideally, though, there would be another source to even back up the statement that it took four years at all. A mathematician or librarian (which I am neither) could easily look up Biss's original article and its retraction in the Annals of Mathematics and verify that the interval was four years. If it isn't, the statement should be removed.

    I'm happy to make the edit if others agree; I'm just brand-new to Wikipedia editing so I wanted to see what more experienced folks thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpunk23 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for calling attention to that. That paragraph relied heavily on sources that are not acceptable as reliable sources for a biography of a living person, including both the opinion blog and the stackexchange site. Additionally, the claims therein didn't even quite match the sources that were used (i.e., the faulting of the author for not publishing a retraction is, in the source, the faulting of the publication.) For those reasons, I have removed that paragraph. If someone wants to rebuild, they are free to work toward better sourcing, if further information on his retractions is needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Terry Hall (singer).

    Terry Hall (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I tried to edit the page to reflect the current situation in Terry Hall's life and was rejected because it was not sourced, but a point that I believe is false and is basically Lindy Heymann telling a journalist she is his partner is being upheld. This woman is harassing me constantly and I am his current legal wife. I reported the matter to police because I don't have proof that is of a type you will accept. Sincerely, Heidi Ann Murphy/Lancia Roselya, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.16 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever the merits of this claim, the article text regarding Heymann did not accurately reflect the source, and I have therefore removed it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    James Allsup

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

    I don't want to get sucked in to this myself, but there are BLP violations going on at James Allsup. Some editors want to call him a white supremacist, and have put this in the lead with seven citations to crap sources like Mashable and The Verge. And no context in the article; I suspect he probably rejects that label himself, and that should be noted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the sourcing could be improved, and better sources indeed are available. For example, here is an article in the moderate-conservative Seattle Times (with an AP byline). Here is an analysis from the SPLC. Like you, I'd rather not get sucked into this vortex myself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Manitoba

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

    My edit reporting Dick Manitoba's arrest was reverted yesterday as a BLP violation, stating that we can only add reports of convictions, not arrests.

    This is not supported by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.

    According to the "People Accused of Crimes" section: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

    Dick Manitoba is a public figure - in fact, arguments to suggest he wasn't notable enough to warrant his own article outside of the Dictators were defeated on the Talk page. Rolling Stone ran an article about his arrest, citing the NY Daily News story. You'd have a hard time arguing he's not a public figure.

    As far as I can tell, there are two primary sources - Variety and NY Daily News, who both independently confirmed the story. So it meets the multiple sources test.

    Also, the sentence in Wikipedia that I added did nothing but report the arrest.

    Worst of all, the final paragraph in the Wiki article appears that Dick wrote it himself, as it ends with "We hope to have it in the marketplace soon". I removed this yesterday, and it was reverted - this is not encyclopedic at all. The rest of the paragraph was fine, but that sentence doesn't belong there.

    Talk page has not received any response. Looking for this debate to be settled as this has been a fairly negative start to my Wikipedia experience - I read and followed the rules. TravellerInStygian (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi. I would oppose inclusion at this time, although he has a wikipedia biography, he is relatively unknown BLP says, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If convicted and reported in multiple wp:rs it definitely could be reported here. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    George Groves (boxer)

    George Groves (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A Properly Referenced - https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/george-groves-vs-callum-smith-12165929 Update to: George Grove's World Boxing Super Series Schedule Update; is being repeatedly deleted for no specified reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.119.24 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Agnes Kagure Kariuki

    Agnes Kagure Kariuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This one is alternating between an attack page and a puff piece (it looks like the original author has some COI). I could G10 this right now and probably get it deleted... can an admin take a look and make a decision? --Izno (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Giordano

    Al Giordano has been targeted for silly vandalism in the past, but there is a new SPA Botman34[1], aided by an IP with very similar goals and linking style [2] trying to add defamatory material based on rumors reported in Twitter and Facebook and (so far) one clickbait blog, which merely reports in detail the same Twitter and Facebook comments.

    Botman34 was warned a few days ago about edit-warring, after which he became more subtle, making a few "improving" edits. These SPAs don't seem interested in wiki policy, what they want is to get defamatory material into the article, even if only briefly. Why? See for example this tweet from around the same time that Botman34 showed up: "What happens when you google your good buddy Al Giordano?" [3]'

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

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

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

    Your concern about the sourcing of the harassment claims is a legitimate one. However, the claims themselves are decidedly not "minor." They include allegations that Giordano offered "roofies" to a male student at the School of Authentic Journalism[5], that he sexually harassed and degraded female students[6][7], and that he tried to silence and intimidate his victims[8]. Perhaps you should take the time to review the full allegations before making any more contributions to this page. ~BotMan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botman34 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not follow these allegations on Twitter or Facebook as avidly as you do. Some of these claims suggest serious crimes, for which official complaints to police should be found. If they happened. But until claims are vetted by some reliable source (not just repeated by some random blog), I remain skeptical. The AG bio, which has been on my watchlist for about a year, attracts many people who dislike AG. Until his haters hit the jackpot with MeToo accusations, their recourse (after AfDs failed) ran to "His baggy eyed tired look shows that he jacks off to much" (June 11, 2016[hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Al_Giordano&diff=prev&oldid=725545322]) or "He is a homosexual and a cuckold" (October 8, 2017[9].) The article has been semi-protected several times and set to "Autoconfirmed" in June 2016[10].
    Until RS reports on these claims, they do not belong in a Wikipedia BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that we would ever accept a Facebook post as a reliable source for negative BLP content. It is not so clear what to do about a web site like https://lawandcrime.com but you could ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The article on Law&Crime by Colin Kalmbacher does not seem to contain any completed interviews, though Kalmbacher says he tried to contact two of the women who complained. The article content is based on one Facebook post by the person who says she was harassed and a series of tweets from other women reporting their own experiences. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Delyan Peevski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I noticed a very disturbing behavior on the page of Delyan Peevski. I am a new member of the Wikipedia family and according to Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons must be right. Viewing the history of the page everybody can see that there is a problem. [[11]]. The article is full with attempts to edit. I saw that people tried to add information with source but one user User:Quickfingers continues to delete it. I saw that a lot of users tried to delete information and add GOVERNMENT sources to prove their point but their attempts were blocked. I know that Mr. Peevski is a politician and it is very easy to add and control an article of Wikipedia but he is also a living person and a human being. I saw that in The References category there are archived references /No 1,3/, a template for [citation needed] , just main pages of popular cites /No 4,15/, with no relation to him No /5,6,20/, proven fake news /9,10/ and etc. There is a Germen version for him and the germen article is without any active sources or with the source for a different site /You see the title of the source but the web site is different and not related to this post/ or a blog with personal opinion. The articles make suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damage a living person. They create a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggest that he is a part of criminal activities. This is very serious. Defamation is a crime, saying somebody is part of criminal activities without prove is a crime. Trying to block everybody and undoing their edits from the articles without any reason or reliable source of information is against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don’t think that Wikipedia is the place for political battles. Just a thought in mind: the information of publicly listed companies and its owners is very easy to check. I checked it out in the Bulgarian Commercial Registry http://www.brra.bg/ and it turns out that the statements in the article are fare from the truth. What to do in case like this? Is there an active editor who can see what is happening? Can somebody notify Wikipedia about this?

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=831222659"