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;" |

2009 Roman Polanski support petition - is mention appropriate?

Lee Brush (talk · contribs) has added actors' support of Roman Polanski in a 2009 petition to numerous articles today. As many people who are not actors have also spoken in Polanski's defense, is it appropriate to add this to the actors' articles?

The editor has also, more often than not, marked the article changes as minor; I have advised Lee that doing so is inappropriate. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems inappropriate to me, as do the same editor's additions of YouTube videos. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. I'll revert then. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Houseago

At Thomas Houseago an SPA keeps removing the name of his wife (or perhaps now ex-wife) Amy Bessone – info sourced to this article in the Los Angeles Times. Is there any good reason why we should not include this information in the page (not that it's particularly important to me or anything)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? I'd appreciate more eyes on it. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To address the simpler of the issues here, Template:Infobox artist (used for Houseago) has an entry for "spouse" and a different entry for "partner," but specifies in each case that only "notable" names go into the infobox. There is no entry in the infobox for "ex-spouse." So that would mean that neither his current partner Munu El Fituri, who does not have an article, nor his ex-spouse, even though she has an article, should be listed in the infobox, as far as I read the infobox policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owlstudiosla also tried to make two constructive changes, suggesting URLs where indeed one can find material about Houseago, one of them long and detailed. So rather than simply undoing their edits, I suggest adding some info from those suggested articles, 2016 and 2018, more recent than most of the sources.

I also looked up Owl Studios in LA, which turns out to be run by Thomas Houseago. So maybe COI:N is the place to go with this. There has been no attempt at subterfuge, since they are using that name. But they clearly don't read the talk page and are NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia. OK, Justlettersandnumbers, that's my two cents, cheers. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's useful advice, all of it, thank you HouseOfChange! The spouse (whether she's ex or not I don't know) has an article but is only of dubious notability. If the username is the name of a company then WP:UAA is the place for it, I believe (already reported). Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lester

Since at least 2010, various IPs and new editors have been trying to add/delete material regarding an alleged arrest, and a cartoon Mike Lester created about Barack Obama[1]. In the past I've removed them as BLP violations, but an experienced editor has now restored the edits, so I thought it would be better to bring the issue here. I know nothing of Lester or the veracity of claims being made, and would prefer to take the article off my watchlist if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The assault is reliably sourced, the cartoon controversy not so much, I would say. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you recommend? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Against Antisemitism / Adrian Davies

My user page Alison Chabloz describes several previous BLP violations regards my person which were resolved after I and an administrator intervened.

Today, similar BLP violations were published on two separate pages. I submitted edit requests to both. Please see:

Talk:Adrian_Davies and Talk:Campaign_Against_Antisemitism

My trial is still ongoing. Today's edits are libellous and should be rectified immediately, irrespective of links to moronic mainstream press reports.

Replies to my request on Adrian Davies' Talk page are unnecessarily rude. I am the living person being discussed here. The edits made in my regards are clearly not neutral but are intended to make me look bad before the judge in my case has even reached a verdict!

As noted by the administrator DGG who removed content previously when the CAA page was nominated for deletion:

"BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, and has been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)" [2] Alison Chabloz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. You dislike the fact that sources such as the BBC characterise you as an antisemitic blogger. You should take this up with them, not us.

Note to other Wikipedians: A verdict on the private prosecution of Ms. Chabloz is expected May 24. Her friend Jeremy Bedford-Turner was sentenced to prison two days ago. This is on the BBC, the Independent, Court News (which reports her characterisation of Auschwitz as "a theme park for fools") The Times and many other sources. Reliable sources tend to describe her as an antisemitic blogger (e.g. "Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court, The Times).

Not our problem to solve. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I watched some of the material on YouTube (the whining about free speech on privately-owned platforms, about the Jewish media, and some of that singing) and I'm going to have a shower now. Anyway, "antisemitic blogger" seems well-verified. What's funny is that respondents on those talk pages are so polite, when they were dealing with someone who thinks the internet is there for her to spew antisemitic filth. And I see now that I have also dealt with this editor in what I hope was a polite and policy-guided edit, this one, following a comment here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Against Antisemitism. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So much for WP:NPOV. Clearly, no such thing exists!Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies removed content about you from Quenelle_(gesture). You need to learn to accept the consensus view that antisemitism and holocaust denial are shitty. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Simply a case of you and Drmies expressing an opinion.Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a "thank you" would be appreciated. Now don't you start throwing policies around that you clearly don't understand: the only reason you are here is to try and clean up your image a bit. I'm perfectly happy to protect the BLP and will do so even for Holocaust deniers, but if you start throwing any more accusations around you will outlive your welcome quickly, and a block per NOTHERE might follow. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus view of the most reliable media sources in the UK - the BBC, The Times and such - is that you're an antisemitic blogger, it's not really our job to fix that. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I was under oath in a court of law. I refer to you to (WP:BLPCRIME) which 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. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.

That's a very confusing statement. Are you saying that under oath you will admit to being an antisemite and a holocaust denier, but when trying to whitewash your reputation on the internet you'll deny it? That is how it reads, but I am sure you would not be so cynical. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told the court under oath that I was professionally trained as a musician. I also disputed the cross-examination's claim regards both 'anti-Semitism' and 'Holocaust' 'denial. Again, this brings us back to BLP and unknown persons accused of committing a crime. If by this time next week I've been convicted, you will be able to gloat - at least until my appeal is heard. If not, then you're going to have some difficulty aguing that you were right whereas the court was wrong. (PS Why are you splitting up my edits - to make things more difficult for readers?) Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So am I WP:WELLKNOWN or not? Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name was restored to the article, I have removed it, saying "you need explicit consensus to restore the name...� It might be easier to get this consensus after the verdict, which if I understand correctly is schedule for next week." DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. The same issue arises on the page dedicated to my barrister Adrian Davies where I have also posted an edit request. BLP guidelines are quite clear regards unknown persons accused of a crime. It is incoherent for editors on the one hand to demand independent reliable sources and to claim that I would not be sufficiently well-known to warrant a dedicated page whilst, on the other hand, disregarding WP:BLPCRIME. Alison Chabloz (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism § Rfc since this is now spread across multiple pages. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not 100% convinced that Adrian Davies actually passes notability guidelines. Although the case David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is enormously significant when it comes to the Holocaust in UK law, Davies was only involved in the appeal which does not appear to be significant. His defence of a rag-tag group of far-right individuals may also not be enough to infer notability. The inclusion of Alison Chabloz in the article would perhaps be appropriate if Davies is deemed notable, although I suggest using the word "alleged" in reference to Ms Chabloz for the time being. Incidentally, Irving vs Penguin et al does establish ground for civil action if someone believes they are unjustly labelled a holocaust denier but it does also prove in a court of law that the Holocaust actually occurred, ergo for an individual to claim that it didn't would open them up to being labelled a holocaust denier. IANAL. Shritwod (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I, but I don't think there's a realistic chance of deletion, or I would nominate it. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should test that hypothesis? Shritwod (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Irving v Penguin Books Ltd is a case in English law, and therefore has no legal impact on Wikipedia content. However, it is possible that some individuals within jurisdictions covered by the case might edit this Wikimedia project. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question in the context of this complaint, has the identity of Alison Chabloz been verified as the complainant? Shritwod (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. You may want to request a block pending identification via WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my point was that this person is making a request claiming to be Alison Chabloz, but I don't believe that we have verified their identity yet. Shritwod (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the need to block before requesting my identity be verified? Would Guy or any other person not feel somewhat bullied by such a suggestion? Gosh, WP can be quite a nasty place! Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of somebody who recorded a song accusing Holocaust survivors of lying calling anywhere a "nasty place" is staggering. By the by, you may be interested to know that Auschwitz was a much "nastier" place. Be glad you only have to deal with our level of nastiness. (Translation: You aren't going to shame anyone here into complying with your demands for "fairness"). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess: one of your relatives swallowed then defecated diamonds whilst prisoner at Auschwitz [3], or, on liberation of the camps, one of your relatives chose to leave with his/her Nazi persecutors rather than remaining to be saved from the evil Germans by the Red Army [4]? Eventually, your relatives were made into soap / lampshades / shrunken heads to be displayed at Nürnberg in order to show how evil the Nazis really were [5]. I'm finding this debate quite enjoyable [6]. How about you, dear Inquisitors? Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. And yet you claim you have some "right" to be treated courteously and deferentially by others. It would be hilarious if it wasn't evidence of a blinding lack of self-awareness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The things that this editor enjoys provide deep insight into her character. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: If you review her edit history, you may well conclude that she is best restricted to her user space, if only for her own good. Holocaust deniers are not a popular species on Wikipedia. I would block her but I am WP:INVOLVED. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, why not make me wear a distinguishing badge and send me to the gulag? Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You display a quite stunning lack of insight. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Guy, that's just your opinion. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in this case it's my opinion, but virtually none of the rest of what I have told you is opinion at all, it's documented fact. Equating the world's disdain for your incorrect beliefs with what was done to the Jews in Nazi Germany is ridiculous and frankly stupid. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a medical professional, I think I can safely diagnose a chronic and likely terminal case of retro-crainial inversion, how's that for factual information? I'll make an honest attempt at understanding the complaint here, however: This user argues that opinions and facts that she doesn't like get handwaved away with a "that's just your opinion" but everyone else is supposed to kowtow to her own opinions, especially her opinions about how she should be presented and referred to? No. That's not how it works here, she doesn't get to dictate how the articles here treat her or her claims. This monologue of hers is as tiresome as it is useless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm not even sure what the original request was, as it's buried in some sort of anti-Semitic stream of conciousness (anti-semantic?). Oh yes, being referred to in Campaign Against Antisemitism.. well, I think that's been addressed in the talk page as being a matter of fact. Being referred to in Adrian Davies (Ms Chabloz's lawyer), here is looks like the article doesn't meet WP:GNG although there's still an active AfD on it. Thank you for bringing your lawyer's questionable notability to our attention. Shritwod (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chabloz has been found guilty so WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. As this is the first case of its kind, mentioning her in the article seems reasonable enough. As an aside, it is clear as day that Chabloz is not only an infiltrator in Britain, which her family is obviously not native to, she is not of this world. I believe she is an infiltrator from another planet sent here by her alien masters to sow discord between the races of our planet. Do we have a rule on dealing with complaints from non-human actors? Valenciano (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a precedent for non-human complainants - the monkey selfie copyright dispute. Seriously though, does this push Chabloz into notability? Or the court case itself? Shritwod (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannis Boutaris

The addition, taken from a misreported BBC article "On May 20, 2018 he has been treated in hospital after being beaten up by a group of Greek ultra-nationalists angry over his appearance at a remembrance event" is false and defamatory. The reaction came from a large group of everyday Greek citizens that were in no way "ultra-nationalists". It was NOT Golden Dawn as stated and cited, which is a legitimate ELECTED party in Greece, this is fake news/propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazucaaar (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the article and removed the piped link to Golden Dawn. While at least 3 RS state clearly and definately that the group that beat up Boutaris were far right nationalists in the crowd, none of them link the incident directly to Golden Dawn. Curdle (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using 'Legacy' for still active living entertainers

I recently got into a dispute at Madonna (entertainer) over the use of the term 'Legacy' instead of 'Impact' as a section title in the BLP. I tried to quote consensus from a previous discussion at Talk:Rihanna#RfC about exactly the same issue. I argued there that dictionaries generally define 'legacy' as something inherited from the past. I was informed that consensus at Rihanna has nothing to do with the article on Madonna.[7]

Hence I'ld like to establish consensus here for BLPs in general. Please let me know if this is not the right forum.

RfC: Use of the term 'Legacy'

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Biographies

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the term 'Legacy' be used for the contributions and impact of living entertainers, personalities, etc, who are still active in their field?

A: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for anyone who has a significant impact.
B: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have not been active for some time.
C: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have passed away.

LK (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

C Per especially definition 2 on M-W. It implies something the dead have left us, their long term impact. I'm not sure why the word is preferable to impact though - legacy sounds more flowery and value-laden to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B to A - provided WP:RS refer to the person's legacy - per m-w definition 2 - "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering." - past does not mean dead - it could mean a movie star no longer or active or perhaps in the wane of their career. However, I think the question we should be asking is whether RSes refer to a person's legacy - if there are strong RSes that do, then it is possible to refer to a legacy. For sporting figures - one often discusses the "legacy" (in sports) following retirement - e.g. Joe Montana's legacy - gNews "Joe Montana" legacy. Heck - we even have Montana discussing the legacy un-retired Brady - [8]. And Brady's legacy has been discussed for the past few years by others - [9][10]. I don't think this a BLP issue - more of a question of avoiding puffery (for dead or alive subjects) - this is a term that should be used only the most clear cases (supported by strong RS).Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A because it's WP-practice and I don't see it changing (personally I think you've left a a legacy when you're dead). Like Bob Dylan (FA), Art Spiegelman (GA), Barack Obama (FA). For some reason Oscar Wilde (GA) doesn't have one, but that's WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B or C depending on the time frame implicitly stated. "Legacy" implies "something from the past" so should not be used for recent persons or acts. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A makes no sense. How can you assess the legacy of someone who has not yet died? And why are we using the euphemism "passed away"? Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can and it won't take long. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very droll, Dr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we forget! Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a not inconsiderably important initiative. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for some icecream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C (or B if they are never going to be active in that area again). Yes, we can assess the legacy of an ex-Prime Minister (who will never be such again) as the legacy of what he did whilst in power. Madonna, however, is still an entertainer, thus "Legacy" is not correct. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A given how much impact those active can have (often lots). Lawrencekhoo, please stop with your absurd and completely unnecessary campaign to remove that from section titles of those who haven't retired or died. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone have a talk with SNUGGUMS about being polite and collegial with other editors even if one disagrees with them about policy? Thanks --LK (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well how to be polite as well as collegial when disagreeing with others. That's not mutually exclusive with criticizing others' actions as faulty or calling them out on a blatant problem. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C' Makes the most sense, but an arguement could be made for B. A legacy should not apply to people who are still actively wroking in their field. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B and C though I would modify B to 'no longer active' (without the 'for some time' qualifier, which is vague and unnecessary). Especially in fields such as sports, where people retire very young, it is meaningful to speak of 'legacy' once they have 'left the field'. I'm sure sports writers are busy speculating about what Usain Bolt, S Williams, Ronaldo, Beckham, etc's legacy is - or will be - and the use of the term is meaningful, since their active lives in their professions are over/nearly over. This could be equally true of a figure like Obama, whose presidency might meaningfully be deemed to have left a legacy - though once again, as with the sports figures, the content is inevitably going to be speculation as to what that legacy will be. Using the term for a person still active in their profession is borderline 'puffery', since it implies we already know how they are going to be remembered. We aren't generally prescriptivists here on WP, but why use a term which is inaccurate, when other more accurate terms exist? The alternatives are even more readily understood - such as 'impact'. I presume of course that the use debated at this RfC is section headings and WP:VOICE text - not within quoted or paraphrased text itself, where we obviously would use the term used by the source(s). … … … "To evoke posterity is to weep on your own grave" - Though he doesn't mention other people's graves! Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C Some Wikipedia articles using the word wrong doesn't change the meaning of the word. Go with the commonly understood dictionary definition. Darx9url (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if sources use it "wrong"? Trump’s new effort to destroy Obama’s legacy is very dangerous, The Legacy and Lessons of Bob Dylan, Five readers offer their views on Madonna's legacy, her skill for reinvention and that new single. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Obama's legacy" used all the time. However, an encyclopedia needs to use different words in an article summing up a person's life. In the article on Obama it would be premature. The man is just fifty-something and may be active for another three or four decades. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's Presidency is over - I think it is meaningful to speak of the legacy of that presidency, though not of the man himself. Ditto Blair, Major etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C (Summoned by bot) While intended to be a compliment, the word implies that the article subject is either dead or as good as dead, per the definition "Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage." If the person is still active in his field it even has BLP implications, implying the person is "over." There are so many wonderful words in the English language. Let's find a word other than "legacy" for living people. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A (Summoned by bot) you can have a legacy prior to croaking ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Sue W Kelly

Sue W Kelly is NOT Susan W Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.89.14 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm OK. But Sue W. Kelly = Sue W. Kelly = Susan "Sue" Weisenbarger Kelly, no? Drmies (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, I'm not seeing anyplace that refers to Rep. Kelly as "Susan". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, you're getting sloppy - it took me literally 3 seconds to find this from her old University... ;) Giant Snowman 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics does. Not sure as to reliability though. Regards So Why 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources referring to the COMMONNAME is not indicative that that is her full name, especially given that other sources do use a fuller name... Giant Snowman 15:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller names, such as "Madelyn Sue Weisenbarger"? :-) http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn2001062048/1960-06-30/ed-1/seq-2.pdf --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great...maybe she's 'Madelyn Susan'? Have we considered contacting her office for clarification? Giant Snowman 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can take it as a given that if they added the "Madelyn" for the wedding announcement, they wouldn't have abbreviated the "Susan". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't assume anything... Giant Snowman 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1940 census lists her as "Sue", without the Madelyn. Grr. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See? Giant Snowman 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See what? It says "Sue". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't say 'Madelyn'... Giant Snowman 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...which is fine, because we're not trying to put "Madelyn" in the article. Yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite two sources (including her former university) saying she is 'Susan'? Giant Snowman 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They got it wrong that time, obviously. https://archive.org/stream/adytum1958adyt#page/156/mode/2up --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the attitude. Perhaps you could email them/Mrs Kelly to confirm? Giant Snowman 16:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What attitude? If you want to change the article off what the US House of Representatives website, her college yearbook, and her wedding announcement say is her name, you email her. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the Denison Alumni Office just confirmed for me that "In our Alumni database Rep. Kelly is referenced as Sue." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a William Jefferson Clinton situation? 'Sue' appears to be commonname and 'Susan', legal name. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this undue criticism or not?

Consider this diff. The subject, a scholar Joanna Michlic, has been criticized by another scholar, Peter Stachura, in a letter to the editor, published (in English) in the Polish-English language, minor but nonetheless generally academic/reliable journal, Glaukopis. It seems the letter was not published in the regular journal edition, but it is hosted on the journal's website. The most relevant part of that criticism can be summed up as "Michlic [and another scholar are] perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era". The criticism is sourced to an academic publication (albeit only their website, it's unclear whether the letter publication was peer reviewed, but letters are generally not peer reviewed in either case, whether they are printed or published digitally, outside of editorial review). So the criticism seems, IMHO, to be reliably sourced. More relevant issue - is this due criticism? Her biography is a short stub, and this is the only substantial assessment of her that has been found. It's not a lengthy criticism, but even with the 1-2 sentences, it is certainly visible in her otherwise short stub. We don't want her article to be an attack page, but at the same time, reliable, academic criticism should not be censored. I am of too minds here, hence - request for input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - Glaukopis is far from a credible source, and this letter in particular has additional red flags attached:

This is a web-based open access, so called, journal. While the Polish ministry of science recognizes it of late in its B list (and one must note the political angle of the ministry - as opposed to recognition (or rather lack thereof) by international academics), it has no impact factor[11].
Stachura himself sits on the program committee [12].
Per Glaukopis's own about - We are particularly interested in the unknown aspects of the history of Poland and the world. By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial. - which is a clear red flag.
The site itself is currently promoting a book (on the main page and in a dedicated aktualnosci(news) section - [13] (though this is not news - been released for two years) by far-right activist/historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz [14] - "Poland for the Poles!" - which covers the present and past of the Polish far-right[15]. Chodakiewicz himself being covered by the SPLC[16][17] and active in the same Ruch Nodowy movement (e.g. "In June 2014, he appeared at a rally of the far-right Ruch Narodowy party, where he proclaimed “We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!"[18]).
Some of the other people on the program committee are obscure, have red-flags or are rather unconnected to the topic (e.g. [19] Kazimierz Braun who is a playwright).
I will further note that Stachura's letter was rejected by a reputable journal - History (thrice) refused to publish this letter which includes tidbits like "where he edits the Jewish-funded annual publication, criticized the Jewish ethnic background of his critics a few times (Michlic and Polonsky), and of others Andrzej Michnik, is a former Marxist of Jewish extraction, and a number of clear WP:REDFLAGs in this regard.

It would seem that Glaukopis mainly exists to publish material more reputable outlets are unwilling to publish - due to their author being "blacklisted" or their contents. Wikipedia should not link to such content which is clearly, at the very least, labeling various Jews for being Jews (or "Jewish-funded" orgs) - on a site with several red flags which is highly questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your take on them. You may disagree and dislike some of the people here (I am not very fond of all mentioned and criticized by you), but bottom line is, Chodakiewicz is a reliable scholar, and glaukopis is a reliable journal. The fact that they lean towards Polish right (or American, Ch. is Polish-American and associated with Trump advisers, for example) is not relevant here. We are talking about a specific sentence, and views of semi-related people are not relevant. I'll note that you seem to view describing a publication as Jewish-funded as problematic, but have no problem arguing that Polish (gov't) funded or supported sources are inferior. You can't have a cake and it it (aka double standards are not helpful). The neutral stance is to notice both type of sources have their biases. This is not a discussion about right or wrong, Wikipedia doesn't take such stances, we jus acknowledge there are sides. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chodakiewicz is a scholar. He is not reliable in and of himself (and this true for scholars generally, but particularly a figure like this). When he publishes in a RS - that may be considered reliable. When he published on his blogs (of which he has several) or his own open access journal - glaukopis - no. There sre several red flags around Chodakiewicz and his work has been strongly criticized - for instance his recent English book in which he called for the return of the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was described in a peer reviewed journal as "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book"[20]. Gvmt recognition of a journal does not make it reliable. glaukopis does not have a reputation for reliability and is pretty much ignored by the academic community - as are many other open access "journals" - and glaukopis has redder flags than other journals we consider unreliable.Icewhiz (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you, but blogs by academics are a borderline issue; that said we are not discussing his blogs so it is a moot topic. I am not saying glaukopis is an important publication (in fact, I said it before, it is pretty much a non-entity), but we do generally treat such non-entities (low impact journals) as reliable. I am afraid none of the 'red flags' you point look to me like, well, red flags. It is a minor academic journal that next to nobody reads or cares about, but it is a reliable source. That it advertises a book by a somewhat controversial (but hardly discredited - at least, so far) scholar, or has an ironic commentary about political correctness, are not red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNDUE, a single criticism from a single person in a minor journal can easily be argued to be giving undue weight to a minority view. And it's WP:PRIMARY. I would exclude it. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morag Crighton Timbury

I am a relative of Morag Crighton Timbury and Crighton is incorrectly spelt. it should be CRICHTON. I can only edit the article and not the title. Please can someone help or do this for me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judymcculloch130 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - after verifying this is indeed the common name (google hits, was in obit and in university page).Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Żegota

See also Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS (and possibly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray may be relevant as well). Some editors are supporting this diff content in which 27 people are named. WP:BDP policy has us assuming people are alive for 115 years if not proven otherwise. Many of the people on the list were born after 1903.

The source in question is www.savingjews.org - this is a personal web-site by Anna Poray. The website was also self-published (publisher - A. Poray) google book entry in 2007. Google-Scholar shows no use of this work, though it has been cited in a 2016 mass market book Irena's Children (possibly a copy of Wikipedia's citation as we were citing the same URL for the same detail).

Further more, Poray is a WP:QS/WP:FRINGE source. Though she is rarely mentioned by WP:RS, a 2004 interview she gave to a right-wing Polish newspaper has gained some notoriety and is described (all be it rather scantily) as an example of propagating a myth[21], being an example of "political history" [22], and being an extreme proponent in the far-right press of " lack of Jewish gratitude" [23].

Comment from uninvolved editors welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world does this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section names 27 individuals, making various assertions about them (some rather unencyclopedic in tone, e.g. "unforgettable director of children's theatres X"). Most of the individuals were born after 1903. We do not have sources for all of them stating that they were dead. Per WP:BDP - Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. - so - barring sources confirming the death (or birth date prior to 1903) of each and every individual named (and which we make assertions on) - this is a BLP issue.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page - per WP:BLP - the policy is relevant to all Wikipedia pages, not just to the BLP's article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what in the world does this have to do with BLP? If there's some hyperbolic language, then tone it down. But this isn't a BLP issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 27 named individuals are presumed alive, per policy, and using a self-published source (in addition to other questionable aspects of this source) to describe them is forbidden per BLP policy - WP:BLPSPS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, I'm pretty sure Marek is asking you what would be so controversial or defamatory about them being named in there. IN other words it's not about whether the BLP applies to these people, but about why it would apply to them in this context. BTW I agree with you on the source, but that there is a problem here needs to be proven. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the information referenced is contentious in relation to the rescue efforts which is a generally contentious subject, and per the BLP policy remove immediately policy - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion - this also applies to neutral, positive, or questionable information. WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article - which is not limited to any sort of material - just material - regardless of whether it is contentious. with the exception of ABOUTSELF - self-published sources are strictly forbidden for any material.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the simpler solution here to just ask why the article has to include a list of non-notable people in the first place? I don't think we need to get into sourcing at all, I would delete that entire paragraph and the QS as WP:listcruft.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Simon Dodd, regardless of any BLP considerations, the naming of so many non-notable people is pointless. But if the substantive content (that a letter was written which named X people, who had done Y), does not have a better source - then it is valueless anyway. Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Rafizadeh

Need some help here. I'm about to prune, but there's also an edit war that's been going on for a while, possibly with socking (it's about the same subject matter and edit summaries and sources are similar), including a constant fight over the dude's alma mater--with one claim being sourced to this which supposedly verified a Ph.D., and the counterclaim being sourced to this obvious puff piece. If any of you can help with evaluation and sourcing, that would be great. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AfD. It has a long history of COI edits (pro and con), serious sourcing problems, and some waffling about identity and alma mater. It's kind of fun, if this is your kind of fun. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone claiming to be Rafizadeh has posted at User talk:Nick Moyes#RequestingBest, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Mattes

Most of this article is NOT sourced and has potentially defamatory content.

In particular, the "Current Work" section should be reviewed by admins.

Kristijrn (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Kristijrn[reply]

Well, it doesn't need to be reviewed by an admin. You are an editor, you could edit it yourself :) I see that the content has been removed. It seems that it was added by a couple of IPs from the University of Michigan in April 2017.

Sterling Brown (basketball)

The section titled "2018 Milwaukee police incident" contains a biased summary of Sterling Brown's arrest which downplays the severity of the police actions against Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.42.75 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not raised the issue at Talk:Sterling Brown (basketball). Please do so first before coming here. You should explain in detail what specific text you think needs to be added or changed, along with supporting reliable sources to back up your changes. --Jayron 32 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Heiler

This is a really bad Wikipedia living biography, and reflects badly on Wikipedia. The most used source is "The Phoenix New Times" about controversies from 40 years ago...while the actual biography is miniscule. That paper is by all definitions (and quite literally, as I have seen it) a tabloid/gossip source. It should be obvious to any user that this is some sort of hit piece on Jay Heiler (whose real name is James...). Do better Wikipedia. Not sure if I will continue donating. Jay Heiler— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.109.35.52 (talk) 17:05, May 24, 2018‎

It may shock you to hear the, but absolutely no-one here cares one whit if you have donated money in the past nor if you continue to donate in the future. As for "do better", well, ordering editors to make improvements based on vague allegations rarely is helpful. You could always contribute actual effort by editing the article yourself (assuming you have no conflict of interest connection to Heiler) or by actually specifying the issues you think the article has on the talk page. That's what it is there for, after all, to improve articles. I see exactly no substantive edits to that talk page and one technical edit to the article in the past year. As to the substance, I see 24 citations, of which only 4 are to the Phoenix New Times, which hardly seems like a "hit piece". I hope this helps explain thinks at least slightly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thiel and "young blood"

Is the following section and its sources OK per BLP, or not?

Jeff Bercovici wrote in Inc. in 2016 that "life-extension science is a popular obsession" in Silicon Valley and that regenerative medicine was a fad which started in the 2000s. Bercovici said that there were rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood".^[1] Rumors that technology investor Peter Thiel "was looking to harvest the blood of the young", drawing far-fetched analogies to vampirism, were corrected in Tech Crunch in 2017.^[2]

References

^ Bercovici, Jeff (1 August 2016). "Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested In Young People's Blood". Inc. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
^ Buhr, Sarah (14 June 2017). "No, Peter Thiel is not harvesting the blood of the young". TechCrunch.com. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

To see this in context, see this version of Young blood transfusion; it is the last paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you show your version of the Thiel text. This was my preferred version: The media initially reported that technology investor Peter Thiel "was looking to harvest the blood of the young", drawing far-fetched analogies to vampirism, though claims that he had links to any such schemes were later retracted. I might accept this removal but I think it gives a good example to support the preceding sentence. I have to say that removing all mention of Silicon Valley under the guise of it being a BLP issue is rather stretching things. And for context Jytdog is a rude POV-pusher in this article and has issues with most of it. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad state of affairs, since you both appear to accept the mainstream view that young blood transfusion is bollocks. I suggest hashing things out on Talk rather than in the body. And I do agree that it's a bit Debunkopedia now, we could certainly be slightly more measured. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't posted my position, nor my reasoning, in order to make a neutral posting. I will now state them.

In my view:

the title of the Inc piece, Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested In Young People's Blood' is a problematic thing to even display in mainspace
Actually it would be maybe OK, if that were a fact. But if you read the Inc piece, it is full of unsubstantiated gossip about Thiel, and about un-named "Silicon Valley executives"
If you read the Tech Crunch piece (the title of which makes the opposite claim of the Inc piece, and the interplay/mockery shows you how un-serious the whole "story" here is), you will see that nobody will confirm that Thiel is actually interested in "young blood". The only apparent witness to that is the apparently unreliable CEO of the Ambrosia company, who has apparently changed his story.
So why are we reporting unsubstantiated gossip about living people especially disturbing gossip like this?

What is the justification for this under BLP?

I have other issues with this per NOTGOSSIP, but I was reading the version above (which I did not write - see below), and I imagined Thiel reading it, and how we respond if he objected. I don't much care for much of anything Thiel is up to, especially not in the biomedical space, but I do care about whether our content is defensible under our own policies and guidelines.

As to the rank bullshit above that this is "my version", the article originally said (incompetently, sloppily? who knows why) that Thiel was a "prominent investor" in a relevant company (which is not in any source) and it took a ridiculous amount of effort to just get that changed e.g here to "an interest" in)...

Guy I would appreciate it if you adddressed the actual content above in light of BLP. I know you have dealt with lots of people via OTRS and i know you have dealt with FRINGEy crap. I am fine calling spades, spades, but not reporting breathless silicon valley gossip like this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you don't in any way respond to why it's not acceptable to have a general statement about Silicon Valley. Are you after more sources for that? And more rudeness doesn't make things more productive. Constructive dialog is proving to be very difficult with you. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have said several times that the content about silicon valley is just gossip and repeating of rumor.

The Inc source is also awful - its title, and all the gossip in it. And dealing with the flood of popups and video noise when I go there (which I have to keep doing, since you keep adding it back and citing things from it) And you keep restoring it, as you did again. here. You are the one laying on constant personal attacks, and your editing has been incompetent. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only as a comment: Never ever consider the title of any article, even if published by an RS, to be reliable or a part of the article proper. Such headlines are most often written by someone else than the original writer and meant to grab attention. No comment on any other point here. --Masem (t) 21:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, no one here is considering "just the title". I am asking folks to consider the title of the piece not as a source, but something that is a) making a claim about a living person, that b) is very obvious on the page, as this is a short article; and where c) the claim is not supported. The source is crappy, the title is bad. It is unclear to me why it is so important that we use it. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Constant personal attacks". Complete nonsense. You are the abusive, obstructive one. As for Inc. - I don't have any popups at all and it clearly links to China and Korea. But again you're spreading all your bile into yet another venue so perhaps this is something best discussed on the article talk page. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to respond to you further. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Perhaps you'll be needing your time to continue with the other arguments you have going on across the wiki. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant here and I will still post brief corrections. And I am looking forward to feedback from others. 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we do not discount a normally good RS because the article title is crap. I haven't yet seen a case, but if a title introduced a flat-out BLP violation while the body was perfectly fine, I think we'd figure a way to censor the title in the ref but otherwise keep the necessary info for WP:V. I have no other say in the matter. --Masem (t) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog IMO Thiel should not be mentioned int hat article. It amounts to: $CRAPPYSOURCE said $BATSHITCRAZYTHING, $SLIGHLYLESSCRAPPYSOURCE said it was crazy. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I removed it and similar on Peter Thiel. The more contentious issue is whether or not the entirety of Silicon Valley can be maligned by a broad statement. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is great that you agree now, after you initially added it and have added it back multiple times. (a couple of those diffs are above) Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. Thiel was my primary concern in filing this.

The content above mentions "rumours of wealthy technology bosses" who are unnamed. Their being unnamed makes the reading of BLP weaker here, but the rumors being reported, are not about little green men, but rather about what actual people are supposedly doing, so we are still in the neighborhood of BLP. There is, unfortunately, no WP:BWGN board. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out there are numerous sources talking about Silicon Valley and life extension. What do you need? New York Times? NewYorker? Wired? Smithsonian? Financial Times? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have seen Life extension#Silicon_Valley. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that trend and have edited about it on other pages. The statement in the content above is "Bercovici said that there were rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood"." Which is BWG that is making a specific claim about young blood transfusions. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Former professional positions and deadlinks

Shelley Puhak (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

General question here: I do not believe the subject is any longer employed at Notre Dame of Maryland University: there is no sourcing in the directory anymore, so the link is dead, but the Wayback Machine does have an archived version of it. I'm not really sure the best way forward with it, especially since we could be representing something false about a living person (a deadlink isn't a positive source claiming they left, but it is usually a pretty good indicator they no longer work somewhere.) Anyway, leaving this here, @DGG and Drmies: you may be interested in this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent mention of her NDMU faculty position that I've been able to find is 2016, here. As a side comment notability appears to be marginal (granted this isn't my field). Even further aside, the article was drafted by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Don't ask me what all this means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Man. She seems to have been disappeared, and she was there for quite a while. It's the usual problem with poets--lack of coverage. She's got two books out and has published in all the right places, so whenever we write up notability guidelines for poets, she should make the cut. (I looked at some bios for computer game players today, so yeah.) The way forward is to put her employment with ND in the preterite, and I think that's the only thing we can do. In the meantime I put out a poetic feeler about the importance of that Hecht award she won. Tony, DYK that I have had drinks with three winners of the Yale Series of Younger Poets, and chatted with another one? Fine human beings they are, and were. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just ordered Duy Doan's We Play a Game. That Yale award needs to be written into those future guidelines; it's so big, it's almost yuge. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuge, you say? I’m sure you’re yuger, Drmies. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony, I had a lot of conversations and drinks with Craig Arnold. I have a signed copy of Shells upstairs. The guy was fucking rock and roll and a fine, fine human being. That weekend I hung out with him was one of the most meaningful weekends of my life (I also got married as a result of it, though not with him, fortunately, cause he died), and I think of it often. Poets are special and sacrifice immensely to practice their trade; I wish the usual reliable sources would reflect that. And his fellow poet at that conference (they ran the most kick-ass poetry workshop I've ever seen) also died way, way too young--an Alabama boy, and another wonderful human being, Jake Adam York. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
something something about how encyclopedias historically avoided articles on WP:BLPs for this exact reason, and something something power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She has a web site of her own that was updated as recently as this April so if she has disappeared, she hasn't disappeared very effectively. Her bio there doesn't list a current position but she did appear to hold a position qualifying under WP:NPROF#5 and notability is not temporary. Her News section does list appearing in the 2017 Best American Travel Writing and Best American Essays anthologies, both of which I would argue qualify under WP:AUTHOR#4. The site also lists contact information so an interested editor could ask her directly. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to include sourced speculation in a biography?

In the article Elliott Broidy, there is a section Elliott Broidy#Hush money payment to Playboy model. The following things are clearly known: the payment was made by Elliott Broidy; Broidy confirmed that he had the affair; Cohen confirmed that Broidy was a client of his. A few columnists have speculated that the person who had the affair was actually Donald Trump, and that Broidy is fronting for him. I removed this once, but it has been readded, using four sources from two columnists. I would like an opinion as to whether the guidelines of WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE allow for this speculation to be included in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the refs; one was used twice. Seems to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE, as it's clearly labeled "speculation", and there are multiple RS. If Trump has denied it, then that should also be included. He is a RS for what he says, although not for the reliability of what he says. The difference is significant. We just document his statement(s), if any. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad

This article has some clear cut BLP violation, consider clearing the violations out. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe or, even better, copy the BLP violation(s) here so we can evaluate them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Zaffarini

re: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Zaffirini

This biography includes a lengthy quotation from a Letter to the Editor submitted to the Laredo Morning Times from an anti-abortion activist named Cordelia C Flores. This is the quotation that should be removed from the biography:

One of Zaffirini's constituents, Cordelia C. Flores of Laredo, challenged her support for Planned Parenthood and opposition to the bathroom bill. Flores in a letter to the Laredo Morning Times asked:

Why should taxpayer money fund the largest provider of abortions in the United States, instead of supporting the many nontaxpayer- funded ... women’s clinics that actually do offer a wider range of health care services yet don’t provide abortions? ... The political rhetoric expounded by Senator Zaffirini is profuse and focuses on patronizing extremely narrow but loud special interest groups, which despite all their arguments, cannot justify ignoring the laws of science. They also are actually hurting and not helping the very children and transgender people they claim to want to help ,,, With all due respect for the senator, she is out of touch with the majority of her constituents and with all the ordinary, hardworking, God-fearing Americans who simply want to educate ... and to protect their children and families under ... natural law.[22]

This opinion piece from someone who has been writing similar letters in opposition to women's healthcare funding to this newspaper since 2008 is in no way pertinent to a biography of Senator Zaffirini. In fact it is defamatory to the subject. Disagreements with the Senator's legislative record add nothing to her life story. I request that you correct this entry to remove this quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:680F:CD00:799A:2209:F4F7:B1B7 (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material from the article. Woodroar (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Arnold

The article contains factual errors that I have been prevented from correcting as well as possibly violating the BLP policy as stated below. The article as currently written contains speculation and bias while minimizing notable achievement.

Arnold is not a public figure and there is potential here for harm to his person and reputation. Another editor noted; "Based on these observations, it's my belief that there is a possibility that the article is being used for attack purposes falls under WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E which "applies to individuals who are not public figures...editors must 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. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction," as well as limiting the information concerning individuals notable for one event.:"Phoenixpreacher (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)PhoenixpreacherPhoenixpreacher (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Properly sourced bias is expressly allowed per NPOV, but speculation and allegations for WP:NOTPUBLICFIGUREs must meet a higher standard for inclusion than for WP:PUBLICFIGUREs. That doesn't mean negative information can't be included. Just make sure it's from very RS and not mere gossip. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor noted "A reading of the basic facts about the article lends it the appearance of being created specifically to notify readers about the subject's perceived misdeeds. Indeed, for many years, the references were allowed to say just that, without being held accountable to Wikipedia's usual safeguards against using articles for attack purposes." There are factual inaccuracies in the article as I have noted as well.Phoenixpreacher (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is Times Higher Education and The Independent, to very good sources. This was quite high profile - in fact without this incident I doubt we'd have heard of him. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Goss

I finally got around to watching the movie "Brewster McCloud" yesterday, and then I looked up the movie on Wikipedia. I can firmly state that the person credited in the movie "Brewster McCloud" named Dean Goss is definitely not the Dean Goss who actually played the role. The Dean Goss in the movie was not a California DJ as stated on Wikipedia, but was the owner/operator/emcee of a dinner theater in Houston, where the film was shot. Also he was a lot older than 21, which would have been the age of the California DJ named Dean Goss in 1970 when the film was shot(I would guess he was 40ish). Also, he was very close to morbidly obese, and a look at the movie verifies that fact. My authority? None whatsoever, but I lived in Houston, and I remember when the film was shot, and how much fanfare Dean Goss got. I also attended Dean Goss's dinner theater in the 60s and 70s, and I remember him being quite proud of his role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.121.5 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be quite right, and this seems to confirm it. Not for the first time, IMDB is incorrect. I have unlinked Goss's name from the Brewster McCloud article. Actually, based on that news story, it looks like this Dean Goss might even be notable themselves. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kelly

John F. Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent attempts to mis-characterize a senior White House advisor's actions on immigration. Whether well-intended or disruptive, they may need further attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to be discussing this on the Talk page. Try that. I rolled back to a version sourced to WSJ, which is better than Politico or the other competing sources quoted. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

I’m concerned about text using the term murder–suicide in article Stephanie Adams, a recently deceased person. Quite likely it was a murder-suicide, and I realize that murder-suicide is not a legal term. However, murder is a crime and there has been no trial, no admission of guilt, and no suicide note. People uses the term in its headline, but not in the text. The text uses the term homicide, which is not necessarily a crime.[24]. The New York Daily News only uses the word homicide.[25] The New York Post calls it murder-suicide, but doesn’t source the claim. [26] Although these sources can be RS, none of them are top resources and BLPs require more stringent use of sources. As this is a BLP, and the incident is recent, and there have been no court rulings, perhaps we should err on the side of caution and use the term homicide. WP:BLPSTYLE In the meantime, I’ve added "alleged". Thoughts? O3000 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People has the words in the first paragraph cited to "officials". this attributes to a New York City Medical Examiner. I think it's justified, but attribution (eg "The death was ruled a murder-suicide by the city's medical examiner.") can't hurt. --Masem (t) 17:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns you outlined above are not a reason to call the ME's finding an "allegation", as you did here. General Ization ^Talk 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to 03000, none of the three sources given identify "murder-suicide" coming from the ME, just "officials". The one source I provide above (a local NY news station) does state that. There's a fair reason to make sure the claim is coming from a person in the right authority to make the claim. --Masem (t) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the May 21 People article used murder-suicide. But, in the May 22 People article, they called it murder-suicide, but said the examiner called it a homicide.[27] The Daily Beast said the medical examiner ruled it a homicide.[28] Newsweek said the examiner called it homicide. [29] Fox News reported the examiner called it a homicide, but may have copied this from the Daily News which used homicide. NBC News New York reported that the examiner called it homicide. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under the legal definition of homicide in New York state, homicide is indeed necessarily a crime; it applies to any one of a list of crimes, of which murder is one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide can be a crime. Your cite is to a list of crimes. Self-defense and accidental death can be legal homicides and would not be in that list. Careful with WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My cite is to the legal definition of murder within New York state. Self-defense and accidental death would not be "legal homicide" within the legal definition of homicide in the relevant state. So if the concern about using the term "murder" is that it connotes an illegal act, then we need be careful about the term "homicide", as it can be used to connote an illegal act under the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A medical examiner does not charge people or convict people. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve provided six cites that say the official statement from the New York Medical Examiner ruled it a homicide. Of course, some of the less than stellar sources tend to use more eye-catching terms. As per WP:BLPSTYLE, Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced). On top of that, NPOV calls for the preponderance of sources, and they say homicide. No, I’m not going to shop fora. In my mind, NPOV overrides RS as NPOV calls for a preponderance of RS. And BLP overrides as it calls for care, Particularly when it relates to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The medical examiner used the word homicide. Let us, as an encyclopedia, use the same word that the medical examiner used as opposed to a couple of “breaking news” outlets. O3000 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we have three sources (thanks to Masem for the third) calling the deaths a murder-suicide, two of them in their own voice and Masem’s attributing it to the NYC Medical Examiner. I’m not opposed to using attribution in the article. While it may be “in your mind” that the NPOV calls for the preponderance of sources, that is not how the WP:NPOV policy is written. In fact, it says nothing of the sort, so excuse me when I say your interpretation is a bit of a stretch. NPOV and BLPSTYLE caution us about using a balanced tone. The term “murder-suicide” is no more inflammatory than using “suicide” and “homicide”. Well respected publications use the term all the time. Indeed, the Washington Post which had an article about this very same incident said Investigators have yet to determine whether it was a murder-suicide or an accident, which is pretty solid evidence they don’t have a problem with the phrase in general. Additionally WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE is probably not applicable here. Adams was either a public figure, or at the least a limited public figure. Being a model and a Playboy centerfold, and the sheer number of articles written about her in various NYC gossip magazines, press conferences held, etc. supports this notion. Finally, I don’t think BLP is applicable in this instance. Adams is dead. BLP may be applicable per WP:BDP which states: (emphasis added) The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Their deaths while sad are neither contentious or questionable, therefore they can’t have “implications” on the deceased relatives. The purpose of BDP is not to prevent writing on sourced facts about the deceased just because it might make their successors uncomfortable or embarrassed, but to minimize any real world harm to them. Simply put, BDP does not apply here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your assertion that the sources that use “murder-suicide” are “breaking news outlets” is completely without merit. Additionally, trying to shoehorn a consensus for your preferred text here is inappropriate. This board is for addressing possible BLP issues, not crafting content. The question at hand is whether or not using “murder-suicide” breaks BLP for this article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have three sources (I only see 2 but will give you one) that say murder-suicide in article text, only one of which attributes this to the medical examiner, and six that say homicide. And as you point out, WaPo said they didn’t know if it was a murder-suicide. That makes seven that did not label it as such. So by my count, one of the ten sources said the medical examiner ruled this a murder-suicide. Why insist on murder-suicide? The term “murder-suicide” is no more inflammatory than using “suicide” and “homicide” Well, yes it is. Murder is a crime. Homicide may or may not be a crime. (Homicide Definition: To begin with, not all homicides are crimes. [30].) All police shootings resulting in death are homicides. Frankly, I don’t understand why you are so adamant about ignoring the majority of RS and using a more contentious term. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I outlined above this is not a BLP issue. We have multiple reliable sources calling this a murder-suicide and attributed that to NYC. Why are you questioning my rationale? My arguments have remained the same the entire time. You keep moving the goal posts. Your first argument was that only an official, such as a judge can call this a murder-suicide. When that didn’t work, you switched tact. We’re writing an encyclopedia, not saving face. That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conflict in the RSes. Some call it homicide (with her death a suicide), some call it it "murder-suicide", which all point what the ME supposedly had said. It would be great if we could access the ME's statement directly (not one of these RSes is quoting it) to get what the ME said, but we don't have that luxury. When I read through sources, I think there's more weight when we call the infant's death a homicide and Adams' a suicide, rather than the "sloppy" murder-suicide that I think some RSes are simplify this too. There is enough of a distinction here between homicide and murder that we should use the less-offensive term (homocide) here until we have better, more consistent sourcing for "murder". --Masem (t) 15:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion aside (although not sure I agree with your characterization of a 7 yo boy an infant), I fail to see any violations of the BLP policy, which is what this board is for. Conversation should continue on the article talk page instead of here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did mean child. But in regards to homocide versus murder, there is a different that does reflect on BLP. Homocide would be that she was responsible for the boy's death, but may not have intended for him to die, whereas a murder would be that she intentionally killed him. That's a rather big difference, in that we aren't asserting she purposely killed the child. And barring any new information, we're not likely going to understand what she was thinking at the time of the incident, so homocide seems like the more appropriate term here between that and "murder". Again, best solution would be to get our hands on the ME's own report itself to eliminate the press's telephone game here, but that's not likely to happen. --Masem (t) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a primary source and not usable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ME's report would be 100% usable. Primary sources are not unallowed on BLP, but they have to be used with care. The manner that someone died as ruled by an official in the legal position to make that call - the ME here - is fully allowable. But that is if we could get that report directly. --Masem (t) 19:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's not all that well known. More along the lines of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. So, we're not likely to see any more news stories. If she died a natural death, we wouldn't have seen so much coverage. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the lack of trying if you examine the press clippings on her site. Certainly well known in the “Playboy community” and the NY newspaper gossip columns. Indeed she spoke to a cone such columnist the day before her death. A non public figure wouldn’t have dozens of articles in those pages.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson

Mass additions to the personal life section, containing information about former relationships and allegations of domestic violence. Also addition of numerous citations to Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, as well as some OR/SYNTH. I have removed the additions, and I am trying to look through them and to re-add the pertinent information but I am not confident on what should or should not be included. Advice would be appreciated. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nouman Ali Khan

If any of you can have a look at the discussion on the talk page, and the brief exchange that led to it, I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic tone in Cher Lloyd

A sentence in the BLP for Cher Lloyd describes a "hair-pulling cat-fight" in her school years. I contend that this is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, given our mandate for a neutral tone in articles. @Eggishorn: disagrees, and appreciates the fact that these words have been cribbed directly from tabloid sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that one citation here is the Daily Mail, which appears to be generally prohibited as a WP:RS, and the other source is the more obscure Birmingham Mail... 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to be more neutral in tone and to remove unnecessary detail (people can read this in the references if they wish). Neiltonks (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E assessment requested: Anna Delvey

Hi there. I recently stumbled across a pretty detailed article in New York on a woman called Anna Sorokin aka Anna Delvey, who allegedly conned a number of NYC socialities out of a lot of money: [31]. There is a long story in Vanity Fair from April and going back, she does appear in party images going back to 2013. There's also some coverage from last year [32], [33], even some in Russian (GTranslated). Some sources I cannot access due to GDPR walls though. I was considering creating an article about her since there was definitely substantial coverage of her various business dealings, however, I'm not completely sure she doesn't fail WP:BLP1E if one considers the arrest and the related coverage as the "event". As such, before I do so, I would like to request a short assessment whether she fails BLP1E or not. Regards So Why 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she is 1Eish (not passing firm judgement), it sounds like the criminal event passes WP:NCRIME - so at worst you could cover the criminal act(s) as a title- though I think this is beyond 1E (as it seems more than just the crime is covered - though it does appear gossipy). The more serious issue is WP:BLPCRIME as while Sorkin is in Rikers, it seems she hasn't been convicted as of yet.[34][35]Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Colley

Someone is repetitvely (and spitefully?) changing Samantha's age here on Wikipedia. She is in her late 20's. Someone keeps editing her age to read as 39.

I have corrected it several times now but someone keeps changing it back.

What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C3C:AE00:E05F:E7C:DBFA:741 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source is there to support either date of birth? Giant Snowman 12:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a NY Post source that shows an age for Samantha Colley of 28 on April 30, 2018. Will update the article accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this diff [36] and the next few, which seem to be based on this source: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/samantha-colley.html It well may be that famousbirthdays.com is wrong, but it at least suggests the changes were not malicious.--agr (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with agr, we should assume good faith (WP:AGF) here. Of course, sites like famousbirthdays.com are not considered reliable for our purposes, but casual editors will keep using them, and will not think of searching WP:RSN for discussion of such sources. Edwardx (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Jarrett

Fixed empty section header by IP editor 2600:387:1:811::85.

Hello, the article Valerie Jarrett is currently semi-protected due to vandalism. If you want to discuss any current concerns, please use the article's talkpage Talk:Valerie Jarrett first. See also WP:BLP for Wikipedia's requirements regarding biographies of living persons. GermanJoe (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because [37]. Which we seriously do not need. Judicial Watch? Seriously? Set up by Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer on the planet not called Mat Staver. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

governor eric greitens

The very first sentence is disgusting - "is an American scumbag" - it is vile, crude and frankly low class. I thought more of your web site and must say will NEVER again donate any monies anymore. The obvious political bias is glaring. I used wiki for years for truthful non biased information. Again, I will NEVER your site or contribute to your filth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.137.7 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP appears to be a troll. The "disgusting" language does not currently appear in Eric Greitens, only in a few vandal contributions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, Greitens has resigned because he is, in fact, a scumbag. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, we are going broke now, because some anonymous IP editor claims they won't donate $$$ anymore. I guess we are in big trouble. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Manning

Based on a couple of ambiguous Twitter posts, MagicatthemovieS is edit warring to restore an entire section of material that is based solely on conjecture. I don't see how guessing at an individual's mental state based on a couple Twitter posts has any place in a BLP. The edit summaries the editor used to restore the disputed content "Marylanders deserve to know if she's suicidal" and "the fragile mental state of someone running for office is not insignificant", in my opinion, appears biased and less than WP:NPOV. Could uninvolved editors with an eye to BLP-policy please keep an eye on the article to ensure that the BLP issues, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:TABLOID aren't repeated? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said in the section I added on Manning's tweets that she was insane; I shouldn't have speculated about it in my edit summaries. Regardless of my missteps, the public deserves to know when a politician sends suicidal tweets.--MagicatthemovieS

User:Ponyo the disputed section, Suicide concerns, is not as you falsely claim "based solely on conjecture." To the contrary, it includes three citations to WP:RS.

I trust that uninvolved editors with an eye to BLP policy will at minimum examine the facts and not blindly accept your misrepresentations. KalHolmann (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source states that she sent a couple of Tweets; it makes no mention of a suicide attempt. The second source also only mentions "concerning tweets" and again makes no mention of a suicide attempt. The last source, which is weak, is conjecture. At this time having an entire section titled "Suicide concerns" is WP:UNDUE. My request here was for outside editors who are adept at navigating tricky BLP-issues to provide input as to if the material should included at this time, and if so, how. WP:BLP is about getting it right through the use of the highest quality sources available not about getting it first because "the public deserves to know when a politician sends suicidal tweets" as MagicatthemovieS states above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ponyo, Nicole Hensley's report in the New York Daily News, cited above and in the excised section, headlines: "Chelsea Manning 'safe' after tweeting alarming photo hinting at suicide." Hensley's lead states, "Chelsea Manning alarmed her friends Sunday night with a pair of since-deleted tweets in which she contemplated suicide." (Emphases added.) That is not conjecture. It is a duly referenced citation to WP:RS. Your disingenuousness in pretending this event in the life of Chelsea Manning is somehow not about suicide is transparently unconvincing. KalHolmann (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following paragraph really needs to be removed from Mimis Plessas's article

"Prior to 1959 Plessas was a professor of chemistry at the Polytechnical in Athens. He received his PH.D. in a most interesting manner. He did it at Brown university by winning a piano competition. Much to the surprise of the judges, he asked for it to be in chemistry, not music."

The above not only sounds hilariously unlikely but the accusation that a university like Brown would issue chemistry degrees in unrelated music competitions clearly needs better evidence.

I suspect this may have been the link below is the source that this information was misinterpreted. http://www.andtheconductoris.eu/index.htm?http://www.eurovisionartists.nl/conductor/dir020.asp?ID=246

[Inc-1] Bercovici, Jeff (1 August 2016). "Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested In Young People's Blood". Inc. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

[Tech17-2] Buhr, Sarah (14 June 2017). "No, Peter Thiel is not harvesting the blood of the young". TechCrunch.com. Retrieved 24 May 2018.

[1]

[2]

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