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 Ideveon (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 21 March 2018 (→Annex Press). 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;" |

    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]

    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]

    I suppose the case could be made more for Candidlist than for Gabb (although it would be useful to have a bridging article between Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance - but it could be flypaper for BLP violations or self promotion. JASpencer (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[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]
    Your preoccupation with Giordano's "haters" suggests a serious lack of neutrality here. It would be helpful if you could limit discussion to the edits in question. As far as your idea that "some of these claims suggest serious crimes, for which official complaints to police should be found. If they happened," I'm frankly baffled. You do realize that many crimes are never reported to the police, correct? That this is especially true in cases of workplace harassment, where victims fear retribution from their abusers? Furthermore, there are many reasons why women choose to come forward with stories of misconduct. Not all women wish to file criminal complaints. Botman34 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)BotMan34[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]
    The roofies claim (if true) would be a serious crime. I have several BLPs of people I follow on Twitter on my watchlist, and SPAs trying to add malicious gossip to these articles are a frequent problem for many besides AG. The Internet magnifies many gossip circles, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that do some fact-checking before we include such items in BLPs.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Delyan Peevski

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

    Hello, I noticed a very disturbing behavior on the page of Delyan Peevski. I am a new member of the Wikipedia family and according to Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons must be right. Viewing the history of the page everybody can see that there is a problem. [[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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaderp6 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cathy Newman

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

    Just for information, the first part "whether we can say that Newman received threats" was already discussed as well had a 3rd opinion about it, with more-or-less agreement to keep it with attribution. The second part "opinion pieces/non-opinion pieces critical of Newman" is still under discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've mentioned on the talk page, third opinions are not binding. The dispute has since expanded to include multiple editors; there is no clear "agreement" to keep it with attribution. Miki Filigranski has previously used the third opinion to avoid addressing policy-based arguments attribution misrepresents the sources: "doesn't matter...discussion was finished". They have also accused others of conflicts of interest without evidence, and argued a defamatory blog post from The Conservative Woman discredits the threats, despite every existing RS treating them credibly. —0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 19:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not multiple editors for each of these points, there was an agreement i.e. majority of editors was for the attribution. You should avoid commenting other editors and instead stick to the content. I did not accuse anyone specifically, only warned that pushing of specific perspective could be COI. The article by TCW was used in discussion over a month ago (and not anymore), even 0xF8E8 respected its information until another editor recently questioned the reliability of primary/opinion RS for use in BLP. Not all RS treat the threats credible and without criticism, for example The Varsity, Irish Independent, or other opinion sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Accidentally misgendering people?

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

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

    Anna Graceman

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

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

    I want to add my point of view here right from the start.
    • To call the copyright catalog of an official government office a dubious information source is incomprehensible. For copyright entries you need proof of (real) name and birthdate, otherwise you don't get an entry. There can be a lot of money involved with copyrigt claime. If there is one thing for sure, it is that they got the name and the birthdate right. Even though they are not disclosing the month and day for privacy reasons, at least the year has to be 100% accurate.
    • The entries in the database for (Redacted) include all songs she released until 2016. Compare with the article itself. It is statistically impossible that there is another singer called Anna Graceman who wrote exactly the same songs in the same time frame as the one this article is about.
    • In the copyright database there is first a contact address in Alaska in the entries. In the later ones an address from TN. The article itself states that AG moved from Alaska to Nashville, TN, making it even more unlikely to be a coincidence. The point the editor is making, that there might be other singers by that name, makes no sense, since he is just assuming without giving a single evidence. The burden of proof is with him, not the other way around.
    The question for me is, why he is obviously trying to keep her name and her birthdate a secret, even though there is a reliable source. And this sourse is public, therefore no private information is disclosed that is not available publicly anyway. Even if the birthdate (Redacted) would be right, there is nothing on the official website to support this claim. The name of a link is no proof of any kind. An official government database entry always beats that any time. On top the link provided as a reference is a private link that is not publicly available. A google search reveals that this link is unknown to the web. It looks like as if the link was just created and it would be interesting to know how he got hold of that link out of the bliue, if it is not public and was unknown so far. Especially since he didn't correct the birth year information right away when he reverted the entries two times in a row shortly before.
    It is not clear what his motivation is to keep the name and year of birth a secret and maybe he is even connected to Anna Graceman or the family in general, as the link he provided might suggest. In earlier entries he replaced two pictures in the article provided by another editor by two other pictures that he claims as his own work and of which at least one looks like an official press photo.
    As much as I am for keeping really private information private, I can not see any harm done by adding her real name to the article, especially since she is over 18 now and no minor anymore, no matter if the birthday is in (Redacted).
    After all Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a personal advertising platform where you can add and delete information to your like in order to fit your peronal agenda, even if the article is about yourself. This also applies to the deleted part about the AGT participation. The main reason why this might have happened is, because most references in that part do not exist anymore. The managers of Anna Graceman's social media accounts cleaned out everything lately that is older than 2 or 3 years, as if they want to erase her past in some way. And now the whole part about AGT in the Wikipedia article gets deleted by the same editor who added the two new pictures and deleted the USCO birthday reference without any justification. It almost looks as if the birthday and name dispute was used as a distraction to get rid of that part without raising bigger attention.
    I think it is a general question how situations like this should be handled, if some evidence points to unjustified manipulation by an editor who has very likely a connection to the person the article is about. NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What NewWorldOrder2017 is alluding to on the (Redacted) birthday is this edit by Nightshade387 pointing to content in a post from her official website (which all I can see there is a link to a video for her song "Superstar" and nothing else). I'm not so sure we can call this reliable because even in the insertion of the content by Nightshade, after the source, it reads "There is debate about Anna Graceman's actual birthdate". If there is debate about this kind of thing, then the birthday shouldn't even be in the article in the first place, for that reason among others. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tumblr source that was provided menawhile is a tricky thing. Tumblr entries can be edited at any time again and I am more and more sure that the person the article is about still does neither want to have her real name revealed, nor her birthday and that people around her play catch now with other editors. The latest revert was made almost instantly by an IP from Franklin, which is close to Nashville. Too many coincidences in my book. There is no question at all in my opinion that the USCO is a 100% reliable source. Otherwise we would also have to question if birth certificates are reliable sources. Very strange behaviour by these editors. I am out of this erticle. Like this it is just no fun. As expected her name and the whole part about AGT fell from the truck. Queestion is if Wikipedia should allow to be forced like this to alter the infomration on a page as it happened in this case? NewWorldOrder2017 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLPPRIMARY is applicable here - Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. The US Copyright Office is not an appropriate or acceptable source for personally identifiable information - including birth names or birth dates. WP:BLPPRIVACY is also relevant - we include full names or dates of birth only where they have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Inferring information from URLs is not a reliable source. Unless there is something better, and policy compliant, the information should be removed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would go further and say the material should be removed full stop. The argument for using the copyright office is correct in one aspect - they require accurate information. Likewise anyone who has dealt with media personalities knows they lie about their age all the time - with some good justifcation given the rampant age bias in the media. So primary sources are unreliable for age and DOB where there is conflicting information. This does lead to an interesting question in cases like these (which I have not seen answered satisfactorily) if the copyright office has work A registered to person B, can we in biography C say they wrote A when we refuse to acknowledge the registered creator is the same person? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Annex Press

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

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

    It's User:Doc James that Ideveon (talk · contribs) is referring to, and the AfDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Kabza and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annex Press. There seems to be some, possibly quite a bit, of COI editing, eg by Anpresses (talk · contribs). I'm also wondering who Idevon348 (talk · contribs) was who only edited the two articles. The accusation of harassment seems completely unfounded. @Ideveon:, do you have any relationship with the either Kabza or the press? Doug Weller talk 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC) hi doug thanks, i don't but his films were shown in my classes art history and film too i have a 2 page c.v. bio. i am not highly skilled wiki user i don't need to conflict but does this guy and his work need to be removed based on your web findings i don't get it. there seem like adequate reasons to allow. you big dudes decide. i've enjoyed contributing and may again if i see new info that's relevant if the page makes it past your standards. enjoy.[reply]

    Douglas V. Mastriano

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

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

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

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

    Jacksepticeye

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

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

    Tim Armstrong (executive)

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

    In March 2018, Oath, Inc., of which Armstrong is CEO, fired four sisters working for the platform after it was highlighted that they were daughters of right-wing agitator Pamela Geller.[1] Oath said in a statement that "The Morning Breath, an Oath social-media show, is being canceled immediately and we have launched an internal investigation and will take other appropriate steps based on the results of the investigation."[2]

    There are a few problems with this.

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

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

    1. ^ "Instagram sisters sacked from Oath after being outed as Pamela Gellers daughters". News Ltd. 3 March 2018. Retrieved 3 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)}
    2. ^ Maxwell, Tani; Lorenz, Taylor (1 March 2018). "Oath Cancels Show Starring Muslim-Hater Pamela Geller's Instagram-Star Daughters". The Daily Beast.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=831694171"