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 Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 13 February 2020 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive297) (bot). 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;" |



    Ignazio Ciufolini: request of deletion by the subject of the biography

    Dear Sirs, I have open a request of deletion of my biography. The reasons are explained in my personal page and in the talk page of the biography. Ignazio.Ciufolini (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers

    The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:

    There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[6] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the points in order:
    (Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?
    (Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.
    (Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.
    (Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.
    (consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).
    I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment — Newslinger talk 01:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [7] and an earlier one [8]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.

    • ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
    • My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
    • Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
    • The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
    • Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.

    -- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[9] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[10] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:
    "An editor[11] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[12] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[13] Columbia Journalism Review[14], Axios[15], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[16]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([17] [18]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk[reply]
    None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.
    So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."
    Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:
    1. Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
    2. Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
    3. Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
      • I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
      • "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
      • National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the CO2 saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
      • 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
      • There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
    4. Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.
    — Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The Myron Ebell thread is now archived. The Joanne Nova thread is still live and I hope editors here will give it some attention. There doesn't seem to be much interest so I won't continue with my plan to add separate threads in WP:BLPN about each article.Newslinger: since you used the word "yet", I'm not sure whether you intended to add something, or whether we're done with this sub-conversation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newslinger: I guess you decided to not add something. The Joanne Nova thread is now archived. My other Joanne Nova revert has been discussed above. You have not tried to defend your claim about "most editors", which, as I indicated earlier, I believe is baseless. Re Ian Plimer, Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[19] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Today I made a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved editor (I don't care if it's an administrator). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Burt Rutan and major reduction in presenting his views on environment and climate change?

    Three questions: Should the article coverage of Rutan's views of climate change and data be expanded or contracted (as recently done by others)? Should the article link to PDFs of his presentations, as it had done for 8-10 years? Should the article link to YouTube or other videos of his 2009 presentation?

    FYI, This article section has been discussed a little, elsewhere.[20].

    • Which is better for Wikipedia, (1) the long standing presentation,[21] (with sources) which later also included links to Rutan's published presentations explaining his views,[22] (2) a slightly longer version with another quote added[23], or (3) the recently stripped version.[24]?

    Put another way, does Wikipedia want to minimize presentation of Rutan's actual views (because they are considered "wrong") or does Wikipedia want to accurately present his views in enough detail for a reader to understand?

    • A particular disagreement to settle is linking to Rutan's presentation itself (PDF). It seems the last thing some editors want is to make it easy for readers to see what a notable person actually said about climate change and data. I feel nothing has changed to justify removing the link that existed for almost a decade.[25][26] Please see below for discussion of the rps3.com site.

    I feel the info' from secondary sources should be expanded, not gutted, by including some information from relevant primary sources. This may apply to other sections too, for example to present his views and approaches towards design and innovation, fun, education, or cars.[27][28][29][30]

    But, I now focus on whether Rutan's views on Global Warming or Climate Change are correctly presented with due weight. I feel they are not.

    Some of the disagreement may be because it may be harder to access a full copy of the interview than when it was cited about a decade ago.[31]

    An interview of his got some attention,[32] and is available to hear him give it, as part of an interview. [33] This interview is also linked to from Rutan's hobbies and global warming pages.[34][35]

    His 2009 Presentation is also available to watch at YouTube.[36] (part 1 of 6)

    His presentation PDF[37] is available at his website.[38] Note this website is already used as a source for his awards.

    Note: Previous links to 2 versions of Rutan's presentations were hosted on Robert Scherer's website. Millionaire investor Scherer was a Rutan supporter: Arrived together on Scherer's plane.[39]. Flies chase missions for Rutan’s SpaceShipOne.[40][41]

    -- Yae4 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yae4, This is forum shopping. You got an answer you don't like at WP:FTN. Guy (help!) 22:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, The questions and answers, and consensus, if any, were not clear to me there, and I didn't raise the issue there. This seems like a more appropriate venue for a BLP issue. So, I raise it here, in the form of specific, answerable questions. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've asked a general question, here's a general answer. I would keep in mind that this is an article about a person and not about his views. While its important to understand his views, this article is not about those views.
    I would try to avoid a lot of quotes cherry picked from interviews, but use quotes that are discussed in reliable, secondary sources. Quotes that are being talked about, caused some controversy, or otherwise have some notability themselves. And use quotes very sparingly. Instead, try to summarize his views so that we can get the entire picture in just a few paragraphs or so.
    In deciding just how much space to devote to those views, I'd ask myself, just how well is he known for those views in comparison to all the other stuff for which he's notable? Then try to put it into proportion with the rest of the article.
    I would avoid linking to a lot of things like presentations, lectures, and, most definitely, youtube videos. Keep in mind, there is a fine line between reporting his views and espousing them, and we don't want to start looking like we're doing the latter. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth, I actually asked three specific yes/no questions and one multiple choice question. I'd appreciate if you'd weigh in on "Which is better for Wikipedia," and specifically give your choice as to which of the 3 linked versions of the article you like better (referring to the Global Warming aka Climate Change section, specifically). Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't do multiple choice. Too often my answer is not on the list. I answered your question as "What is best for Wikipedia?" Zaereth (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth, especially when the list is compiled by someone with a dog in the fight... Guy (help!) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked over the recent history of Burt Rutan. Yae4, your edits there have been reverted because they are terrible, and the edit summaries of the reverters explain clearly the details. --JBL (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I'll give an example. Dogfight is an article that contains a large amount of quotes. Now you could just keep adding hundreds and thousands of quotes on this subject, so where do we draw the line? First, you'll notice that this is largely a historical article, and in such articles there is much more room for quotes, what with hindsight being 20/20 and all. People have a lot of time to discuss historical events. (By contrast, you may notice the significant lack of quotes in a technical article like Basic fighter maneuvers, except maybe in the history section.) And nearly all but the Red Baron's quote come from secondary sources that discuss the quote. These quotes are used not to make a point on their own, but to help elaborate on what the text is already saying, so the reader can have a clear example. Examples are very important to understanding, which is why I'm giving one now.
    The recommended addition is extraneous, meaning it really serves as no example but as a point of and within itself, thus I see no reason to add it. It seems like pushing a POV. It needs context and some review in a historical context. And how much space should we add for that context? I don't know without seeing it. But I would say that a people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are mostly known for their views. People like the subject, not as much. Zaereth (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth, it got a lot of press. Burt Rutan is a bit of a cult figure in aviation, always a colourful figure, but standing up at Oshkosh, probably the most famous gathering of aviation geeks in the world, and spouting a straight Heartland Institute climate change denialist line in front of a scientifically literate audience who are acutely aware of issues around weather and climate, was always going to gain a WTF reaction. So of course IEEE Spectrum, New Scientist and others covered it.
    There's a popular misconception on Wikipedia that we should -even must - "balance" critique of a person's idiocy by citing the idiocy or the person's defence of it directly from their own self-published sources. That's the false balance we see in news media. Wikipedia does take a side: if reliable sources say that a thing is wrong, we don't cite the wrong thing for "balance". See also WP:MANDY. Guy (help!) 19:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I believe that the universe is self-balancing if you just let it, and if we follow the coverage in sources, in proportion to that coverage, then everything balances out. I don't know much about this person. I mean, I've heard of him but, personally, I'm more into the actual flying. Most of this discussion really has nothing to do with BLP, and really belongs on the talk page, which is why I just gave some general advice. What I'm referring to specifically here is the addition that Yae4 keep putting up and everyone else keeps taking down. (I generally rely on the article history, much more than the OP's question and barrage of links, to determine what's going on.) I believe his views deserve some coverage, but I don't know how much. It seems like you all had this worked out at FTN. Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth, yes they deserve some coverage, and indeed are covered. The issue is trying to "balance" that coverage, which is reality-based, by including primary-sourced fringe advocacy from the subject. That's obviously inappropriate. Guy (help!) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously. I wasn't even looking at it from a fringe standpoint, but I see your point. I really think we're trying to say the same thing from different starting places. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth, heh! That would be normal for Wikipedia :-) Guy (help!) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zaereth: Re: "The OP seems to have gotten the message and left a long time ago." No, the OP decided to WP:DISENGAGE for a while, and more often. Thanks for giving some examples. What would be more helpful, however, are examples of biographies of science/engineering people who are famous mostly for topic A, and secondarily famous for topic B. Then they would better match Burt Rutan. A comparison with (college dropout) Rush_Limbaugh#Environmental_issues is a little enlightening, however. Limbaugh is NOT a science/engineering person, yet there are 3 paragraphs on his environment views, versus only 1 paragraph for Rutan. Also, apparently it's OK at Limbaugh to link to PDFs for criticism[42] and to self-published blog PDFs for a survey result.[43] Comparisons with examples should help, but they're not yet.

    What could help is to compare This long-standing version (before I even touched it) and the current 1-paragraph version, and explain how the newer version is a more "honest" presentation of Rutan's views? (It's not)

    A reason putting quotes in a biography is useful is because there is no argument about what the person said or meant; it's in their own words. People like JzG aka Guy can say whatever they want about "Heartland Institute" or "a person's idiocy," but that is just a diversion, and frankly only their opinion. If you read the presentation or better, watch the presentation on YouTube or elsewhere, you can see for yourself whether he sounded like an "idiot" to ignore, or not. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Procedural Question: Why is this discussion here vs on the article talk page? The talk page has only two entries after May 2018. I would suggest closing all the external discussions as premature since no discussion has occurred on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I patrol this page; never been to that one. I was wondering why it was even brought here in the first place. Even though there's no BLP issue, I decided to give an explanation from a BLP standpoint that I thought would quickly put it to bed. Oh well, the best laid plans... Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy explained above why it was brought here: forum shopping. There is no BLP rule that WP is required to spread fringe proponents' propaganda for them by quoting them, so this is indeed a completely wrong place for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so what is the beef here? Is there some rule that says I can't answer someone's question when they come here, simply because they asked it somewhere else? The OP seems to have gotten the message and left a long time ago. And that would probably be the end of of it, but the rest is basically just Guy and me comparing notes. Simply put, all roads lead to the same destination. Whether you go strictly by FRINGE or by all the other policies combined, the addition Yae4 wants is not going to cut it. What more do you want? Should I have just said FU, get the F outta here?
    I don't mind people bringing their questions here. I'll happily try to explain Wikipolicy if it helps them understand. Sometimes they need to see it from the larger perspective. Sometimes it just helps promote open communication and raise overall community awareness of these things. This doesn't just occur in fringe topics, you know. The same thing happens with scientists all the time. Just wait, one will be along any moment now. We often get some article about a scientist, and it will invariably have two sentences about the person, and ten whole sections devoted to describing their theories in detail. It's no different if they're a genetic researcher pushing their widely-accepted research, a proctologist pushing, uh ... whatever it is proctologists push, or someone pushing a fringe theory. If they believe it and it helps the reader understand the person, it belongs in their article, but we should not be advocating it in that same article. Simple as that. Zaereth (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth, you acted in good faith. Yae4 did not, but that's not your fault. Guy (help!) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: Hob_Gadling took it to noticeboards first. They should explain why. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yae4, that's half the answer. The other half is that you didn't get the answer you wanted. Guy (help!) 11:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was relevant for the fringe theories noticeboard. It is not relevant here. That's why it is correct to bring it to FTN, but not correct to bring it here. Can we please archive or delete this pointless nonsense? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "You got an answer you don't like at WP:FTN." and "you didn't get the answer you wanted." "you acted in good faith. Yae4 did not, "
    WP:PA +3. eric, Martijin Meijering, and ApLundell seemed to favor not sugar coating Rutan's views. I agree with that. We're not talking about science or data details here, so it's not really a "fringe theories" question. This is a biography, not a Flat_Earth type article. So, Why wasn't the Talk page used before Hob Gadling started the external discussions? Was that proper procedure, or not? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Climate change deniers: Again

    Here in WP:BLPN, "RfC: Category: Climate change deniers" started in May 2019, closed in August 2018, established yet again that "Climate change deniers" was an unacceptable category. However, in WP:CfD, Category:Climate change skepticism and denial established via renaming a "Climate change denial" category containing about 170 BLPs (based on a quick count of this list).

    I claim that this is effectively an override of the WP:BLPN decision, and therefore request: "override the WP:CfD decision". I ping the participants of each discussion.

    WP:BLPN participants: LaundryPizza03 Slatersteven Anythingyouwant Peter Gulutzan Marcocapelle M.boli Pincrete KarasuGamma agr Milowent Guy Macon Hob Gadling Niteshift36 Masem Jonathan A Jones Bluerasberry Bodney Mangoe SemiHypercube JBL RevelationDirect Hanyangprofessor2 UnitedStatesian IuliusRRR Bus stop Newslinger Adoring nanny 24.217.247.41 Halo Jerk1 Guy Springee AReaderOutThataway Atsme Simonm223 Leviv, closed by GRuban.

    WP:CfD participants (excluding those already mentioned): jps 67.187.30.225 PaleoNeonate CatCafe Crossroads Someone Not Awful Calthinus XOR'easter, closed by MER-C.

    Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Several people in that discussion noted "This category should not contain any biographies at all" and I mostly agree with that, however some small allowance should be made for people who self-identify clearly and publicly with that label. That is, where it is a term that a person applies to themselves, it would be appropriate. Where it is a term that someone else has applied to them, less so, and where it is a term that only Wikipedia applies to them is right out. --Jayron32 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced we can stop it: excluding well-known climate change deniers from a category of similar people feels like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Category:American Christian Young Earth creationists exists, as do Category:Flat Earth proponents and Category:Conspiracy theorists. Sometimes being wrong is genuinely what people are best known for. Guy (help!) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the issue isn't so much with the existence of the category, but with ensuring only people who're known for climate change denial or scepticism are included in it. So long as their denial or scepticism is present in the article, and is adequately sourced, I don't see an issue. The problem is that editors sometimes try to use climate change denial as a means of smearing people, and add it to articles on the basis of little (or no) reliable sourcing. That's a much bigger problem than the existence of a category. Neiltonks (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree on that, though. Per WP:CATDEF, it is not enough to establish that a person to deny climate change to be placed in that category. Instead, it should be a defining characteristic of the person. If a person who is notable for unrelated reasons has once or twice made an offhanded remark that they don't believe anthropogenic climate change is a real thing, then they should NOT be so categorized even if that have made such statements. In order for any biographic article to be included in that category, it would need to be a defining characteristic of that person; i.e. one of the things they are primarily known for. --Jayron32 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Jayron32, that is reasonable. Burt Rutan, for example, should not be in the category, but might well qualify in a list article where we can give context. Guy (help!) 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Jayron32 and Neiltonks, this additional discussion should lead to criteria when biographies should remain in the category or when they should be removed from the category. But that has nothing to do with the category which is not (primarily) about people anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I more or less agree. If climate change denial/skepticism is a defining characteristic of a particular living person, we should be able to include them within this category. If they wrote a book about it, or gave a TED talk about cow farts and modern ice ages, they should probably be included. If they only made an offhanded remark while being interviewed about their upcoming rap album, not so much. - MrX 🖋 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally agree with Jayron32 that this category should not be used for any BLPs, with the possible exception of people who self-identify as such. If we are going to extend it then it has to be limited to cases where (1) it is a central characteristic of the individual, rather than a side issue, and (2) there is impeccable sourcing, that is multiple reliable sources (no blogs) and preferably secondary sourcing (if we are going to report in Wikipedia's own voice rather than reporting what some other individual thinks about one of their opponents). And as in previous discussions I remain appalled that we are applying this term to genuinely distinguished atmospheric physicists such as Judith Curry (former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) and Richard Lindzen (former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report). This is utter madness, and it's astonishing that we have to keep on returning to this point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Jonathan A Jones, Up to a point. The problem is that climate change deniers do not self-identify as such. They call themselves "skeptics" or whatever, and we don't use euphemisms.
      We describe "vaccine safety advocates" as anti-vaccinationists. We should do the same here.
      So if you mean that we can add anyone who self-identifies as a climate change skeptic to the category of climate change deniers, then yes, I agree. Otherwise I don't. Guy (help!) 12:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No I don't mean that. Richard Lindzen has self identified as skeptical of some aspects of climate change, but any definition that classifies him as a "denier" is simply nuts. If you want to describe him, or indeed Judith Curry, as skeptical of certain nuances in the current mainstream then go right ahead, but tagging them with perjorative categories based on the flimsiest grounds breaks every core principle of BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the above discussion, I still think we should not have any biographies here (like I suggested in the CfD discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To Marcocapelle: If I cannot get acceptance for removing the category, I will reluctantly support removing all biographies, though 'm not sure whether you mean all biographies (living or non-living, individual or group). To editors who think there are exceptional articles where the category would be okay: can you list them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jared Kushner – father made $2.5M donation just before Harvard admission

    Is it a BLP violation to state in the Jared Kushner article that his father pledged $2.5M to Harvard University just before his son was admitted to Harvard?[44][45] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally reliable sources I feel. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Importantly, the sources relate a possible connection issue, so that part is not OR on WP's to include. If it were the case that one source said Kushner was accepted to Harvard, and a separate source said his father made that pldeg, but made zero connection to the acceptance, it would be begging the question for us to include that. It is only because the RS called that fishy does it make sense to mention and should be put in context, with attribution. --Masem (t) 20:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sources are listed as RS/P evergreens –84.46.53.231 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has to be attributed to Golden. - MrX 🖋 23:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The article currently states as fact ""Kushner was accepted due to his father's donations and history with the school." None of the sources listed explicitly make that claim, though they strongly imply it. Also the Golden article, which other sources depend on, is based on anonymous sources at Kushner's high school saying they were surprised he was accepted, not even making the factual claim that is in our article.. Please see WP:BLPGOSSIP which says we should avoid innuendo based largely on anonymous sources.--agr (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone disagree that the current text fails WP:BLPGOSSIP? If so, please explain why. If not, I will remove it.--agr (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current text properly attributes the connection. The text could be made more clear, but it's not a BLP violation for this public figure. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    agr is correct, Daniel Golden insinuated but didn't say, unless someone can find something that we're missing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a BLP violation and does not fall under BLPGOSSIP. References are reliable and its fitting for that page. The attribution is also correct. I see no valid reason for its removal. ContentEditman (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ContentEditman Please tell us where in the Golden source the factual assertion in our article is made. As Peter Gulutzan points out it is just innuendo. Also note that even the anonymous sources Golden quotes do not make our factual assertion. They merely express surprise he was admitted. How is this not a problem under BLPGOSSIP?--agr (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statements and conjectures are published when a writer takes the initiative to investigate, fact-check, and organize information. This is not directly verifiable, absent a statement from Harvard or associated persons, so the article attributes it to the writer. If another investigator takes on the project of looking into Kushner's academic or extracurricular credentials, they may discover that he invented a flying robot in high school and won a violin competition. Then, if that's credibly verified and attributed, we might have even more article content to draw on for this subject of his admission. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What our article attributes to the writer is a factual statement that the writer does not actually make. As you correctly point out the claim made would be very difficult to verify factually. That is not a justification for including conjecture. --agr (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO, can you point out where Golden explicitly makes the claim attributed to him in our article?—agr (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review the Golden book and the two articles cited in the WP article. There seems to be consensus here that the article text is an appropriate attributed representation of what's in those sources. Golden's view has been widely cited, so it is clearly noteworthy. If you would like to propose a tweak to the language, I suggest you do that on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yousef Al Otaiba

    The Intercept had a long article about Yousef Al Otaiba, who is United Arab Emirates ambassador to the US. (See here: Diplomatic Underground: The Sordid Double Life of Washington's Most Powerful Ambassador).

    Some editors wants to downplay this, see Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Page_Issues.

    My question is, can we keep what is presently in the article? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see 5 current uses of the Intercept. Of those, the one that is used to source the scope of the Yemen War is not wrong, but the sentence itself is begging for sympathy from the prior sentence (about him speaking out against the war). My gut says that sentence attached to the Intercept isn't necessary, but if it is accurately describing specific facets that Otaiba had with the war, that should be stressed better. The first 3 uses are all plain, standard facts and no issue, and the 5th is related to the investigation about him, and appropriately in-line attributed, so fine. The Intercept is normally reliable (though clearly written as opinionated journalism to try to bring you to their way of thinking), but what bias is there is not showing up in the use on this article. --Masem (t) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Masem. Have you looked at Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Page_Issues? If so, do you have any comments about the objections raised there? Huldra (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yavuz Baydar

    Randam (talk · contribs · count) I'm concerned that the Yavuz Baydar article is receiving politically motivated vandalism from the account User:Randam. This account appears to edit exclusively in support of the government of Turkey, having created a number of articles for members of President Erdogan's party, and having been criticised for edits to Erdogan's article. Randam keeps attempting to insert unsourced claims that Yavuz Baydar is connected to the organisation of Fethullah Gulen, a former ally of President Erdogan who is now accused of masterminding the failed 2016 Turkish coup attempt. Journalists who are critical of the Turkish government are often accused of belonging to Gulen's organisation in order to discredit them, and it seems to me that this is what is going on here. I would like to seek other Wikimedians' opinions about whether some kind of sanction is necessary to stop User:Randam editing this article in particular, or articles of Turkish opposition journalists in general. --Jwslubbock (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I autoconfirmed it, which doesn't affect longer-term editors, of course, and have it on the watchlist - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale Steyn

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

    I'm just going through the news about Wikipedia to write "In the media" for The Signpost.After writing a draft, I just feel sorry for the guy. Here's what I wrote

    Dale Steyn doesn't know how Wikipedia works: India Today reported that South African cricketeer Steyn tweeted "Can anyone from @google help me change the information of me on your Wikipedia? A pretty serious point of information is FALSE and I’d love to have it changed." . Following the tweet, 35 edits by 24 users over about 8 hours resulted in no change in the article, which was then semi-protected. Ok Dale, this is how it works: go to WP:BLPN and leave a message there saying who you are, what you'd like removed, and why. If you don't want that public record write an email via "Contact us" giving them the same information, but any result will take longer. BTW, Google doesn't own Wikipedia and can't remove our content. That's ok, though Dale. I don't know how cricket works.

    I feel like that might let a few other people know how to best handle his situation. Better yet, I should just tweet him and let him know directly. But I don't know how Twitter works, either! Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Smallbones, ping me by email, I have a story to share. Guy (help!) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Raj Anand

    This pages exists purely as a marketing tool. This person is neither famous, known outside their speciality group, or known for having contributed significantly to society. Such pages should not be here, otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming a marketing tool (for example, as is happening with Quora). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjd300 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    There appears to be some WP:COATRACKing going on with this article, as well as some back-and-forth between supporters and opponents of the scientific consensus on climate change. I have cut out a bunch of stuff from differently wonderful sources such as HuffPo, Think Progress and National Review, none of which should be used for potentially contentious statements about living individuals. I think it still has too many primary sources and excessive focus on his states as a climate contrarian, to the point that the actual claim to notability is unclear on a first reading. Redux: this article could use some love. Guy (help!) 13:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't you notice the mis-attributed Nuccitelli Guardian blog source[46] while stripping out[47] the sourced mention of Forbes blog columns written by Pielke, among other statements? That Times-Call source was previously called a reasonably reliable source for statements of fact, in recent RSN discussion[48] The fact he writes Forbes columns in particular seems uncontroversial.
    I'd also dispute "this is what it actually says" for this change[49], as follows.
    What source literally says (highlight added):
    • For his work questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports, Pielke has been accused by some of being a climate change "denier." Meanwhile, for his work on adaptation, he has been accused by others of being an "alarmist."
    • Editor’s note: Pielke has informed the editors of FP that he strongly objects to being included on a list titled "Climate Skeptics."
    What article previously said:
    • notes that his statements questioning graphs in the IPCC reports have led to him being considered by some a "denier" of climate change, though Pielke strongly objects to those labels
    What JzG/Guy changed the article to say:[50]
    • notes that Pielke's published views have led to him being considered by some a "denier" of climate change and by others as an "alarmist".
    I note the alarmist phrase is actually in the source, but "published views" would seem to greatly expand the scope of criticism.
    Lastly, I'll note Earth Island [51] appears about as reliable as other random sources. HuffPost, National Review, and ThinkProgress at least have the "advantage" of being on WP:RSP with "no consensus."
    The last four "pruning" edits have all appearances of shaping the presentation to fit a desired slant, while creating the "concern" over notability by deleting sources. Concern for "potentially contentious statements about living individuals" seems inconsistent with adding labels while subtracting a sourced statement of objection to the labels. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeanette Wilson

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

    Citations are all Tabloid newspapers and not a reliable source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See User talk:Peace11111 for more information (by the subject of this article). PamD 08:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Peace11111 appears to not understand what a Tabloid is. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not tabloid and User talk:Peace11111 speaks in the first person when editing and referring to the topic. CatCafe (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Erasto B. Mpemba - supposedly dead?

    Erasto B. Mpemba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Someone edited the article of this (admittedly not particularly noteworthy) guy yesterday stating that he died of a heart attack. They did not cite any sources, and they don't even have a Wikipedia account. I can't find anything about Mpemba's alleged death online - no local news, no obituaries, nothing - but it seems like an obscure page for someone to vandalise like that. I removed the claim, but I wonder if it would be possible to get to the bottom of this.

    Xereeto (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the time with this kind of thing, the information is true simply not yet covered by anything close to an RS. The correct cause of action is to remove the unsourced claim, but be on the lookout for new sources or new additions without sources. In this case, I'm not so sure however. While the article may be obscure, the Mpemba effect far less so. It gets a reasonable amount of attention for a variety of reasons. So it's perfectly possible it's just vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    B. Wongar

    B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    From the article edit history it's visible that whole section Awards and recognitions was pointlessly removed. Later attempts to put back this section were prevented and editors were branded as sock puppets.

    At the same time life and work of this Australian anthropologist and writer was categorized as [[Category:Cultural appropriation]] [[Category:Literary forgeries]]

    This editorial practice is in violation of WP:NPOV for the categorization is derived from attacks on integrity of this man coming from a tiny Australian white minority. The Awards and recognition section is the best debunk of these attacks.

    In order to fully comply with the BLP policy, the latest version (fully sourced) of the Awards and recognition section shall be restored and the cultural appropriation and the literary forgeries categories shall be removed.

    Categorization of someone's life and work must be established on widely accepted and valid appraisals, not on slanderous opinions and defamations of that person.

    B. Wongar is a living person and a world-renown Australian anthropologist and writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk • contribs)

    • On the awards (which were removed here [52]), those were only sourced to a self-published biography. That's not acceptable, especially since none of these awards appear notable. That needs third-party sourcing, at minimum.
    • As for the other points, there are scholarly articles that discuss the dubious nature of this person's history. That's going to stay in the article, and if you want to challenge it, you are going to need to find similarly high quality RSes that establish there's no question of this person's merit and nature and that those reports are trying to smear him or the like. --Masem (t) 15:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the awards the edit as of 07:48 31 May 2019 is fully referenced, not by self-published biography. Please, put it back.
      • The dubious nature claims, you are talking about, are scholarly refuted many times worldwide. Please remove slander and defamation, for nobody is awarded the most prestigious awards for literary forgery or cultural appropriation nor any world-renown publisher ever published forgeries and appropriations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The awards were sourced to a site "wongar.com" with no "about"/"credits" or the like, and has all the appearances as a personal website or by someone with a COI with Wongar. We can't use that as a source. --Masem (t) 18:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, if the claims made by academic sources have been "scholarly refuted many times worldwide" then you need to show those sources. You cannot just say "they exist" and not show them. --Masem (t) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Awards: not all of them were sourced to Wongar.com. You cannot disqualify Wongar.com just for not seeing about/credits. In addition, you are free to add [citation needed] to each entry in the list where you find it appropriate, not to remove complete list.
          • Here you have a huge list of the sources you are asking for: http://www.wongar.com/?q=essays_and_papers Even though the list is from the site you do not like, each entry of this list is the real one.
    It will surprise no one who has observed this IP that, having received the negative response above from Masem, they have immediately returned and added the content to the article. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, the IP is using different sources now for the awards, a point I made above. I don't know how accurate those are, most are offline sources (print), but that's better than linking to what looked like the person's bio page. --Masem (t) 21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a very long history of tendentious IP editing of this article. The sources that describe him as a literary fraud are soundly based. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Joe Marchant

    He is currently playing Rugby Union for the Blues in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.183.25 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Conrad Black

    Someone is repeatedly trying to insinuate that Trump released Conrad because of the book that the latter wrote about him. While that might well be true, it has no place in a neutral Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.137.243 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's well-sourced it could have, somewhere.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The text does not say he got pardoned because he wrote a fawning book about Trump just prior. The text merely says: "In 2018, Black wrote a flattering biography of Donald Trump. On May 15, 2019, he was granted a full pardon by President Donald Trump." The text reflects all RS coverage of Black's pardoning, which all put front and center the fact that he had written a hagiography of Trump just before. Wikipedia reflects what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and to add, it looks like where there may be linkage, it was attributed to the WAPost, which is the appropriate way to present this connection. --Masem (t) 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas Ulmer

    Please review the status and talk pages related to the Wikipedia page of Douglas Ulmer who had been nominated for deletion. The true record of accomplishments by this highly honored living mathematician is being disguised by others because of my alleged COI. (He is the husband of my husband's sister's daughter.) His nomination for deletion was concluded with "no consensus".Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mitzi.humphrey:, The only deletion discussion was over 2 1/2 years ago, so there's no current threat of deletion. Bringing it up as a current problem seems a bit of a red herring. The extensive talk page discussion indicates you have been made aware of both the BLP and COI policies. I grant you that "niece-in-law's husband" isn't generally considered an especially close familial relationship. The issue with COI isn't how close the familial relation is but whether you are personally acquainted with the article subject and using the knowledge you gained from that personal connection to edit the article. You are doing this. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but personal knowledge of biographical subjects is avoided as a source. Anyone can claim acquaintance and say whatever they want so the COI and BLP policies exist to counter that. XOR'easter and JBL are correct in this. As a side point, the fact that you created the page doesn't give you any special responsibility for maintaining the page. Your best course of action for the future is to use the talk page to suggest changes you'd like to see. The best way to do this is to make an Edit Request by going to the talk page and start a new section. The request would look like this:

    {{request edit}}

    • the change you'd like made
    • why you think the change needs to be made
    • independent, secondary, reliable sources that support the change you'd like made

    ~~~~

    Note that the template that this will place on the talk page says you have "an actual or apparent conflict of interest". By using it you are not admitting to any CoI, only indicating that other editors perceive you might have one. This will likely result in a much better reception for your requests. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    edited to add fixed ping: JBL Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, (talk) (contrib) this does help. Thank you for the suggestion of how the request for changes should be made.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Roland_Rudd

    Hello, my name is Clemence Roquet Montegon and I work for a PR firm called Finsbury. I have noticed someone has changed the picture of the BLP article Roland Rudd to one that misrepresents him. I would like to request a change to be made but I might be conflicted as I work at the company owned by this person. Can I please ask an editor to review the revision and undo the image change to revert to the previous version as this would show the appropriate and relevant biography picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemenceRM (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. But there is no previous picture that I can see. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hekko, ClemenceRM, Are you by any chance referring to a photo (or text) shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale Steyn

    As per this India Today article the subject has asked for help. Dale Steyn asks for help to edit 'false' information about him on Wikipedia South Africa pacer Dale Steyn has said that some serious information about him on Wikipedia is false and has thus asked for help in editing it out. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither the tweet nor the India Today article actually said what the problem was. However at the time the article said he played for Australia (he’s South African) but that vandalism has been removed. The rest looks OK to me but I’m not a cricket fan so it might be worth someone who is a fan having a look as I may not pick up subtle vandalism. Neiltonks (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Caroline Calloway

    This article, about some young woman on Instagram whose Wiki-notability has become indisputable, is getting out of WP:POINT-y control. It has exploded over the weekend into a thicket of (MOS-noncompliant, but that's a side point) commentary that appears to, at best, veer into WP:SYNTH. I can't take the time in the next few hours to parse through all this stuff and merely seek to bring this to others' watchlist-level attention and thoughts. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, yeah seems to be some issues. I restored to what I can see as last good. PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Liri Seitllari

    Hi Wikipedia team,

    The page regarding author Liri Seitllari is constantly vandalized by the same person changing the books titles to names related to death.

    A police report was filed. Could you Kindly help to make the page semi protected? Last case, same story Last vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liri_Seitllari&oldid=937715224

    Thank you for helping to make the page at least semi-protected. Liri Seitllari's lawyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8308:70C1:3700:DD8C:C4C6:15B:478E (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sidad Ibrahim Hassan

    Sidad is a student at the American University of kurdistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidad Ibrahim Surche (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Amber Heard and Johnny Depp defamation case

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

    Following the recent release of audio recordings in the Depp v Heard case, the Amber Heard page has been the target of vandalism and several edits that violate the neutral point of view rule. Some discussion on how/whether to mention the evidence in the article has been ongoing on the talk page.

    However the discussion isn't reaching a consensus, so I am bringing this issue here to hopefully get some third party opinions. As far as I am aware the two sides of the discussion can be paraphrased as (please comment if anyone feels misrepresented by this):

    1. The evidence should not be mentioned until the trial has played out.
    2. The evidence should be mentioned now, being careful to keep the mention neutral and well-sourced.

    These two sides have been arguing on the talk page, but appear to be making no progress. The talk page is rather extensive; to ease discussion, here's an example of a proposed edit

    --Birjolaxew (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    We need more eyes from experienced editors on this matter, and more opinions. The dispute concerns what has been described as leaked audio of Heard stating that she hit Depp. There have been concerns about poor sourcing and WP:Due weight. Also at hand is characterizing the matter as abuse. The discussion is at Talk:Amber Heard#Johnny Depp abuse. A permalink for it is here. And the issue is also going on at the Johnny Depp article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Birjolaxew account beat me to reporting this matter. So I merged the section I started with theirs. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think it is time for this discussion to be moved here, as it does only seem to attract fly-bys from outside WP on the subject's talk page. I would suggest everyone venturing into this discussion please read the talk page discussion first, as it's gotten quite extensive.
    I've followed this seemingly never-ending legal and mud-slinging saga between Depp and Heard closely since it began in 2016. Plenty of tapes, photographs, text messages, witness statements, etc. have been leaked to the media or published by the media from the public legal filings during these four years. The current article discusses none of these individually, and unless we want to have a separate article for this topic, I suggest we don't venture there as the list of evidence submitted by both sides is long. For the sake of balance, if the tapes that have currently attracted some media attention (mainly gossip rags like The Daily Mail and red pill Youtubers; arguably I'd say the attention has also been less than in previous leaks, which is strange) are mentioned in the article, we should definitely mention at least the tape Heard published during the divorce proceedings in summer of 2016, which also attracted plenty of media attention. I hope this also demonstrates how important it is to pay attention to the entire context of this case and not add hastily, or to single out one side's alleged evidence. If this case has resulted in something, it's in endless "shocking truth revealed!!"-type articles that attract plenty of attention for a couple of weeks.
    This is what I wrote on the Talk page, and I think it still represents my opinion quite well: "When it comes to BLPs, we must be very careful about what is written in the article, no matter how much something is discussed in the media. The fact that the majority of people who so desperately want it included are people who normally don't edit WP at all / have shown no interest in the article so far is also not in favor of inclusion. When it comes to something that is this murky (in terms of the role of the media, the court case being ongoing) and polarized, we must err on the side of caution. WP should not be anybody's news source, especially not when it comes to celebrities. Hence, let's wait out until we know what the significance of these leaks is in the context of the entire case. [...] I think also the fact that most major news sources apart from DM seem to have stayed silent on these tapes is interesting. Yes, I know Newsweek and USA Today have had some coverage, but this case has been covered by pretty much all major news medias before, including such reputable sources that usually only publish celebrity news when it's extremely important."
    To recap, I'm definitely not in favour of mentioning the tape for several reasons discussed here and in more detail in the original discussion, and think the best course of action is to wait. I am, however, starting to think that perhaps we could add something neutral here "Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him.", e.g. "Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him; his legal team also published alleged evidence of Heard abusing Depp". In this case, we probably should also add, that Heard's not only countered this by repeating her previous allegations and evidence, but they also published more of it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    What is a "red pill youtuber"? OnsceneBoos (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth mentioning that some of Heart's evidence is already mentioned in the article: "Heard testified about the abuse under oath at a divorce court deposition. Evidence of the alleged abuse from her court filings was also published in the media."
    I suggest we add something similar for Depp's evidence. Birjolaxew (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We either mention nothing in regards to the on-going case or mention both sides. As it stands users such as TrueHeartSusie3 refuse to let any mention of the 87 videos published by Depp or the new audio recording stay in the article. This to me seems extremely disingenuous as if you read Heard's article now, you walk away with the distinct feeling the Depp is guilty and with very little information about Depp's side. OnsceneBoos (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can certain mention, broadly, that "evidence" has been presented by both sides, but it makes no sense from both BLP, NOTNEWS/RECENTISM and other factors to spell out what that evidence actually issue, just that "hey, here's the state of the court case so that WP doesn't appear ignorant of it going on". --Masem (t) 21:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael San Nicholas

    Could I get some eyes on an article on a politician, Michael San Nicholas, that I came upon while doing vandal reversion? I am dealing with an editor, seemingly new to Wikipedia though with a surprising grasp of some policy and coding, and a WP:SPA, who has just called my original revert "unethical" and seems to have it in for the subject. I had originally reverted a large, mostly-unexplained series of deletions. And while it is clear from sources that San Nicholas is indeed under investigation for various allegations, and that the information is correctly sourced in the article, it appears the editor does not wish to properly engage on the talk page regarding possible prior Wikipedia editing and the mass deletions I reverted. Now that my actions are being termed "unethical" I think it best to ask for other views. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update: After my filing here, the editor has largely walked back their personal attack, downgrading me to "overzealous." Other questions remain unanswered. Jusdafax (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2nd update: The editor has stated that they no longer intend to delete the sourced material I reverted. They also state they are new to Wikipedia, so at least we are on the record. I'm ready to move on, unless anyone here has a comment. Jusdafax (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kirk Douglas – allegation he raped Natalie Wood

    Please forgive my incomplete knowledge of BLP. I'd like to call to your attention an apparent edit war occurring over the inclusion of the allegation that Kirk Douglas raped Natalie Wood. (See this edit, for example.) The sources cited are The Guardian, Smithsonian Magazine and www.rogerebert.com, all RS's, I assume. But I wonder if they're merely reporting the existence of a rumor. —⁠173.129.175.205 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See: WP:NOTTABLOID. We don't report rumors from anonymous sources posted on a blog somewhere, which is what the sources all say. Not all information from reliable sources is reliable. For example, the last source in that section is an op/ed column, which is only reliable for the authors opinion. The Smithsonian source may be reliable for most of the info, but they admit it's just a rumor with no evidence, no official statement by the alleged victim, and no charges filed, so I wouldn't count that tidbit as reliable either. The exception to NOTTABLOID would be if the rumor itself had gained a huge (I mean Huge) amount of media attention and had some real impact on his life and career, but we would have to demonstrate that. Keep in mind this info affects both parties named. I am also concerned that this may be too closely paraphrased with the sources, possibly enough to cause copyright violations. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaereth: Thank you. There's now a request for comments on the article's talk page, in case you're interested. —⁠173.129.175.205 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Ahmanson Jr. cleanup needed

    I don't have time to take this on. Howard Ahmanson Jr. has been on my radar for years because he has Tourette syndrome; I don't follow most of the content there, as I've only focused on watching for accurate statements relating to his Tourette's. I haven't followed the article closely for several years. Someone has been adding trivia and uncited info to the article, some off-topic and about his wife. I removed some recently added off-topic stuff, but I see huge blocks of uncited text in this BLP. I hope someone has time to have a look in terms of BLP vios, due weight, and dubious sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Ari Rastegar

    Draft: Ari Rastegar (edit | [[Talk:Draft: Ari Rastegar|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This draft page for Ari Rastegar has enough notable sources to meet WP:N. Need more insight from other editors on the draft page. Texatexan (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Ngo

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

    So we have two questions here which have arisen out of a talk page discussion, first is whether or not The Daily Dot (relevant article Andy Ngo slammed for doxing a minor (updated) [53]) is a WP:RS in this situation. The argument centers on whether doxing is part of or related to internet culture. This is key because according to the entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture.” My proposed text based on this source is “In January 2020 Ngo doxed a 17 year old who had sent Ngo a photo from the July 2019 incident in which Ngo was assaulted with a milkshake. Ngo later boasted about the doxing on Twitter and linked the minor to a mass killer without providing any evidence.”

    The second question is whether, if yes it is a WP:RS in this context, it satisfies WP:VERIFY and WP:WEIGHT? Those are the challenges that have been made to its inclusion by Springee, I will simply quote their argument rather than risking offense by paraphrasing: “For content to appear in an article it must be Wp:VERIFY and have WP:WEIGHT. To meet the standards of WP:V the content needs to be sourced to WP:RSs and that it accurately reflects the source. Per the ONUS section of WP:V it's noted that verified doesn't ensure we have WEIGHT for inclusion. That is the policy that says coverage in a RS doesn't ensure inclusion. In this case we don't agree if the Daily Dot is a RS for the content in question. Even if we did agree on that the question of weight hasn't been answered.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Doxing is definitely tied to Internet activities, and Daily Dot would be an RS here, but the second point on UNDUE is what I'd agree it should probably not be included if the only source reporting on it is Daily Dot. BLP articles are not meant to be scarlet letters that document every bad thing a person has done that can be documented, but a summary of the broader concerns. If multiple sources noted this doxing incident, like several of the other facets on Ngo's page, then that would be fine, as there likely would be criticism of why this was a bad thing or the like. --Masem (t) 17:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that @Kyohyi:@Calton:@Springee:@Loksmythe:@Shadybabs: are all the editors who have been involved, please feel free to tag any additional editors I may have missed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way I can sum up my stance on the content is, why do we care? Why is this encyclopedic? Why does it merit inclusion? We aren't a news aggregator, just because a source printed it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. If there were multiple sources, we could possibly paraphrase something, but right now we've got a single source. Further, the single source isn't a particularly in depth piece, and is mostly quotes and paraphrases of an interview with the minor. To me, it looks to be WP: BLPGOSSIP. I think more, and better sourcing would be required to include this event. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to questions of WEIGHT, I'm concerned about the quality/neutrality of the source. Consider an important question. Was Ngo aware that this person was a minor at the time? The DD doesn't address that question which seems to be critical in cases where such information is being held against him. DD might be seen as a RS for internet trends but this is crossing over from simple trends to descriptions of threats and harassment. The teens actions might be considered a criminal threat given he seemed fully aware of the history between antifa and Ngo. Regardless, as was said, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an aggregation of news snippets. Springee (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=940534880"