Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive252

daniela denby-ashe

Daniela Denby-Ashe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

there is nothing contentious about including the name of a theatre to daniela denby-ashe's theatre credit. there is no vandalism going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikius3r606 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Kilstein

Certain allegations have been made against him. To my knowledge, no reliable source has reported these allegations however. Until such time, these allegations should not be placed in the article. The article is currently under semi-protection until the 8th. Some users have added the allegations however. They cite an article by TheDailydot, but I do not believe this to be a reliable source.

If the situation changes, and these allegations are widely reported in reliable mainstream sources, and it becomes an issue significant enough so that there is enough weight to include, then of course they should be included. But that time is not now (as far as I can tell). --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If this sets a precedent that The Daily Dot is unreliable on Wikipedia, by all means that's fine with me. Still hoping for something to cover that bit of news. GamerPro64 03:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's come up on RSN a few times. I don't have time to go through them.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_102#The_Daily_Dot
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_105#Daily_Dot_revisited

Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

From the looks of it, those conversations were made when Daily Dot was a month old. New discussion should be made now that its over five years old. GamerPro64 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I honestly think this should have been taken up to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. GamerPro64 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the Daily Dot was deemed a reliable source, as they have editorial oversight.--Auric talk 00:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought so too. But I guess recent consensus is needed now. GamerPro64 00:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue. The first linked discussion seems to be an agreement that the website is reliable, and the second one isn't about the whole website, but a specific author. There's no reason to believe they've lost editorial oversight or become less reliable in the years since, as far as I can see. Parabolist (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue either. I was just putting a source about this guy who left a Radio show because of allegations of being abusive towards women and it was reverted because Daily Dot might be not reliable. If there's consensus that Daily Dot is reliable then this thread and the reverts were pointless. GamerPro64 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think The Daily Dot has a fairly solid reputation as far as that sort of site goes; it has been reported on and discussed on media criticism and analysis sites. However, given that these are pretty sensitive personal allegations, we should be very careful about including them; we aren't a newspaper and we don't need to be on the forefront of reporting these issues. I'm not seeing any other significant reliable sources reporting on it, and therefore it would be undue weight, besides. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think undue weight would apply in this situation. Personally there should be some source needed to explain why Kilstein left the show. GamerPro64 14:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There's two issues. First the reliability of DailyDot. I would have thought it rather straight forward and uncontroversial that it's not. It's just another internet blog. The second issue is weight. With regular articles we must ensure that undue weight is not given to something only covered by few sources. And with living biographies, that standard is raised. I do not believe that standard has been met. It's mostly just a handful of internet blogs discussing it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The DailyDot does not describe itself as a blog, has paid editors, and according to our article on it (The Daily Dot), has a full time staff of 76. This is not 'just another internet blog'. The RSN discussions don't come to any concrete conclusions and have arguments for and against. If Citizen Radio is notable enough to have an entry, one of its two hosts leaving is notable enough to be described on the host's BLP.Dialectric (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Fritsch

• Lisa Fritsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (but the problem edits only visible in abuse logs)

The (alleged) subject has tried to update this, and hit all kinds of hassle from false-positives by the edit-filter, because their edit included some ALLCAPS, the word "bitch", and suchlike.

See their abuse log

I believe they're innocently trying to fix errors in the article, and they have asked for help at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help_with_editing_page_for_Lisa_Fritsch.

Can someone help 'em out? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh

• Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor seems quite determined to turn this article into a hagiography, with lines like "an innovative teacher who follows the way of the founders of Chassidut in his profundity of thought. He shows astonishing proficiency in Chassidic literature in all its fields and succeeds in elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels, capturing his listeners for hours on end". Sources include a religious magazine (issue hosted on Google Drive: [1]), where the article is titled "The Angel Speaks"; a page about jewellery [2], and some other assorted sites that surely do not meet WP:RS. The article now also includes passages/paragraphs with no sources at all. An appeal to BRD was met with some discussion [3] but continued reverting as well. The article doesn't have many contributors/watchers; some additional eyes/input would be useful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be best to notify WT:JUDAISM they would be best able to deal with this and figuring out if sources are reliable or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

BLPN regulars are in a position to help. Even with an obviously reliable source, we can't have an article saying "He shows astonishing proficiency in Chassidic literature in all its fields and succeeds in elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels". And some of the other problems are obvious as well.Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously those have to go, but contacting a project would be beneficial if sources are brought that are not well known. In this area, you will find what is RS but doesn't necessarily have a web presence or it might be in a foreign language. It's never a bad thing to contact a project. You'll get people that are a drop more familiar with the subject. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's obvious they should go, then why not remove them? I don't want to get into edit-warring, so I brought it here. As you say, there are certain aspects that are obvious -- so they should be dealt with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

I have now performed two reverts on BLP grounds on Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Uninvolved comment is appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 01:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the revert you are referring to is 00:31, 9 March 2017. The words that were removed do not identify any person, living or otherwise, so it is hard to see how BLP applies. The lead of the article tells us that Donald Trump ordered the creation of the office, and words removed from a later paragraph say that critics had some strong criticism (including a mention of Nazism). Is the suggestion that the strong criticism is a BLP violation of Trump? I did not review the two sources—do they attack Trump in a way that might be a BLP problem? I'm afraid Trump attracts strong views and while it may be argued that a source linking a current action to what was done under the Nazis is over-the-top (undue), I cannot see a BLP issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Branimir Štulić

Branimir Štulić is a well known composer and writer from former Yugoslavia. His music albums and books has been sold since early eighties in a millions of copies.

Wikipedia page about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branimir_%C5%A0tuli%C4%87 contains 95% unsupported sources, malicious, explicit and offensive false statements of facts, purposely written with a bullying use of threat, in order to justify an unauthorized exploitation of his work and as well to mislead the public.

Wikipedia contains deliberate lies about his family roots, his private life and work, which has caused him a huge damage, both moral and material.

Recently, for an independent media, Mr. Štulić has clearly explained this serious issue with Wikipedia, presented his arguments and made a public request for a complete removal of all Wikipedia page's about him: http://tris.com.hr/2016/12/branimir-stulic-vs-wikipedia-sve-napisano-o-meni-je-izobliceno-95-posto-od-toga-je-laz/

His legal attorney team has also sent a complaint notice to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

for Branimir Štulić. legal spokesperson, Zoran Živković — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.121.111 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I gave a detailed answer here. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Dear Vanjagenije, as an editor/administrator you should not place yourself above Wikipedia Rules (Biographies of living persons) and allegedly decide what is relevant in this case, and what is not. You can't continue brazenly to ignore the basic Wikipedia rules and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees in Article 8. right to respect for private and family life. -Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -Pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia should be identified and removed from Wikipedia. -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. -Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose matches the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD)) Mr. Štulić has made it clear that the sources of content on Wikipedia page about him are not credible and in the category of yellow press, addressing rumors and spreading lies about his name, life and work, and he is demanding that page should be immediately deleted. for Branimir Štulić. legal spokesperson, Zoran Živković — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.121.111 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

-This whole Wikipedia article is maliciously conspired to defame and tarnish Mr.Štulić name and his achievements. -Mr.Štulić considers this article erroneous and defamatory and an online harassment. -According to Mr.Štulić (Tris.com.hr "Branimir Štulić vs. Wikipedia") most of the references taken as a sources for this article are fabricated fake interviews which was a very common practice among journalists in a communist society at that time (also after Yugoslavia's breakup). -His only legitimate Label was 'Azra music', the other three (Jugoton, Komuna and Hi-Fi Centar) has illegally published pirates editions of his music albums and they are mentioned here in order to justify an unauthorized exploitation of his work and also to mislead the public. -His father was not Serbian (neither anyone in his family). -He has been living in Netherlands since 1984. not 1986. -Under his name he performs since 1990. -He didn't record album 'Sevdah za Paulu Horvat' in Sarajevo (he just recorded a few songs for documentary purposes, to show the audience how he works, most of the songs were already recorded before) and certainly he wasn't involved in the documentary because of the country's breakup. For those reasons frase 'what became obvious to him that Yugoslavia is going to collapse' in general does not stand. -Recorded material for music album 'Blase' was stolen and Mr.Štulić never published it, but Hi-Fi Centar did, as a pirate edition. -By mentioning 'occupied territories' Mr.Štulić refers to Serbia (in an conversation with a Serbian journalist). -His limited edition autobiography named "Smijurija u mjerama" was a great success and a sold out book. -Mr. Štulić was never a fervent believer of Yugoslav-ism and Brotherhood and unity, that is a wrong conclusion. -He writes and translates to 'Literate Serbian' not Serbo-Croatian. -It's a false statement that Mr.Štulić is living a 'modest and ascetic' lifestyle and how would somebody know that, since article claims that he is 'very protective of his privacy'?

Overall, if we remove all lies and speculations from this article the only true facts left, will be: Branimir "Johnny" Štulić (born April 11, 1953) is a singer, composer and writer.

for Branimir Štulić, legal spokesperson, Zoran Živković — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.121.111 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Reza Aslan

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

Hi, 1 billion Hindus are very very mad at Reza Aslan. More eyes would be appreciated. Reza_Aslan#Believer NPalgan2 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Providence (religious movement)

Dear admins,

The current Providence (religious movement) article appears to me to be an WP:Attack page on the group and its living founder, without factoring in a significant amount of other published news articles that provide other perspectives. I have tried to work a neutral POV into the article with these three heavily sourced drafts on the Group, the group's founder, and various published perspectives on the controversies that you can use as a reference. I have also tried to make changes progressively through the article's talk page, but received a lot of resistance from a group of editors who have been managing this page for several years. I appreciate any help that can be provided, such as more neutral editors/admins to provide inputs on the page and its talk page, thank you! (I am a third party researcher on this topic with no COI) Avataron (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Alan Green

There is a problem on the Alan Green (broadcaster) article where one editor is repeatedly inserting unsourced negative content. The basis of his original research is that the mentioned 'feud' between the article subject (Alan Green) and a football manager (Alex Ferguson) is not mentioned in Ferguson's autobiography. It therefore is a figment of Green's imagination, who is "egotistical", "delusional" and a "Walter Mitty".

I have explained to this editor that an absence of something cannot be used as a source. I've warned him the importance of negative material on BLPs must be well sourced. I even included a cite from a third-party verifying that this "feud" is well-known by others, but he simple reverts this.

I don't see the point of reverting this guy further, as he simply continues to revert and denies there are any sources to support what the article says, and fill my talk page with abuse. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours by Ritchie333. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Johnny Jones

Johnny Jones (basketball, born 1961) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wiki article currently states that Johnny Jones is the former LSU coach. It is 2:35 ET and no official announcement has been made. Someone has posted incorrect information based upon speculation, not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CE0:5E10:D0E2:C578:CFAA:43BE (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• "LSU director of athletics Joe Alleva announced Friday that men's basketball coach Johnny Jones has been fired after five seasons." (ESPN), 10 March 2017. - It appears to be official at this point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Hastert

Dennis Hastert's page identifies him as an American criminal (as an identity). Hastert was never convicted of a sex offense, and he is notable for being Speaker, not for being a "structurer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6284:E000:4518:B936:15E2:9005 (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. Stuff like this that is obviously unappropriate, editors are encouraged to just fix on the spot. If the editor persists, that's different. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Stewart_(politician)#cite_note-8

This link has been hacked and redirects to a sex site. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.195.35 (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Cite note #8 (Pink News) in the Stewart article is not a sex site. PinkNews covers politics, entertainment, religion and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the UK and worldwide. Maineartists (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Fabio D'Andrea

Fabio D'Andrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography is hugely inaccurate and quotes unrelated press articles.

1) By the time he was 12 he had taken the Grade 8 of Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music exams and had also sung before the Queen and Prince Phillip at the Royal Albert Hall.[1]

There is no evidence to suggest he reached this grade at 12 and the news article does not relate to him singing for the Queen.

2) and continued his education, studying music at Kings College London and The Royal Academy of Music, specialising in composition

The references only cite him studying at Kings College London

3)D'Andrea released a debut solo piano album Reflection in 2012[2] which became album of the week[3] on Classic FM in the UK and subsequently a top ten classical album.[4] The reference does not cooborate that he was album of the week on classic fm

4)D'Andrea had his debut commission for a ballet production premiered at the Royal Opera House[6] in 2013. The commission by Ballet Black, an associate company of the Royal Ballet, was composed for Royal Ballet dancer and choreographer Ludovic Ondiviela and the orchestral piece, Perpetuum, featured in the dance Dopamine which toured both in the UK and internationally.

There is no record of Fabio D'Andrea composition being used in this performance. http://balletblack.co.uk/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.237 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You may want to double-check some of your claims. Just checking your statement that " the news article does not relate to him singing for the Queen" overlooks the fact that that page does include the statement "Fabio [...] has played for the Queen", so it can be used as a source for that statement (although, well, Daily Mail is not our favorite source of biographies.) This appears to be a column of news bits, not all of which are reflected in the title. Some of your concerns may be handled better by using the Template:citation needed tag rather than deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Carlo M. Croce

Operator873 has consistently added information on the biography of Carlo M. Croce that violate the guidelines of wikipedia's BLP. His entries on Croce's personal are not written from a neutral point of view and are based on gossip. Operator 873's entry is not written conservatively and has absolutely no regard for the subject's privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemachos1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The edits in question cite the New York Times and Smithsonian; neither is noted for basing content on gossip.

That said, this article probably does need extra eyes on it. A number of editors—some with declared conflicts of interest, some single-purpose accounts—have been removing the controversy-related material from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Small

There is only one citation for the article, to a CUNY site that is no longer active. I found several other sources with information about Small but they do not contain all of the information referenced in the article.

References

Is it best to rewrite the article so that is now only includes information in the still active sources?

Thank you!

Unapersonacuriosa (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org has a snapshot from 2016. [4]. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

may i ask you to please delete the highly aggressive, politically motivated reference to my novel about walt disney

dear ladies and gentlemen, may i ask you to please delete the highly aggressive, politically motivated reference to my novel about walt disney: this is the wiki re. my bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stephan_Jungk, and this is the reference in question: References[edit] Jump up ^ "What's New" Archives: February 2012 – "The Imperfect Perfect American", blog by Michael Barrier

thank you very much in advance,

peter stephan jungk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.117.64 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Content removed per WP:BLPSPS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note – this doesn't solve the (many) other problems with the article: too much of a PR-job to my taste, and total lack of references. Not even too sure this would pass WP:GNG (if the only independent source would be an unusable blog...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the external links is useable as a reference for his novel being turned into an Opera, and from a quick googling there are others out there (It looks like quite a few are in German). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The NYT article (if that is what you mean) covers about half of the sentence that is in the article about that topic (the first staging of the work apparently having been in another continent as what was is mentioned in the NYT article). A BLP with a potential reference for half a sentence doesn't cut it.
• The same NYT article doesn't do much in terms of WP:GNG: the author (subject of the BLP) is mentioned in passing without other biographical data than that he wrote a book of which the title is mentioned. Is there any article in a reliable independent source which has Peter Stephan Jungk as main topic? If so, please add it as a reference to the article. Currently the article doesn't assert notability in the intro, and there is no reference in the body that demonstrates notability. The whole content is now presented as deriving from thin air, or, at best, from sources closely related to the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I dont speak German :) From what I can tell the majority of the English sources are related to the novel being made into an opera. Everything else I find about him appears to be a German source - which I cant judge how much is about him, what its about, and am generally not happy using Google-Translate to answer those questions. From his body of work that I can see, I think he *should* be notable, I just personally cant reference it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This (German) article mentions a favourable (German) recension of his 1987 Franz Werfel biography (which, in its 1990 English translation, is used as source in the English Wikipedia article on that author). Let's say that I assume, too, that there is probably more, and enough for a solid GNG – but not apparent in the article yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think me and Francis both went at that at the same time. Either way its gone. Just to lay out a few problems with it. 1)Self-published blog. 2)No indication as to why this SPS is reliable for his opinion on this subject (animation historian, not an opera critic, and I dont hold he magically becomes better at being an opera critic because the subject is Walt Disney). 3)Its factually wrong in any case, as he was describing the novel, not the opera. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a ref from an international literature festival, which supports some, + a 2011 prize, I also added authority control - will not understand how any article about an author can do without, and duplicated the entry for the German National Library. No time for more, but I am sure he's notable, for example a FAZ review of his Werfel book is mentioned in the ref. (I see I am not the first to say so.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

His books are used as a reference, example [5], [6] [7]. - Can't fint the university entry, but these. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve_Hillier

Steve Hillier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a "Steve Hillier" British Musician page, I can see it has been used blatantly for self-promotion as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roger_8_Roger points out. The fact is that the page subject is not notable enough in it's own right, the bulk of it is duplicated on the Dubstar band page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubstar, and this individual page in itself is of no merit to us as a comunity.

Delete recommended, since anything we need to know is available on relevant band pages, this person is not a solo artist and not worthy of a wikipedia page, the self-publicity is clearly the only motivating factor (even their personal web site http://www.stevehillier.net/ is dead reflecting the need to delete the Wikipedia)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.137.102 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Submitted to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hillier --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick Jr.

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

Re. "Professional misconduct charges"

I would like further opinions on whether this section is WP:UNDUE, whether it should be trimmed-down or removed.

Background: Delphine63 (talk · contribs) had tried to remove this, and other sections, from the article - but due to them "blanking" and not explaining why, their edits were reverted. I have removed some uncited negative info from the article, but left this part for now, pending further opinions.

Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that this case is not only undue weight; but really is not notable enough for inclusion. It was only covered locally (and not that in-depth). If it had received expansive coverage in more prestigious media outlets, I would say: yes, include. But under these circumstances; no. Furthermore, the lede does not mention this one specific case; which implies that the subject is not notable on WP for this life event. In addition, the undue weight occurs in mentioning names that are not notable and should not be mentioned in this article; as the case itself is not note worthy. I would support reducing this to a single sentence in Education and Career or removal altogether. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree.

I'm going to remove it altogether for now, explaining why on the talk page, and if anyone objects we can discuss it further there.

Thanks again, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Good luck. Ping me or at least reference this discussion on the talk page. I'll be happy to support. Maineartists (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

William Dunlap Cannon, III

Hello. I have just put a CSD tag on this page. I'm posting here in case the tag is removed. The page should be deleted asap. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Scone. 15:06, 14 March 2017 Edgar181 deleted page William Dunlap Cannon, III (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Also, the author has been indefinitely blocked. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Mike Godwin dead?

Can anyone verify whether Mike Godwin has died? An IP made this edit to the article, but I have not been able to find a corroborating source. The same IP made the same edit before, but it was reverted as well. Not sure if this is some just messing around or some other death hoax. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

He tweeted 52 mins ago.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not dead. Alive and well and eyerolling on Facebook. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. The IP who added the information is claiming that Godwin is his uncle. Most likely they will be back, so is there anything to do but warn them once again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Your diff is broken; you meant [8]

The clue that this is plain vandalism is, the death-date of January... no way it'd take that long to be reported.

The user tried to post it several times in January, and had an 'only warning'. So, I've reported them to AIV; admins may or may not decide to block; it's been several weeks since that 'only warning', but OTOH, it's serious vandalism.

If it was more than one IP/user, then protection might be worth it, but if it's 1 person, it's easier to block them.

I wouldn't worry too much, I'm confident a lot of people have that page on their watchlist, so any vandalism is unlikely to remain for more than a few minutes.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Update, the IP has been blocked for a couple of weeks. Oh, also, Hitler. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Melanie_Chandra

Melanie Chandra

Continuous vandalism of birth year.

WP:RS found in Chicago Tribune corroborating 1984 birth year.

Melanie (née Kannokada) was 17 (HS Junior) in 2001, per cited source, and HS Sophomore in 2000, per 2nd source.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieReed (talk • contribs) 14 March 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

@Sarah thas: has removed the sources and birthdate, claiming that those sources are somehow outdated.--Auric talk 12:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve King

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

Representative Steve King of Iowa's wiki entry should be updated to include his most recent public thoughts on ethno-nationalism ASAP. He is threat to American Democracy, a White Supremicist, and Wiki should share the following with readers:

"Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:c0a9:c79:d3a1:8c2e:1f33 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC+9)

Big NO on that. Twitter fails as a reliable source. It he really said that it would be sourced reliably already. BLP's need to be written conservatively, so without a reliable source, it would need to be removed. ƘƟ SĦ 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Twitter makes a perfectly fine RS for statements that a verified individual has made on their official twitter account, the same as an individual's blog or other online presence. However, in this case, we can sort elsewhere, as the tweet has gotten substantial coverage - in New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, etc. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

More important here: if the Tweet itself was the only thing, it would be improper to use it to try to justify anything about King's political position, because it would be a statement out of context and edge on original research (much less BLP) to include, particularly if one takes the attitutde that this thread's OP had. However, with the amount of discussion and criticism it received as covered by the sources listed above like NYTimes, which also establish context, there's no question of referring to the tweet in the article (and it already is as far as I can tell). --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Annica Nsiah Apau

Annica Nsiah Apau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about this new article, but I'm not sure how to deal with it.

It seems to be tabloid crap, but I guess it has a 'credible claim of significance', and it does have references; however, I do not think that her having sex every day, or having a large bottom, is encyclopaedic. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to Okyeame Kwame as I think he - rather than his wife - is the notable party here. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, thx 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Well, that hasn't worked out [9]. Should we PROD it? Or AfD or something? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Prod template was removed, so I have sent it to AFD. Please comment there. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow; I was just now trying to work out if I could nominate it. Good stuff, thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The daily mail

The Daily Mail

Regarding the singling out of this newspaper for carpet banning as a reliable source. Can we not create some kind of NEW standard for WP:BLP controversial or possibly contentious additions - for all tabloid style publications? None of them are instantly wp:reliable for any controversial or possibly contentious additions and as such a talk page discussion is a great idea anyway. They are all imo generally reliable for basic reports. We could remove the blanket banning of any publication and replace it with a new standard that covers all publications. We do regularly use sources in biographies of living people that are no better or no worse than the Daily Mail. Suggestions welcome, such as if there is a better location for such a discussion. Thanks for any input. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal builds upon an incorrect premise, i.e., "the singling out of this newspaper for carpet banning as a reliable source." There are many prior and ongoing discussions of this matter (some of which you already have participated in); the benefit of adding yet another discussion thread on this matter is not obvious. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the input User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - I have requested you provide links to these previous discussions I have participated in, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You are completely right. I apologize abjectly and profusely for having made any suggestion that you were previously aware of the issues around the l'affaire Daily Mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail was singled out because it had the rare distinction of being both widely considered an unreliable source and widely cited on Wikipedia. During the RFC, and subsequent discussions, various similar sources were brought up, and I found at least some of these to essentially never be cited on Wikipedia. There is no shortage of sources that have been so thoroughly concluded to be unreliable (either here, or at another noticeboard, or an article talk page), that we never needed to have an RFC at all. We needed an RFC on the Daily Mail precisely because it was an edge case. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is based on the incorrect notion (which, unsurprisingly, appears to come from the Mail itself) that DMG has been "singled out". This isn't the case; all that RFC has done is determine that Wikipedia will from now on treat the Mail in the same way other tabloids are treated, as a valid source for opinions and commentary but not to be trusted as the sole source for facts. The only reason the RFC is specifically about the Mail is that Wikipedia doesn't suffer a serious problem with other tabloids being used inappropriately. What makes the Mail a special case is that Mail Online—which is really what's in question here—has the superficial look and feel of a legitimate news site, so readers (particularly outside the UK who may not be familiar with it) assume that it's on a par with the Telegraph or Guardian websites, and use it to cite stories without double checking if the stories are actually fabrications or distortions.

  In an ideal world, we wouldn't be using newspapers as sourcing for anything other than opinions and commentary, but as long as Wikipedia continues trying to cover current events, it will inevitably include facts sources to newspapers. If no source other than a British tabloid can be found for any given statement, then that's prima facie evidence that the statement shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Iridescent, it would be nice if you were right, but that's not what the RfC discussion and closing summary said. No exception was made that the Daily Mail will be treated "as a valid source for opinions and commentary". The statement that The Daily Mail is "not to be trusted as the sole source for facts" is singling it out; others are still subject to the guideline that context matters. Your belief that Mail Online is really what's in question here is borne out by the fact that dailymail.com and dailymail.co.uk were the subject of most or all of the anecdotes, but the RfC subject was The Daily Mail and the closers stated it applied to both The Daily Mail and dailymail.co.uk. And your statements about what Wikipedia editors do with Daily Mail stories was not actually discussed in the RfC, as far as I could tell, except in two cases -- where a WP:BLPN RfC ended up with an administrator confirming that The Daily Mail was okay, and where an incorrect Daily Mail Headline was trusted. I do not agree with Govindaharihari if the implication is that the RfC result should be negated already; however, Govindahari's description is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Are you actually reading what you're writing? "As a valid source for opinions and commentary" and "not to be trusted as the sole source for facts" aren't at all contradictory. To take a trivial example, citing the Mail as the sole source for "Ed Sheeran's new album is released on Monday" is now unacceptable, given their history of not bothering to fact-check; citing the Mail as the sole source for "a review in the Daily Mail called Ed Sheeran's new album a work of genius" remains acceptable, because we're explicitly identifying it as "opinion and commentary", not facts. (What is this thread doing at BLPN, anyway? Have we run out of appropriate places to forum-shop?) ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • We disagree, but you're right that this doesn't look like a WP:BLPN issue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Colleen Ballinger

I think the article on Colleen Ballinger is ridiculously long and repetitive. It has 158 refs. I want to try to work on it, but I see ownership issues by Ssilvers. I also want to work on the article, Miranda Sings, as it has the same, if not worse problems. The Miranda Sings article has 182 refs, and the same ownership issues by Ssilvers. If you read the talk pages on both articles, Ssilvers shows ownership of the articles. I looked at the archives of Miranda Sings talk page, and Ssilvers has been dominating the page for a long time. Can someone look at the Colleen Ballinger article and the Miranda Sings article and comment here? I'm curious as to if it's only myself that think both articles are very long and very repetitive. . Thank you 2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Without looking, they must be about Broadway ... or singers, correct? I have in the past run into said editor; who is one of those on WP that, though their intentions are in Good Faith in trying to build/create a better article, they also tend to stick to one subject matter and closely monitor every activity that occurs within it -- thus, excluding and minimizing others and their contributions. This goes against the principle that "no one owns Wikipedia"; but still, some can't really grasp that concept because they become too close to the subject/situation. In my case, I simply moved on; it wasn't worth my time or effort. Bringing them to the Talk Pages didn't really help (unless what you had to contribute met with approval) -- you may need intervention from a third party; depending how large a contribution your edits are. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

My only comment, try enforcing WP:ELNO and see how far it gets. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Colleen Ballinger is a YouTube personality that invented the character YouTube Character Miranda Sings. I'll try some edits, but I think I left a comment on the Miranda Sings talk page On June 16, about the length of the article, and Ssilvers wrote "Can you be more specific? Several reviewers, including The New York Times, called the Miranda character "endearing", even though the character is designed to be comically unpleasant in many ways, so the description is, IMO, very helpful." among other things. I guess I'll try a few edits and see what happens. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. 2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Mwalim

Can editors look at this article? I get the sense it passes WP:GNG but if I took out all the uncited material it'd be reduced to a stub. This may be a reliable source but this is from the same outlet the subject blogs for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. This does not meet any criteria for notability in any of the subject's claim for established inclusion: "Author, playwright, pianist, composer, conductor, director, producer, editor, and essayist". There is a definitive WP:COI with the subject (Mwalim7); and even the originating editor who created the page admits that the article was created using the subject's biography from the Dartmouth website and others directly associated with the subject. I doubt that this article is even capable of clean-up or that the subject has any career accomplishments to meet WP requirements for notability. Sorry to say, this article should be placed for AfD, the original creating editor notified and a Talk Page disclaimer made known. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPDELETE

There are discussions currently ongoing regarding the scope of WP:BLPDELETE and, in particular, whether an administrator is entitled to speedy delete an article recreated in breach of the requirement that: "Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation":

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14, at which the deletion of Michael Cole (public relations) is being reviewed; and
2. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion per BLPDELETE needs documentation, regarding whether WP:CSD should be amended in this regard.

You may wish to participate in either or both of these discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Michael Karkoc

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

I've just reverted what I think is a BLP vio here and in another edit at that article. Extradition for war crimes has not actually been requested and, worse, the person has not in fact been officially identified by name, only by Associated Press "inquiries". I am no expert regarding the nuances of BLP/BLPCRIME etc so some additional eyes would probably be useful. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am not even sure we should be mentioning a possible link between the alleged war criminal and some guy in Minnesota who bears the same name. All our sources for the connection seem to originate with the Associated Press. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The Associated Press is a reliable source. We should of course take care in what we write on the basis of what that source offers -- but there's no reason to reject the source itself, nor to reject other sources that use the AP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is generally considered reliable but it is in practical terms the only source here. That is what concerns me. Even two reliable sources - The Sunday Times and Der Spiegel, for example - get things terribly wrong when it comes to events surrounding the period in question, so relying on a single source for such a BLP allegation doesn't sit well with me. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It was AP investigative reporting. So generally we would take it as reliable and attribute it to them (as has been done in most of the article). Is the specifics you have linked a BLP violation? I would say probably not. Its a long-standing allegation that has been covered by numerous press organsations, has been taken seriously enough by the German and Polish governments to the point where they actively want to put him on trial.... BLPCRIME is iffy in this situation as it applies only to people who are relatively unknown. Karkoc is only well known due to the high profile allegations. The relevant guidance here is at WP:CRIME Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some other stuff since filing here. Someone may wish to review my edits - no problem with them being reverted and I'll pop back here later today to see if there are any queries re: what I have done. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the opening diff is most definitely wrong. The sources do not say what we claimed. Could be reworded, though, if the consensus is that this is not a BLP issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sitush this is from the Washington Post Poland announced Monday that it will seek the arrest and extradition of Michael Karkoc, a 98-year-old U.S. citizen who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.. [10]. There is reliable source coverage for the intent of the Polish government to seek extradition, and I think it probably should be included in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No. That report is also rehashing the AP report which specifically says that the Polish government have not identified him by full name. AP says that their own sources indicated the govt's "Michael K" is in fact Michael Karkoc and, yes, I realise that the likelihood is high. But for whatever reason, AP is fluffing up the substance of what the Polish govt have said. Your source is just another variant on the ones I removed in the diff I provided in my opening post here. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The original source, which I removed per my opening post, said Prosecutor Robert Janicki said evidence gathered over years of investigation into U.S. citizen Michael K. confirmed "100 percent" that he was a commander of a unit in the SS-led Ukrainian Self Defense Legion. He did not release the last name in line with privacy laws but the AP has identified the man as 98-year-old Michael Karkoc, from Minneapolis. And therein lies my concern. I suspect we could say something provided that we clearly attribute the naming to AP, not the government. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WaPo byline is different and doesn't cite the AP for the quote I cited above, which they are normally good about. I get the point though. I've made a BOLD attempt at attributing it to the AP per your suggestion above [11]. Please feel free to edit or revert, but I thought it would be easier to work off of something rather than keep discussing the framework for what we can cite. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Now sorted, thanks. TonyBallioni came up with the goods. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Teresa Hayter

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

The wikipedia page of Teresa Hayter is awkwardly biased using terms that undermine her life choices, and wikipedia!! Thanks for looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5E08:A00:2152:D960:D5A1:86CB (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just so it's clear what do you mean by "using terms that undermine her life choices", could you please give an example or two? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The article had a large amount of non-neutral opinion, which was unreferenced or poorly referenced. Some content was attributed to the "Daily Mail", and rather slanted. For example, our article opined something she said "might result in police interest (and, quite possibly, prosecution)". Pretty bad stuff.

I've trimmed it considerably, to make it more neutral; with explanations for edits in my summaries. It could certainly merit further attention. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc

I've been accused that I delete useful information form Vladimir Plahotniuc. I actually deleted info of questionable credibility and redundant info. I explained my actions in Talk:Vladimir Plahotniuc#Preventing an edit war. Please consider reverting the article to my last version. @Wikjanna: ping for you. --Gikü (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gikü: Firstly, I would like to declare that all the negative affirmations have as a purpose to harm the public image of Vlad Plahotniuc are based on false evidence and don’t have any legal groundwork to support any of it. Moreover, this misinformation masterpiece is a personal vendetta of Misters Victor and Viorel Topa, who currently are convicted in Moldova and are blaming for all their misfortunes, Vlad Plahotniuc. To confirm my affirmations, below you can see the link which will direct you to the testimonials of Vecealsav Platon, given to an official notary lawyer from Holland, by declaring that he has been used by Victor and Viorel Topa to go against Vlad Plahotniuc so they can fulfill their personal vendetta. Moreover, he declared in his testimonials that Victor and Viorel Topa provided him some false papers so they could lure him into going against Vlad Plahotniuc. [12]

Up to this, to convince you that the most of the things written there regarding Plahotniuc are planned to hamper his public image, I will provide a recent document that the Justice Court from Amsterdam issued concerning the legal dispute between Vladimir Plahotniuc and Topi on Victoria Bank case. In the document, you will see that the Court ruled in favor of Vlad Plahotniuc and demonstrates again that all the accusations of Topi are products of good imagination and very strong groundless vendetta. We would appreciate a lot if you could take this legal evidence in consideration and erase the falsehood written in there. Please take in consideration that the decision came from Amsterdam Court. [13]

Additional most of controversial information is based on references from jurnal.md and jurnaltv.md, channels that are financed by Topa [14] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikjanna (talk • contribs)

Ouf, lots of POV edit-warring appears to have been going on here. This appears (at least at first glance) to be a BLP violation and so should remain out unless/until it is much more thoroughly documented. But someone also appears to be trying to keep out things that are quite reliably sourced (NY times), which looks like a NPOV problem. Needs work & eyes. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% on the part that trafficking part, it's been removed for good. --Gikü (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Very worth noting that it's been revealed Wikjanna contributes from the same IP as Wecontrib and Jedisvrais. Look at their contribs... --Gikü (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Justine Tunney

Question: are we treating Justine Tunney fairly?[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thordis Elva

An article I started was just tagged with the BLP notice/warning with the advice that I mention it on this board if I am unsure about the content.

I have started an article on a notable author and activist. This article requires attention from someone competent in dealing with verifiable sources and potentially libelous material because:

• It contains info on someone who committed an offense which he later pubically admitted
• It is about a living person
• It concerns a HIGHLY sensitive topic.

The author definitely meets notability guidelines and has been the focus of many mainstream news articles, however these sources need to be vetted by an expert Wikipedian with regard to what can be kept in the article, irrespective of its verifiability.

Many thanks in advance for your help. Edaham (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being over zealous in reporting myself for a possible unintended infraction, but I'd rather bring it up sooner than have someone else do it later.Edaham (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The key part of the BLP policy is WP:BLPCRIME which states we should not accuse relatively unknown people of crimes absent a conviction. Not having read the book (and only being aware of the Southbank controversy), I am assuming the (reletively unknown other party) does actually admit the crime? If yes, we are not accusing him, we are stating as fact something he has admitted to publicly (both in the book, and during the tour with the victim). I think you are probably safe as it stands now in this case. Its rare someone (who hasnt been charged with a crime) admits to comitting one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. It is the peculiarity of his admission of the crime and willingness to publicly talk about it which both makes it notable for inclusion and also so confusing regarding WP policy. I think the fact that he can no longer be convicted is also a contributing factor, as well as the fact that one only needs to quote what he said about himself in mainstream media rather than what others said about him. Edaham (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Michael K. Winder

There is an interesting situation happening at this article. The article appears to be a victim of long-term WP:COI editing, for one. There was a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune about the article subject's alleged editing of his own article. Now the tables seem to have turned, and I'm afraid the article is drifting into WP:BLP violation territory. For example, the sub-section titled "History of Self-Promotion Using Pseudonyms." I attempted to change that to "Public relations controversies", but that has been reverted. I think more eyes on this article would be a good thing. Marquardtika (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Branimir Štulić

Branimir Štulić is a well known composer and writer from former Yugoslavia. His music albums https://www.discogs.com/artist/604459-Azra-3 https://www.discogs.com/artist/583924-Branimir-%C5%A0tuli%C4%87 and books has been sold since early eighties in a millions of copies.

Wikipedia page about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branimir_%C5%A0tuli%C4%87 contains 95% unsupported fake sources, malicious, explicit and offensive false statements of facts, purposely written with a bullying use of threat, in order to justify an unauthorized exploitation of his work and as well to mislead the public. It also contains deliberate lies about his family roots, his private life and work, which has caused him a huge damage, both moral and material.

Wikipedia’s policy is to delete libelous material upon discovery and this whole article meets criteria for removal. Unfortunately page has been recently protected and only established registered Wikipedia user's can nominate this article for a speedy deletion (CSD). If anyone finds a time to read this notice please do so.

Recently, for an independent media (Tris.com.hr "Branimir Štulić vs. Wikipedia"), Mr. Štulić has clearly explained this serious issue with Wikipedia, presented his arguments and made a public request for a complete removal of all Wikipedia page's about him: http://tris.com.hr/2016/12/branimir-stulic-vs-wikipedia-sve-napisano-o-meni-je-izobliceno-95-posto-od-toga-je-laz/

His legal attorney team has also sent a complaint notice to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Mr. Štulić has made it clear that the sources of content on Wikipedia page about him are not credible and in the category of yellow press, addressing rumors and spreading lies about his name, life and work.

This whole Wikipedia article is maliciously conspired to defame and tarnish Mr.Štulić name and his achievements.

Mr.Štulić considers this article erroneous and defamatory and an online harassment.

According to Mr.Štulić most of the references taken as a sources for this article are fabricated fake interviews which was a very common practice among journalists in a communist society at that time (also after Yugoslavia's breakup).

His only legitimate Label was 'Azra music', the other three (Jugoton, Komuna and Hi-Fi Centar) has illegally published pirates editions of his music albums and they are mentioned here in order to justify an unauthorized exploitation of his work and also to mislead the public.

Mr. Štulić's father Ivan Štulić passed away in 1993. According to Mr. Štulić his father pleaded as Yugoslav, not Croat or Serb. (Controversy has occurred because the Croats first declared him as their, but Mr. Štulić insisted that he is not neither a Serb nor a Croat. When they heard that he is not a Croat, Serbs thought that their time has come, so they immediately declared him and his father as a Serbians.)

Mr. Štulić has been living in Netherlands since 1984. not 1986.

Under his name he performs since 1990.

He didn't record album 'Sevdah za Paulu Horvat' in Sarajevo (he just recorded a few songs for documentary purposes, to show the audience how he works, most of the songs were already recorded before) and certainly he wasn't involved in the documentary because of the country's breakup. For those reasons frase 'what became obvious to him that Yugoslavia is going to collapse' in general does not stand.

Recorded material for music album 'Blase' was stolen and Mr.Štulić never published it, but Hi-Fi Centar did, as a pirate edition.

By mentioning 'occupied territories' Mr.Štulić refers to Serbia (in an conversation with a Serbian journalist).

His limited edition autobiography named "Smijurija u mjerama" was a great success and a sold-out book. He recently published a set of 14 books. http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=957600

Mr. Štulić was never a fervent believer of Yugoslav-ism and Brotherhood and unity, that is a wrong conclusion.

He writes and translates to 'Literate Serbian' not Serbo-Croatian.

It's a false statement that Mr.Štulić is living a 'modest and ascetic' lifestyle and how would somebody know that, since article claims that he is 'very protective of his privacy'?

Preparation for a lawsuit against Croatia Records is not 'over royalty rights' it is about unauthorized and illegal publishing, distribution and sale of his music albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.121.111 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose matches the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD))

-Good faith requests by the actual author

-Obvious false misinformation based on fake sources

-Disparaging, threatening and intimidating pages, that serve exclusively to harass its subjects.

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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

On behalf of Branimir Štulić, legal spokesperson, Zoran Živković

• "Most of the references taken as a sources for this article are fabricated fake interviews which was a very common practice among journalists in a communist society at that time (also after Yugoslavia's breakup)."

From what I can see the majority of the information is sourced - but from your first complaint repeated above it appears the sources are unreliable and the subsequent issues lead on from that. I will drop a message at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to see if someone is available with experience in the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr Živković is mentioned in numerous sources as legal representative of Štulić. Ie link. I think that this complaint is valid and should be seriously taken.

I am admirer of Mr. Štulić′s work and as far as I know, all of the above remarks about the factually incorrect assertions in the article are probably valid. The perception of the article being "Disparaging, threatening and intimidating pages, that serve exclusively to harass its subjects." is probably too strong. Several factual mistakes do not make this article a page that "disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject". Still, taking in consideration that this is BLP article and that there is a very sensitive legal case connected with the topic of this article this remarks should be adressed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

Is it normal/advisable to include the specific church someone belongs to? For example, see Stephanie Rawlings-Blake#Personal life (she's the previous mayor of Baltimore City). The source is reliable, her bio on the city's official website, but it makes me uncomfortable for some reason, even though she clearly chose to provide that information publicly. This is the first time I've see this come up (that I noticed, at least), but the discussion here doesn't have to be specifically about Rawlings-Blake. I'm curious what other people think about it more generally. —PermStrump(talk) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No. In fact, most of the content in this subject's "Personal life" section is not notable and shouldn't be included due to relatives' privacy and minors. I would seriously scrubs much if not all; except her husband. It's not notable, but close to tabloid (relative's death). IMHO Maineartists (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I also didn't like how it go so specific about what area of what specific neighborhood she lives in, so I'm glad you deleted it, because I had meant to. —PermStrump(talk) 04:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern

Specifically, Talk:Lauren_Southern#Lauren_Southern_Becomes_a_Man. Some more eyes would be good to stop the edit war over a category. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Richard A. Falk

First line - "Richard Anderson Falk, a self hating Jew, (born November 13, 1930)[1] is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University.[2]"

This is defamatory.

Vandalism reverted, user warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Barry Diller

The article on Barry Diller states that his homosexuality is "public knowledge", but the only source given is this NY Times article, which contains an unconfirmed claim about Dillers homosexuality by Michael Eisner ("the fact he is a homosexual should have no weight"). I haven't been able to find any explicit confirmation of Diller being gay. All we know is that he has been married to Diane von Fürstenberg since 2001. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the assertion. We need indisputable self-identification for sexual orientation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Maineartists (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Willie Horton

Hello all. I freely admit that my inclinations may be in the wrong here. Suppose an article title (for a living person) is:

• A name that the living person never went by
• A name that was invented in order to racialize the living person
• A name that the living person finds offensive
• Indisputably the name that person is most commonly known by (I realize this may be decisive)

Willie Horton fits this description. Horton, born and still today William Horton, was nicknamed "Willie Horton" in a notorious campaign advertisement produced by a 527 in the 1988 presidential campaign. The "Willie Horton ad" is known to almost anyone who studies campaigns or media effects as well as many others, as the ad received a great deal of media attention in its time, and it is still the subject of scholarly and non-scholarly articles today. Because the name of the ad is so common, I suspect that most would call the man featured in the ad "Willie," though most articles on the ad or the man refer to him as William Horton. (To be totally honest: this may be due to the formality of the articles, which frowns upon nicknames, as opposed to any other reason.) Is this a BLP issue? And, if so, should this page be moved?

Hope I've presented a fairly balanced case here. Thanks!--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your clear and precise presentation. Sometimes a subject is identified on Wikipedia not by the name they were given or even choose to go by; but what they are most popularly known for within the public and media. Unfortunately, in this case, the reliable sources presented within the inline citations refer to this subject as: "Willie Horton". What you have presented here is what WP calls: "original research" WP:OR and is not admissible. One must back all content within an article with reliable sources: WP:RS. That being said, the article is named: "William R. Horton" in the infobox, and "William R. "Willie" Horton" in the lede; which immediately tells the reader that "Willie" is not the subject's given name. If you can find substantiated sources to back your claim regarding the campaign ad and that the BLP found the nickname to be offensive; by all means: contribute it to the article. But I do not seeing the article being moved or renamed on account of it, I'm afraid. It would merely present a neutral point of view WP:NPOV in regards to the nickname and the subject. Last: you may want to link a disambiguation for "William Horton" to the page, as well. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP-thinking on this is at WP:COMMONNAME, and judging by the titles in the reference-section of the article, it´s an easy choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am wondering if common name is at odds with BLP here; I do understand that both common name and BLP are policies (although I tend to think that BLP has primacy), which is why I included information on Willie being the common name. Ah I apologize for not providing more sources. I'm not quite clear which claims require sources, but just for a general overview: note here that anything in the second column also fits the description of the first column, and anything in the third column also fits the first two columns. (One exception: the Mendelberg work.)

'Note calling the subject "William Horton" and calling the ad the "Willie Horton ad" are two different things'

Articles That Acknowledge that Willie Horton was Contrived (by Lee Atwater)	Articles on Horton's Dislike of the Name
The Marshall Project, Willie Horton Revisited William Poundstone, Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It), 101 Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Trost, Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party, 166 Tali Mendelberg, The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality, 196*	Joe Feagin, Hernan Vera, Pinar Batur, White Racism: The Basics, 168 ("Horton himself has strongly objected to being called by the nickname 'Willie'") Robert Edward Sterken, Jr., Bill Ratliff: A Profile of Courage and Leadership in American Politics, 96 Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy, 128-129

Most key from all of this: I could actually walk back the "common name" reasoning quite a bit, as Jamieson points out in Dirty Politics, Horton was referred to as William Horton in most articles wit ha named author, and Willie in most articles without a named author. (Also, a simple google search would not really suffice here, as, again, the "Willie Horton ad" will obviously return many results, as is why titles in the Reference section largely say Willie, but still, I don't want to press too hard against the common name argument, since my primary concern is BLP).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Silberman

I've been contacted by a friend of Steve Silberman. There is a concern that an editor is adding an large and unbalanced "Criticism" section to the article and trying to slant coverage to a generally strongly negative view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the entire criticism section - it's filled with editorializing, poor sources and other BLP problems, besides being massively undue weight. Additions should be discussed on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the criticism section is more of a criticism of the book, rather than Silberman himself. The criticism (much of which appears to be quite justified) should be in Neurotribes rather than in the BLP. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The other issue is that, by the weight of the sources, there needs to be much more praise than criticism to reflect due weight - the fact that the book was named by multiple major news sources as one of the best of the year should be highlighted, while more critical voices should be present but not predominant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bertil Wedin

Bertil Wedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BLP lacking citations for 1. serious criminal allegations and former job 2. quotes; and has 3. POV section names "Credibility deficit" "Cold Turkey" 4. BLP refimprove. The EXT may be usable, but considering lack of sources overall (as mentioned on the talk) I felt the need to flag up here. Widefox; talk 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a complete mess and needs a dramatic overhaul. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that mention Wedin aa a possible suspect in the assassination of Olaf Palme but the Swedish police say he is not an official suspect. I have removed the most problematic sections and added a source where Wedin denies all involvement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the BLP violations. I'll remove the discussion tag on the talk as solved.

Resolved

Widefox; talk 20:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A U.S. diplomat has left N.Z., and Wikipedia need not know his name

According to the BBC, an unpleasant series of events has occurred in New Zealand, NZ -- a U.S. diplomat "was involved in an incident" but "police were unable to question him after the [U.S.] embassy declined their request", so "New Zealand then asked the US to remove the man, who American officials confirmed had left on Saturday".

All this need not concern us, especially since, for now "the man has not been named".

My worry is that, especially given some of the details mentioned on the BBC piece linked above, it is faintly likely that the fellow's identity will be discovered somehow or other, and then attempts will be made to add it into some Wikipedia article. Since he has neither been convicted, nor even charged, with any offense, such an addition would be contrary to BLP. Various authorities in various countries are refusing to provide further information, and of course inappropriate speculation thrives in such circumstances.

Please could regulars keep an eye on articles that may be related to this possible problem. I don't know which articles those might be, and we shouldn't speculate here of course, because we could thus be causing the problem that I would like to avoid. MPS1992 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a purposeful Streisand effect to garner interest in his identity? I do not think anyone cared until they read this post. Now I am searching for who he is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been here for a little while -- I suppose you have been here since 1958? I am in England, and even here on the far side of the world, the incident seems already to be well-known. I searched in a lazy sort of way and got two names that seem unlikely to be connected (on average) and watchlisted them both. Anyway I hope regulars will act accordingly if anything inappropriate happens. MPS1992 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cincinnati Police Department

Cincinnati Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we possibly get some more editors watching Cincinnati Police Department? Recently, there's been unsourced content being added to Cincinnati Police Department#Sergeant Andrew C. Mitchell about a particular police officer (or officers) mentioned in the article and cited content about the same officer(s) being removed. There has been some talk page discussion about this at User talk:Materialscientist#Edit to Cincinnati police and User talk:Marchjuly#Your rewrite of Cincinnati police. The other editor seems to be willing to continue to edit war to add/remove this content, so perhaps some others will be able to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think as it is currently written it is a bit of an overkill? The LAPD article doesn't go into as much detail about the Rodney King riots and the officers that took part in that. I'm not that familiar with the Cincinnati Police Department, but this seems like a WP:COATRACK, and should probably be trimmed down. I also went ahead and changed the subject heading pending further discussion because I think having a heading about one living officer accused of misconduct is very much WP:UNDUE. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made further BOLD edits [16], which I think still get at the controversy surrounding the officer involved, but make it so that the focus of that section is the actual event of the shooting and its aftermath rather than a coatrack about the BLP subject. Thoughts and revisions are welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look TonyBallioni and for the improvements you made to the article. FWIW, I wasn't trying to imply that the relevant section was problem free or that the other editor did not have legitimate concerns. I only thought the way they were trying to make the changes was not appropriate. The other account is new, so maybe now they will be more encouraged to use the article's talk page after seeing your edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Makes sense. I left a message on their talk page as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Indyk

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

A RfC is ongoing as to whether this article should discuss unproven allegations that the article subject made offensive comments in 1989. Editors are encouraged to weigh in at Talk:Martin Indyk. Neutrality^talk 05:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Can Donald Trump be described as a demagogue?

Editors are invited to participate at Talk:Demagogue#RfC on Donald Trump inclusion, where BLP issues have been raised (by me). (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Will Smith

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

In the diff linked below, Will Smith is paraphrased for comments he made about the 2017 campaign. I believe this paraphrasing is sensationalist, conjectural, and defamatory, imposing the cruelest possible interpretation on his words. I believe this change should be either reverted entirely or the paraphrasing should be replaced with a direct quote.

I am unable to make these changes myself because the article is semi-protected to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Will_Smith&type=revision&diff=755900031&oldid=755883195

2601:1C0:6E01:29E0:F0AB:60A1:E598:1967 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, removed - that's a terrible paraphrase. The comment might well be notable but it needs to be phrased properly. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

P. A. Varghese

P. A. Varghese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

None of his work has any sources, even after 4 years. His whole page just discredits Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if there was ever a biographical article that was obviously authored by its own subject, it's this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooraretokill (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tooraretokill. While it's OK to discuss any concerns you may have about a particular article, blanking articles like you did with this edit and then excessively (and incorrectly) adding "citation needed" templates like you did with this edit is not really the right way to deal with this. If you continue doing such things, then it is eventually going to be seen as disruptive. As for your concerns for about the article, now that you've started this discussion I suggest you be patient and see what others have to say. There are lots of problem articles on Wikipedia, and it sometimes take a little time to sort things out. If the article is really inappropriate for Wikipedia, then someone is likely to nominate it for deletion; if it can be fixed and improved, then someone is likely to do that. Once again, just be patient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Billy Meier Biography

I have trying to make the Billy Meier bio more neutral. Last year, by November it was neutral by showing information from skeptics and non skeptics of Billy Meier case. Right now I think is oveloaded with biased information showing much more CONS than PROS. It is, from my preception, showing difamatory information. I understand some people are against this man, but as part of Wikipedia policies it must be neutral. Every time I try to make a change in order to make it more balanced and neutral (balance between PROS and CONS to make it more neutral), another editor suppress my inputs.

How can we reach a point where we publish a Neutral article here? I have the ondorsement of a big comunity if this is required. Should I write proposal and show it here with the endorsment of this comunity? Maybe consulting skeptics as well?

Please provide me an advice.

Rhal zahi (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Articles involving people making exceptional claims need exceptional sourcing. Meier is quite obviously a fraud, but the article is so badly sourced that it is a mish-mash of claims and counter-claims, most of which aren't sourced at all. Frankly, the article could be stubbed back to the lede without losing anything useful. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: I agree, the article completely ignores what academics say about the cultural significance of Meier's UFO religion in favor of long winded discussions of "evidence" and believers rebuttals to critics. It could use a good cleanup. @Rhal zahi: As a start, I recommend you consider the advice given to you on DoctorJoe's Talk Page. On Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean we give fringe ideas equal balance with mainstream views, or we take extraordinary claims at face value. This is often difficult for newcomers to understand, as this essay may help explain: WP:NOTNEUTRAL - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Celia Green

The vast majority of the citations in the article are the woman's own webpage. None of them that aren't are verifiable. She appears to have created a vanity page and viciously defended it against all comers. If someone with an interest wants to step in, good luck and more power to them. I don't really know how turf battles or things of that nature work, if I don't hear objections either here or on the talk page for this IP I'll probably edit the page down to just the verifiable citation (literally the one) and generally shorten the biography. 73.173.238.218 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

She appears to be an academic with a lot of publications, and the references are linking to them. Just doing a quick Google books search, she appears to be cited in several non-fringe books "Celia+Green"+philosophy&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=%22Celia+Green%22+philosophy&tbm=bks&* , including an anthology of philosophy of religion. Scholar returns two papers that seem relatively highly cited for the field [17]. DGG is normally a good source to consult about academics. I can't seem to find a lot of the sources cited in the article, so I'm not sure if the views in them are worth mentioning. I'll agree that for an article on a philosopher this does look a bit promotional. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

She's not a psychologist, but a philosopher and parapsychologist. All her books except one are published by her own or an associated imprint. They're fairly widely held, as speculation of this sort goes. She has never held a regular academic position. I do not think she qualifies under WP:PROF., despite the GS counts. She might under WP:AUTHOR--I haven't search for reviews. I removed some of the promotionalism.

Alice Evans (actress) and David Evans (mathematician)

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

David Evans (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two people have totally separate wikipedia pages (she is an actress and he is a Mathematician) Yet they are father and daughter. I think it would be both interesting and useful for people to know the connection, which is not an obvious one. Professor Evans is also therefore the father-in-law of Welsh actor Ioan Gruffudd. I tried to alter the pages to reflect this but have no idea how to create a hyper-link so that his name is clickable on her page and vice-versa. At the moment it states the connection but only links to his page from hers by clicking on the citation. Can somebody help me make the names themselves clickable? Also it should be reflected in the 'Personal' section box on the right. Alice Evans has her husband and children mentioned but David Evans has nothing. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceEvansGruff (talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I added the wikilinks but we need a reference to a reliable source that verifies the relationships. There are two notable British mathematicians named David Evans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Des Case and FreeBMD

Hello. On the article for Des Case, I removed a large amount of biographical details provided by FreeBMD per WP:BLPPRIMARY (he's probably deceased, but since he could be living, he has BLP protections), as I felt it to be a primary source. DynamoDegsy restored the material, arguing "the primary source of a birth/marriage/death is the certificate of that birth/marriage/death, or possibly a copy of the register itself, not the index created after the fact, that is scanned and transcribed into a third-party website. In respect of… "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth", the FreeBMD references indicate the quarter of the year in which the registration took place, not the date of birth." Personally, I believe that this misses the spirit of the guideline and, moreover, unless I'm missing something (which is possible) I don't see any verifiable connection that the individual in the records is the same individual in the article. Therefore, I believe that the material should still be removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I figured it might be a good idea to get a third opinion/consensus here, as there might be something that I am missing. Canadian Paul 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

While researching at university, if when asked what original research had I done, and what primary sources I'd used, I had said "FreeBMD"… when they eventually stopped laughing, I would have been frogmarched off the campus. DynamoDegsy (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

FreeBMD is just a host for primary material. Leaving aside the primary/secondary issue its not suitable for use on a (probable)BLP anyway due to how its maintained. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A transcription of an index is not a primary source. What is it about the way FreeBMD is maintained that makes it unsuitable for use?DynamoDegsy (talk)

Gurinder Singh Mann

Gurinder Singh Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a violation of BLPCRIME? I could use another pair of eyes on this, as it involves 20-to-125 cases of sexual misconduct. El_C 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It is no violation. It was reported that Gurinder had violated the University's sexual harrasment policy. This makes him guilty and these does not become mere allegations. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 07:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a violation, and the page should not be protected. The person removing the material is a new account, unlikely to have a good understanding of our policies. @El C:. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It dosen't matter what the user's grasp of our policies, what matters is ours. The question is whether we can juxtapose the violation as a conviction in a court of law. El_C 07:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The lack of a criminal conviction isn't an issue, given that there was never a criminal prosecution. There was a relevant administrative procedure, and that procedure resulted in a finding of violation of the university's sexual harassment policy. There's no issue of BLPCRIME here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not see that it is a violation. The individual was found - not just alleged - to have violated university policies: "the Title IX office concluded in August 2013 that all such claims “more likely than not did occur” and that Mann had violated the UC’s sexual harassment policy." [18] I think it is giving it undue weight to use more than half the lede to discuss this, but it definitely merits inclusion in the article. I would also advise a strong warning to LadleeFaujan for using language that simultaneously very nearly violates WP:NLT and threatens doxing of another editor, in the diff provided in the original post above. --bonadea contributions talk 08:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My question is whether violating a policy in a university can be seen as comparable to a conviction in a court of law. El_C 08:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If another admin thinks I am in error they may freely undo my protection without further notice. And can take over, for that matter. El_C 08:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Decisions of universities are decisions of universities. They show what the university decided. They do not, contrary to the positions of some here, become a "statement of fact" as to underlying claims, and this pervasive misuse of "it is crying BLP" when the actual facts may well be inapt to the biography. WP:BLP is a specific policy, and the reasoning has a strong basis, especially since university committees are not bound by the same requirements of a court of law. We can say a committee found him guilty of violations of university rules, but not that he was quilty, as a fact, or guilty of specific crimes, as a fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

My fear is that we are mentioning the potential crime or crimes that follow from sexual misconduct. That the subject was not convicted in a court of law, which has the highest evidentiary basis, is indeed the main concern. But I'm open to arguments about including or augmenting the material. This is far from decided. El_C 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"More likely than not" may be good enough for the US Dept. of Education (it is, unbelievably, their formal standard which they insist all universities follow), but it does not meet the standards of WP. (nor would it meet the standards of any US court of law--probably of any civilized court of law), We do not write negative material in BLPs based on such assertions. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

DGG This is an ongoing struggle on Wikipedia, and too often the "the person is crying BLP" is used as a basis for having Wikipedia states that he did this blazoned in articles. I find myself constrained by people who have persuaded groups that BLP is not a valid policy far too often, even when they, in some cases, have been shown themselves to be major plagiarists or copyright violators. I edit very little now, but when I see them arising, I fear that Wikipedia shall be corroded. Collect (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not be in the business of publicizing partial excerpts of someone's workplace personnel file. Full stop. The Dept. of Education white paper is a much lower standard than criminal courts would hold, and as such it would not meet the standard of BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wendy Savage

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

A new section was added to the end of this article recently, on foot of an interview with Prof. Savage in the Mail on Sunday. There has been a little discussion of it on the Talk page, and I have edited the section to try and improve it, while not being sure it should really be there. I would welcome some other peoples thoughts, and guidance. An issue is that while the original interview was in the Mail, other papers have now reported it also, and that it would seem that Prof. Savage, as I explain on the talk page says her views were distorted. Daithidebarra (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice

Someone want to look at the article and help Ian.thomson out, explaining things to the sudden influx of off-wiki canvassed editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It could also use a re-write with new sources instead of stuff like Alex Jones's Prison Planet -- though that would likely result in an article they'd be even less happy with. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but fuck 'em. It's not Wikipedia's problem that they're gullible enough to believe what they do. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion to reverse a BLPDELETE decision

The BLP Michael Cole (public relations) was deleted, influenced by request from the subject, as a BLPDELETE, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations). Following Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14, it is now under discussion to reverse the BLPDELETE at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Michael Cole (public relations). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ali Shilatifard

The article Ali Shilatifard has almost exclusively been edited by single purpose accounts (User:Magnolia07 and User:Magnolia007). After attempting to make the overly-positive article more neutral, I added a COI information template to the talk page of the most recent account, and I received a rude response and a threat that I would be "reported". Where do I go from here? Natureium (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ignore them and keep removing the peacock-language from the article. If they report you, they'll receive a comprehensive crash-course in WP:BOOMERANGs. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is Magnolia007. I am looking for a consensus on the issue Natureium has brought up and to conclusively remove the COI template message. Please note all info is neutral and referenced. The info provided is purely documented and published scientific and professional accomplishments. I did not threaten Natureium. I suggested that this editor stop making subjective, unsubstantiated edits to this WP BLP. You can see my full comment to Natureium on their userpage talk. You will see that Natureium deleted a few of Dr. Shilatifard's awards which are clearly documented on institution webpages, claiming they are non-notable. This behavior appears to indicate a COI that Natureium may have. Listing awards is not "overly positive". All WP of scientists list Awards and Honors. I do hope that there is consensus on the fact that the Ali Shilatifard article is neutral and there is no need to post an unsubstantiated template box stating oddly that there may be a COI when the article is fully accurate and referenced. Magnolia007 (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's NOT what a COI means. 2600:1017:B020:C6D5:6041:ADE7:352F:5803 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Eiji Sasaki

I have started an article for Eiji Sasaki but it seems to have created in a Japanese language setting. Is there a way to change the article from 佐々木英治 to Eiji Sasaki?

Also I have sources that are not digital. I have digital photos in Japanese of source articles. Can these be used as sources that I can cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyfromjapan (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Theguyfromjapan, can you link to the article you started? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find anything in the mainspace or draftspace. As for the digital photos, you can use those. You just need to put the source information as follows:

Last name, first name. Article title. Date that you're adding the source to the article. Name of newspaper. Date the article was published.

There's a citation template that you can use, but putting it this way in reference tags (<ref>(source information)</ref>) is fine as well. The only thing about offline sources is that you just need to be able to verify them (send them the image) if anyone asks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• It actually looks like you're talking about jp:佐々木英治. That's on the Japanese Wikipedia, which is a different language WP than the one here. We can't really move them inbetween the two Wikipedias, but you can create a copy of the article here as well. As for the article at the Japanese language Wikipedia, that will need to be translated into Japanese in order to remain on there, as all content on a given language's Wikipedia will need to be in that language. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the article https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BD%90%E3%80%85%E6%9C%A8%E8%8B%B1%E6%B2%BB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyfromjapan (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Theguyfromjapan. The link you provided above is to the Japanese Wikipedia article about Sasaki (for reference, that's the same article that Tokyogirl79 linked to in her post). The article you created is Eiji Sasaki. Since it's about a Japanese individual, it might be a good idea for you to ask for assistance at WT:JAPAN. There are lots of editors in that particular WikiProject who have experience in writing articles about Japanese topics and I'm sure they will be happy to try and answer any questions you may have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here. According to the Japanese Wikipedia article, he died in 2007. The English article omits this, but still refers to him in the past tense.--Auric talk 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just a new editor whose still unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. Perhaps BLPN was the first link they came across. Anyway, it's certainly a discussion which is more appropriate for the Teahouse or Help Desk, unless there is something specifically related to WP:BLP (such as this person is not really dead, etc.) that needs to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa

Regarding "05:55, 21 March 2017" edit of Gotabhaya Rajapakse ("Investigations on assassinations, abductions and assaults on journalist after the fall of the Rajapaksa government revealed that Gotabhaya directed a death squad to attack journalists that was outside the Army command structure during this time 17 journalists and media workers were killed and others were assaulted.") These are just a allegation that did not proved. There is no evidence for this. So this update is violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy of wikipedia.Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeepa (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sajin Vass Gunawardena

The page is about a living person and It contains false information, like controversies, jail, and everything, please check the link, all the links are not giving proper reference this Article should be deleted as requested by Mr. Sajin himself, It contains alot of negative information which is false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiataha (talk • contribs) 07:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The information about his legal troubles is all cited to media reports. Are you saying these reports are wrong? Can you provide a good argument to why we should believe the reports are wrong, or the sources unreliable? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Coleman (professor)

Hi, would someone mind taking a look at Stephen Coleman (professor)? I noticed yesterday that an IP apparently belonging to the article's subject had blanked the page; I reverted edits made by another user that appeared to be objectionable, however this user has since re-added the content. I'm pretty sure it should be removed again but have no interest in getting into a war - perhaps if someone else takes a look and makes appropriate changes would be best? Cheers, Rusty Springs (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Fecteau

User Ryan921014 created this page and has made several edits to this page and significantly expanded unsourced content. The subject of the article appears to have created this page originally. There appears to be some significant issues around conflicts in interest in this article that I would like to see editors address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CindyDenbow4real (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you're objecting to? I'm seeing a little light puffery and I've removed one unsourced claim, but there doesn't appear to be any glaring problems. As a state elected official, they are indisputably a fit subject for a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc

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

The article is constantly monitored by people who are interested in polishing the image of the subject. Plahotniuc is a controversial figure in Moldovan politics, but he has enough power to work on his image with the help of the media he owns, the trolls he pays to comment on each and every online news story, and the majority in the Parliament that he acquired. Now it seems that there are users that try to guard his Wikipedia article. Please read carefully the section Talk:Vladimir Plahotniuc#Preventing an edit war (2), there are sufficient (I believe) proofs to understand the image improvement attempted on this article. I would like to have this page fully protected, but I want to inform the community first. --Gikü (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Gaslighting#In politics

The Trump section of the article clearly violates Wikipedia's BOLP policy, regardless of which politician it is speaking about. The POV does not include the wording "alleged" or allude to it. Some, not all, of the citations include opinions from psychiatrists (the rest from journalists and teen gossip columns) who have not seen him as their client. Unless a psychiatrist has had a session with someone, they cannot diagnose. Without that, they are making defamatory statements against another person. Psychiatrists may share opinions on what a topic means but cannot say a certain person has a negative psychological trait without having properly diagnosed them first. To leave this section is both biased and allowing explicitly defamatory accusations.T.H.Reesh (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I know, using psychological techniques to manipulate public perception is not a crime in the US. Therefore, the article does not accuse Donald Trump of committing a crime. Nonetheless, the article uses terms like "have described.. as examples of" and "according to." The sources in question do not "allude to" this; they dedicate entire articles to this. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say.
• As for the "teen gossip columns," please read this Atlantic article about the particular Teen Vogue article.
• The best thing to do is find sources to the contrary which may exist. Instead of removing the content, balance it by adding from sources from the other side. I recommend searching for conservative news organization that state that "Trump is not gaslighting." —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: The current affirmation of the Goldwater Rule by the American Psychiatric Association states that when a psychiatrist renders an analysis of an individual's affect, behavior, speech or other presentation, it is a professional (and unethical) opinion. T.H.Reesh (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The titles of and the content of the sources are push a fictional view of Trump, not a consented release from Trump's personal psychiatrist, which would then be a fact. For anyone not his current or former psychiatrist to say that he uses psychological techniques to manipulate public perception is a defamation of character. It is not a fact until someone has properly consulted and diagnosed him in person. Those "sources" for the Trump paragraph as such, are not reliable. Please read the American Psychiatric Association's 'Goldwater Rule' [19]. T.H.Reesh (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Kindly raise your issue directly at the unreliable sources you mentioned: The New York Times, Teen Vogue, NBC News, The Washington Post and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article only summarizes what secondary sources say. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The very code of ethics of the American Psychiatrist Association immediately reveals those secondary sources to be false information. I call for unbiased moderators to erase the Trump paragraph on this Wikipedia Page due to there being no qualified, accurate, true sources. It must have several factual sources to continue to exist under the BLP policies.T.H.Reesh (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I would also suggest that this is yet another example of editors not adhering to WP:RECENTISM. Maybe after his presidency, where there are far less emotions over the matter in the public media, then it can be evaluated as a neutral example, but clearly not now, regardless of what secondary sources claim. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: You would have a point if I were to write an article called Donald Trump's gaslighting. But the issue being discussed is 1 paragraph out of over a dozen in the article. And Trump is not mentioned in the lead. Do the thought experiment, do you truely believe this same article would not mention Trump in ten years time? That is to say, would it not at the very least say that the term had gained popularity in 2016 because of him?

The article was created on August 12, 2006. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The term "gaslighting" passes the WP:NEO test, that's not the issue. Instead, there's only a few examples of how it is used on the page, with the two currently in the political arena. These examples are going to stand out, so we better the heck be sure they are agreed examples of gaslighting. Those other examples are situations well in the past, well-analyzed, so it's perfectly fine to document them as examples. The Putin one, that's from 2014, so while a bit recent, it's a bit reasonable, particularly as we're using mostly independent sources for that. But Trump is a current situation, and the sources saying that what it is gaslighting are those in opposition to him (the press). As such, being far too soon and using dependent sources make it a severe problem right now. After his presidency, maybe a re-assessment can be made, but this is a RECENTISM problem for this one example. Now that said, the criticism is completely appropriate to include on, say, the articles about Trump's political position or presidency with sourced claims, but not at Gaslighting as one of the few examples given. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you or anyone can produce a source that gives a statement by Trump's current or former psychiatrist, who has written consent to reveal the information, stating that Trump's words or actions are actually gaslighting behavior, then the paragraph has a legitimate reason to be on this Wikipedia page. If there is no such source, then there is no reason to have said paragraph there.T.H.Reesh (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Gaslighting" is not a mental illness or disease, it is a form of behavior. We include many laypersons' descriptions and speculative claims about other people's behavior on Wikipedia; for example, we include in Elizabeth Warren's biography the fact that "Scott Brown speculated that she had fabricated Native American heritage to gain advantage in the job market." Scott Brown is not a psychiatrist or expert in human behavior, yet we include his "diagnosis" that Warren is lying about her ethnic heritage. This is because Brown's claim has been published in reliable sources; similarly, these claims about Trump have been published in reliable sources, as demonstrated by the references. There is no BLP violation here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: According the the American Psychiatric Association: a diagnosis is not required for an opinion to be professional. Instead, when a psychiatrist renders an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry, the opinion is a professional one. They also state that: When a psychiatrist comments about the behavior, symptoms, diagnosis, etc., of a public figure without consent, the psychiatrist violates the fundamental principle that psychiatric evaluation occurs with consent or other authorization. ...Psychiatrists are ethically prohibited from evaluating individuals without permission or other authorization (such as a court order). According to them, that reveals those sources to be false by insufficient information and misapplication of psychiatric practice. T.H.Reesh (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a related conversation elsewhere, but policy only gets you up to a certain point in a debate, as soon as people argue if something is a reliable source for a fact, or whether a fact is appropriate to mention in an article, then quoting policy until the cows come home won't help you resolve the debate. As other people have said, "gaslighting" is not a medical condition, it is a form of social behaviour, so I don't think we need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. The best source would be a critically acclaimed biography of Trump, but that doesn't exist (yet) so we have to take the news sources as a rough first draft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what WP:RECENTISM tells us not to do, especially if these are contentious claims. Those are fine as sources in criticism of Trump's policies, if they must be included (RECENTISM says to be very cautious), but we should not be used them to identify Trump as one of the few examples on a topic until that critically acclaimed biography is written. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The American Psychiatric Association clarifies the Goldwater rule to not only include diagnosing illnesses but: an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry, the opinion is a professional one. Therefore, it is clear that Wikipedia does have to adhere to their clarification on what is a reliable source. T.H.Reesh (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Goldwater Rule states that it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion on an individual who has disclosed themselves to the light of the media/public eye. That is not just about specific illnesses, but rather any psychological habit or trait or mental fitness, as in the case with Barry Goldwater. If the consensus is to keep the false sources on the page, then I move to suggest editing it to read that those sources allege that he may have done this and that equal amount of paragraph space is devoted to the Goldwater rule and that those opinions of those sources are not ethical and irresponsible from any who has not seen him as their patient.T.H.Reesh (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@T.H.Reesh: This is actually a good idea, but again you have to find sources that discuss these articles as a violation of The Goldwater Rule. Otherwise, this would be a violation of original research. I have looked for these sources but as Gaslighting is not a medical condition, there are no sources that confirm this as a violation of goldwater rule.

There are, for example, plenty of articles that state that Trump has narcissistic personality disorder. And plenty of articles that condemn psychiatrists as clearly violating the goldwater rule in that instance.

There is no need to say allege that he may have done. The article does NOT state that trump has engaged in gaslighting. It says A, B, C, D, E, and F have described his behavior as gaslighting. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: In psychiatry and psychology, gaslighting is considered an emotional/mental abuse and manipulation by dictators, narcissists and cult leaders. The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) restated in the light of the 2016 U.S. Elections, When a psychiatrist comments about the behavior, symptoms, diagnosis, etc. of a public figure without consent, that psychiatrist has violated the principle that psychiatric evaluations be conducted with consent or authorization. Therefore, those sources are still not factual and are defamatory against a living person.T.H.Reesh (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@T.H.Reesh: The source you cite is a blog. And it is also funny how the article you cite makes references to Charles Manson who is alive; I doubt Stephanie Sarkis PH.D. has examined him as she only uses the author Jeff Guinns (who is not a psychiatrist) as a reference. If your argument is not they are Find me a journal article that states that gaslighting is a mental condition or that it is employed only by narcissists. Otherwise, your point is moot. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: You ignored the second source, which is by the very American Psychiatric Association Ethics Committee. Please read their entire statement, as it reveals that any comments on behavior, speech, symptoms or other presentation of an individual in the public eye falls under the Goldwater Rule. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@T.H.Reesh: The second source is also a blog. You should instead read the original which about when a psychiatrist offers an opinion about whether or not a public figure has a mental illness. Again, gaslighting is not a mental illness. Read the rest of the passage you quoted: Making a diagnosis, for example, would be rendering a professional opinion. However, a diagnosis is not required for an opinion to be professional. Instead, when a psychiatrist renders an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry, the opinion is a professional one. Thus, saying that a person does not have an illness is also a professional opinion. And then read the rationale and remember that we are NOT psychiatrists. We are not bound by these restraints. The bases for the unethical behavior argument is "the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness." Name one person who has gaslighting as a mental illness. Even though the rule is named after a defamation case, the APA makes no mention of defamation. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Gaslighting is a psychiatric term for a negative behavior, as previously stated. Psychiatrists cannot reliably or correctly comment on a public figure's behavior, words or actions without consultation and release of statement, as previously stated. Wikipedia editors are bound by the reliability of the information in Wikipedia articles. If an article rephrases from a source, a source which by professional standards is not reliably correct and does then create a negative POV of a Living Person, we ARE responsible to the validity of that section of the article. As well as Wikipedia's BLP policy. Looks like this discussion with all parties is not reaching a resolution. Time for mediation. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: There is a marked difference in how the passage describes Putin vs Trump. Note it states: Gaslighting has been used by Russian politicians. On top of that, I do not see how the sources for Trump are less independent that these sources for Putin: The Economist, CNN and BBC, as RealClearPolitics is only reporting what a BBC reporter is saying.

Nonetheless, I offer The Atlantic, The Guardian, Business Insider (only a guest column by a different Guardian reporter March 2017), RedState (a conservative blog), U.S. News & World Report blog and a second Washington Post, which has a quote from a former Breitbart journalist: “Trump gaslighted me,” Fields said. “I worry now that he’s gaslighting the country.”. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Putin is something affecting Russian politics, so for that reason, American/UK media are sufficiently independent from that. In the US, there is currently a major war of words between Trump and the US media, so any US media source is fully dependent at the present time. Well after his presidency, there will be better retrospective that should be tainted by current kerfuffles of press and politics, so that's the point where it makes sense to evaluate whether Trump should be included as a example of gaslighting. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: That is a fair and logical point about US Media, I admit the Guardian articles are likely its US division. However, you donot seem to require the same standard of retrospective from Putin who is in power right now.

So I offer:

• UK: The Independent and The Telegraph.
• German: Süddeutsche Zeitung, Spiegel Online, and Rheinische Post.
• Italian: IO Donna,
• Irish: The Irish Times
• Canadian: Maclean's

The sources are overwhelming. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so there are non-US sources, which I didn't check (though at least one is just re-reporting a US source). I will still stress that WP:RECENTISM says we should not be rushing to include this, particularly as one of only a few examples on Gaslighting, though they are fine elsewhere on criticism on Trump's policies. If there were dozens of examples of gaslighting in politics, including Trump based on these sources among those would be reasonable, but you only have two, and it stands out as well badly, and given how much there is coatracking around anything dealing with Trump, we need to be a lot more careful. I do spot check and see plenty of uses of the term in US politics well before Trump even was contending for president, so this section really needs to be filled out so that just the inclusion of Trump doesn't stand out (it is applies to members of both parties from a spot check). --MASEM (t) 00:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Agreed that the article needs more examples in politics to be balanced. But notice this spike in google searches caused by these articles. Will you at least agree trump belongs as long as more examples are also listed. I will add more from this source I just found. It traces the use of gaslighting back to the GOP v. GOP in 2007 Primaries.

References

—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you put it in terms of general increase within US politics at least since the start of the last election system (mid-2015), which there are sources to support gaslighting on all sides, rather than just focusing on Trump, that would avoid many of the issues I have. I know right now the focus in news today is on Trump's, but that's why we have to look towards RECENTISM to balance for a more long-term view. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please forward sources for use on other side of the 2016 election. All I found was The National Reviewer 1 [20] both by Jonah Goldberg and U.S. Uncut which is specifically refuted by Slate

I have found this about other democrats: NY Times about Bill Clinton's administration use against Gingrich, The National Review 3 about how Trump's campaign is similar to how Obama campaign "felt a bit like 'gaslighting,'" and another The National Review 4 about Obama

Compared to the case for Trump by NYTimes, Wash Post, CNN, NBC...., these qualify as WP:FRINGE according to your own high standards of RS. Compare the google news searches "trump is gaslighting" to "clinton is gaslighting"

You are asking me to give WP:UNDUE weight to a case for Democratic use of gaslighting. I will not be the one to do that. But I have listed the sources. You are welcome to do it yourself.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm asking that we consider RECENTISM here. The weight of sources about Trump from the press right now are no question going to be high given the war of words between these groups. It is important in criticism of Trump and his policies, but on the Gaslighting page, it does not make sense to get into depth about that much criticism, only that the idea that the term has come into popularity for the last decade-ish to describe some political tactics by various Presidents or candidates (which of course will include Trump). We should not be trying to describe to what degree those complaints are on the Gaslighting page as that is just describing the origins and use of the term, it's just the wrong place for it. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do it. As long as the article at least mentions that the term has gained popularity in pop culture since these articles have released about Trump, I see no problem. The politics section is still short. There is room for expansion. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the concerns over recentism is unjustified, overly restrictive, and frankly bizarre. While an encyclopedia should be careful not to include recent things that are unlikely to become part of the historical record, merely happening recently is not an excuse to exclude encyclopedic information that can be reasonably expected to become a part of that record. Trump was a significant example of gaslighting, and will almost certainly become part of the enduring historical record in that regard, with over 7000 news hits for "Trump" + "Gaslighting", many of which are clearly reliable sources. Only half of all Google hits for the term "gaslighting" do not also contain the word "Trump". If there are other historical examples of gaslighting that have a similar prominence, then the solution is to add those to the section. But merely being discussed in the "recent" news (which now consistently stretches back one year ago in a steady stream of stories) is not a legitimate excuse for removal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue with recentism is not so much because its recent news, but because right now, it is a subjective assessment of Trump's tactics primarily sources to agencies (the press in general) that are in heated arguments with him. It would be better to wait several years when experts, no longer in the midst of emotionally-charged arguments, can assess the situation to call it more objectively if it was gaslighting. Certainly, the term "gaslighting" is being thrown around to subjectively describe Trump's tactics is a fact, but it's also been thrown around well towards past Presidents and candidates and others before there was even a notion Trump was running for president; it's just the volume with Trump is so much louder. As such, my concern is more that highlighting just the use of word with Trump when they clearly exist earlier examples (which I do note also would fall into the time period of recentism, etc, statements made about Obama and gaslighting are those from sources during his Presidency). Because it is very easy to coatrack more criticism of Trump on this article because of the volume of claims of gaslighting, it must be carefully balanced to recognize that its not isolated to Trump but has instead been a term adopted by US politics over the last decade or so, citing some of the people claimed to have been gaslighting, and at which point, it then is fair to explain that it has been very common to describe Trump's approaches that way. Isolating the discussion of gaslighting in US politics to just Trump is very POV-ish and certainly a BLP issue, but its clear it can be written to encompass more than just Trump and thus is reasonable to remain once written like that. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If the concept has been applied to other politicians, the coverage should be proportionate to the predominance in reliable sources, per WP:WEIGHT. Given that a quarter of the Google hits that contain the word "gaslighting" also contain the word "Trump", proportionate coverage would suggest that about one quarter of the article could in principle be devoted to documenting the use of the term as applied to the Trump campaign. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Except this article is about the concept of "gaslighting" which originated from the field of psychiatry, and only recently (last 10 years) has been used in the field of politics. It is very much coatracking to say that per UNDUE, we must emphasize the attention that has been given to Trump and claims of gaslighting on this article. On an article about criticism of Trump's presidency or the like, absolutely more can be said, though again, RECENTISM cautions against including too much of the short-term opinion. On the article about the term, we should be a lot more careful identifying anything as a strong example, particularly when the new usage is still rather new. This is not to say Trump shouldn't be mentioned, but to apply UNDUE here for only the political use is improper, particularly if you really apply the UNDUE meaning, there should be much much more said about the psychiatric aspects, with the more modern political take more of a minor point. Focusing far too much on Trump and gaslighting is avoiding the long-term nature of this article, as RECENTISM warns us about. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the general public largely became aware of the term "gaslighting" because of Donald Trump, it's hardly a coattrack to discuss this case in a proportionate manner. Recentism talks about "news spikes", but this is much more than a spike. The word "gaslighting" has been associated with Mr. Trump for more than a year in a wide variety of print and online media. Let's just stick to reliable sources, and try to keep our coverage proportionate. I would object, for example, to lengthy paragraphs about other politicians who were not so prominently associated with gaslighting; that probably would be undue weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, at least as long as there's clearly tensions between Trump and media, that "spike" will not go away until he is out of office or something placates the matter. RECENTISM (which is based on NOT#NEWS) and UNDUE work against each other here, and given the overall situation with the bitterness between these parties, we need to avoid treating the press entirely as an independent source, which goes against the use of UNDUE here. Yes, Trump should be mentioned on this article but there's no place for forcing excessive complaints about Trump on the UNDUE argument. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Recentism" is not a justification for excluding "recent" material altogether. Nor is it necessary to treat the term as a psychiatric diagnosis; our own article notes the "colloquial" usage. Attempts to delete the material on Trump there are bound to fail, as they should. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dick Siegel

Dick Siegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,

I am Dick Siegel. While there is nothing defamatory about me, there is in accurate information. For example, although I play guitar, I am not known as 'an American jazz-blues guitarist' I am known as songwriter and singer.

Also, I am no longer playing with Dick Siegel and the Brandos. I primarily play solo or with bassist, David Roof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixeagle (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dixeagle. Thank you for bringing this here, for disclosing your conflict of interest, and for not trying to edit the article yourself. We usually try to be as accurate as possible, but we can't take anything at face value. It is not uncommon for someone to claim to be the subject of an article (or even the world's foremost authority about a subject) just so they can do some vandalism or other such nonsense. I'll assume for this conversation that you really are who you say, but since we have no way to verify that, you can see why we would want to protect you from something like that happening.

What we rely on are reliable sources, so that we can verify the information itself, rather than the person giving it. Since you most likely know what has been written about you, can you provide any reliable sources that give the current information? If so, it's an easy matter to update the article. If not, we may have to wait until something shows up. (We're not a newspaper, so everything here is not always the most recent information.) Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dixeagle: Your article has been tagged as "needing additional citations for verification" for about five and a half years, so I personally wouldn't trust anything in it as far as I can throw it. If you want, I can request your biography is deleted (on the grounds that no information is better than misleading information), or if you have a published interview you trust is correct, tell us about it and we can use that to fix the article. For now, I have fixed your description to "singer-songwriter" (this is sourced to the sole citation in AllMusic) and I have removed all information not verified to a reliable source; this is usually akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, but if the article's subject complains about factual accuracy, I find it's best to err on the side of caution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just to add, if you have a website or other personal site which you update with your current details, this would suffice for most information - your current performing status etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom

 —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone's clearly grinding a non-too-subtle axe, but I don't see any BLP issue. No-one's named in that draft and the people involved are convicted criminals. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Chan Fai-young

• Chan Fai-young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I removed "Keith" from the article title but retained "Keith Chan Fai-young". However, Hohosiu101, who declares himself to be the article subject (the composer), removed the aka portion from the opening sentence. The source citing the aka portion is Billboard. I know that the subject doesn't want to be called "Keith". However, is the removal of the cited info okay, or should the removal be reverted? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Erik Prince

Editors may be interested in participating in two RfCs at Talk:Erik Prince about the charitable activities of Erik Prince, best known as the founder of Blackwater USA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Input requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard to expertise in closing blp AfD's involving eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc.

... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not a "black and white" thing. There are many factors involved to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Looking at the Grow article, my first impression is that it reads like a resume rather than a bio. There is plenty about his accomplishments but absolutely nothing about the person, which is the purpose of a bio. In my opinion, for a person to be notable, there should be significant coverage about them, not just their works, otherwise it just looks like a promotional page or an advertisement. (I had that problem once when trying to create an article about Walter Geffcken once. He is mentioned in plenty of sources describing his contributions to thin-film optics, but there is nothing out there about the person.) That's often a problem for articles on scientists and professors, so the bar for inclusion is sometimes set a little lower, but there should still be enough info to make a decent article.

The same thing applies to Park. Is there enough info in reliable sources to create a decent article about him? Zaereth (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Richard Rossi

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

Long, overblown, filled with questionable citations. Subject is infamous, not famous.

Worth checking because of subject's history of attempted murder and allegedly unscrupulous fundraising. Wikipage seems to be used to burnish subject's reputation rather than report facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.91.1 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention the overwhelming COI with 2 glaring editors who have contributed content and photographs of the subject. The undue weight of inline citations (4-6 on average), celebrity names, non-notable "recent news" content. The vanity page style writing that reads more like a tabloid personal resume than a Wikipedia article. This needs a good, hard cleaning / scrubbing. I dare say 3/4 of this article needs to go; if the subject is notable even to stay. Maineartists (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Graham Stafford

There's a bit of a back and forth going on in this article, and I'm not helping--it's hard to argue that a new editor Gold n staff) needs to explain their edits and present sources when the article in question is just absolutely awful, and cites nothing by way of footnotes. Do any of you feel the spirit move you, to clean up this article which has been tagged since 2008? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to direct attention to Talk:Graham Stafford, where an editor says he is the subject of the article. Since the article talks about a crime and he says there and in edit summaries that it is seriously inaccurate, I think this needs eyes on it right now. Someone else is attempting a rewrite and I have not looked at sources at all; it's bedtime here. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Graham Stafford does not have a notable bibliographical life , page needs moving to - The murder of Leanne Sarah Holland - done. I have removed a lot of bla de bla uncited and I think the content is policy compliant as it stands, feel free to expand and add detail and inline citations. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Gardere

• Jeff Gardere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate more eyes on this so that I don't descend into edit warring over small stuff. New WP:SPA has added copyright violations and multiple external links and unsourced content, primarily fluffing this up a bit. Any help appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

rameez shahzad

some user has edited the article and mentioned these comments on them

(Redacted)

Please review this and remove it asap thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd azhar (talk • contribs)

I've removed the comments from the page history (also from this page) and applied some protection to the article. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Posting here to publicize RFC

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rfc:_Remove_description_taken_from_Wikidata_from_mobile_view_of_en-WP -- Stems from BLP matter at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Colin Kaepernick

[[Colin Kaepernick]]

The existing version of the third paragraph of this biography's introduction reads:

"... Motivated by alleged oppression of black people and other non-white races..." (third paragraph, second sentence).

It should be amended to read "...Motivated by oppression of black people and other non-white races" -- the word "alleged" should be removed. The presence of that qualifier completely ignores the very real history of minority oppression and marginalization, the history of which can be found in numerous articles on Wikipedia.

To leave the word "alleged" invalidates the legitimacy of racial oppression. Left as is, the sentence is both inaccurate and unintelligent.

Thank you for your time.

Kam16214 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. We'll see if it sticks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

I'd like to ask for input on weight/balance in the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article. I'd also appreciate input on any possible BLP issues in my proposed change to the article: [21].

One aspect of writing a good BLP is making sure that the different aspects of the subject's biography receive appropriate weight. One way of determining this weight is by looking at media coverage of the subject. Currently, the article, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg includes only a very short section on the plagiarism scandal (75 words, out of approximately 5000 words in the article). Briefly, following accusations of plagiarism in his doctoral thesis, Guttenberg resigned as German Defense Minister, and withdrew from elected politics.

Based on an analysis of English-language newspapers in LexisNexis, which I summarized here, approximately a third of all news articles that mention Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg also mention the plagiarism scandal. The only aspect of his biography that seems to have received more coverage was his time as Minister of Defense. The article does not reflect this balance, however. Aspects of Guttenberg's biography which I think are very minor are given far more coverage than the plagiarism scandal. These marginal aspects include:

• Center for Strategic and International Studies (415 words): This section is more than 5x the length of the section on plagiarism, despite his role there receiving far less news coverage (in my LexisNexis search, 14 newspaper article hits for ``Guttenberg "Center for Strategic", vs. 302 for "Guttenberg plagiarism").
• No Disconnect Strategy (188 words): I had trouble finding even a single news article that mentioned Guttenberg in connection with the "No Disconnect Strategy."
• Guttenberg's comments on the NSA spying scandal (213 words)
• Guttenberg's comments on Russia (263 words)
• Spitzberg Partners (207 words)

There are not many active editors at Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. The response I've gotten from the other two editors there is that since a separate article covers the plagiarism scandal (Causa Guttenberg), balance is already satisfied. That's not my understanding of balance, which (I believe) is supposed to apply within each individual article. I asked in an earlier RfC whether the plagiarism scandal should receive more weight, and the consensus favored an expansion.

My proposed text, which was originally roughly based on the German article's text, is here: [22].

I would appreciate any comments on both the weight issue, and whether or not there are BLP problems with my proposed text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The article as it currently stands is indeed a violation of WP:WEIGHT by failing to give sufficient weight to this matter and by omitting important details. Your proposed text strikes me as quite moderate and measured. If necessary, it can be adjusted in the details -- but the objections I've seen on the article talk page should not stand in the way of adding material along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War II‎

Dispute over whether or not Michael Karkoc should be include on the List of surviving veterans of World War II‎. The central issue is a dispute of identity. Michael Karkoc is a German immigrant to the United States, who is now an American citizen. There was a man named Michael Karkoc who was a soldier in World War II, which the Polish government has named as a suspect of war crimes charges. Michael Karkoc (US) claims he was never in the German army, and is no the same person as the war criminal. As the issue of his identity is uncertain I removed his name from the list as it is not a proven fact that he was a soldier. Other editors have taken issue with this and claim on the basis of media reports that they have sufficient grounds to override Michael Karkoc's legal presumption of innocence an list him as a German soldier and "suspected war criminal". Resolution by discussion has proven futile. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"Identical name" is not the same necessarily as "identical person", and in cases where any dispute exists, Wikipedia is expected to note that possibility exists. "Media reports" in this universe are not as infallible as some would aver, and where the identity is disputed, the media do not become perfect. Collect (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, there are two points that need to be factually ascertained in order for someone to be included on the list. 1) The person must have served in the military of a belligerent in World War II, and 2) The person must be currently alive. In the Karkoc case both of these points remain unverified. Without such verification he cannot be include on the list. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

'Unverified' is not the same as 'disputed by the subject'. Its 'verified' to the extent two countries wanted to extradite him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No that is not sufficient. Being accused of a crime does not make you guilty, and he would only be eligible for the list if he was guilty. The only way he can be guilty is if he has been tried and found guilty in a court of law. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Its largely irrelevant. Multiple reliable sources have explicitly stated Person A is Person B. Two countries have said 'Yes this is person B and we want to prosecute him'. So its perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to state (with attribution) Person A as being person B and include his denial, be it on his own biography or any related lists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No it is a violation of WP:BLP By putting him on the list you are declaring him guilty without trial. Your can't declare a person guilty on the basis of a few media articles of dubious RS value. This is not an article where you can play with gradiations of truth. It is either a verifiable fact or it is not. If there is reasonable doubt then WP:BLP say to remove it. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to put him on the list. What we say about him requires due care -- but the sources that report the identification are reliable and cannot be dismissed with the words "dubious RS value". Our core policies of V and RS are manifestly satisfied here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The core value is that we not damage any person without strong sourcing. Amazingly enough, some of the nations making the claims have been shown to make incorrect claims in the past, and may have specific agendas. They may well know of a person with a name, but the issue is whether this person is the same one they seek. The idea that BLP does not require us to protect living persons is absurd, just as it has always been absurd. Unless and until the specific identicality of the two persons is shown, it is a damn violation of common sense to have Wikipedia says you are a War Criminal. Just as having "news sites" say that a person is a cousin of a mass murderer is a BLP violation. But I suspect that some here love to follow the precepts I document in User:Collect/BLP from the past (sigh). Collect (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wondered what had happened to the discussion on the talk page itself (where Mediatech makes many of the same errors such as saying that they would be declared "guilty without trial" of being a German soldier or that they have a "legal presumption of innocence" of not being a German soldier, or "would only be eligible for the list if he was guilty"; of course, he is also eligible for the list if he is a German veteran falsely accused of war crimes). I'm glad to see Nomoskedasticity and Only in death agree.

Collect: I'm not proposing to write "Wikipedia says you are a War Criminal". I'm proposing to write that they are a German veteran and that there are allegations of war crimes. That they are a German veteran is much better sourced and a much less damaging claim. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an entirely reasonable approach, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly where we would be grossly violative of WP:BLP and this is aboutthe worst sort of example one could choose. AAB is a German war veteran. AA BB is wanted as a war criminal", in itself, something which requires a strong source that the two are the same person. A reasonable approach? Not Collect (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that it is. That they are a veteran is well sourced. That they have been accused of war crimes is a quite indisputable fact; you can read the accusation for yourself. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have petered out, two in favour, one against. I propose hence to re-add it, but in the interests of compromise to hedge our bets as far as possible. (FWIW, Michael Karkoc is worded to be about a former military officer who may be a living person in Lousiana, not vice versa). I propose to write "Possibly living. The Associated Press has identified a living Ukrainian expat who they assert is the former officer. The person identified denies having been in the military."

This is exactly what Michael Karkoc says already. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: Yes, precisely. Again this seems very reasonable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

• Kate Mulgrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, the article was update to include info. on a baby she gave up for adoption in the 1970s and was reunited with in the 1990s. Originally it had one citation from AARP and then I added two more upon request from User:Bbb23 who keeps reverting. The line of info. had no business WP:Reliable sources being removed after three relevent citations had been added. I rarely pursue reverted content, just not worth the time, but because this is public knowledge made available by Mulgrew herself I felt the reverts are ridiculous since I added WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. The line of info in question can be found on Kate Mulgrew's page in the Personal Life section. ThanksKoplimek (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I never asked for more citations. I asked for more context. See this discussion on my Talk page, which went absolutely nowhere. Another editor also undid Koplimek's changes and told them to take it to the article Talk page. Instead, Koplimek reverted again. I've now warned the user about edit-warring as they've reverted three times (I've "reverted" twice and that's generally my limit). I would try to find more context for the material myself except I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic (unrelated to her notability), so I don't see why I should bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. We're not talking about a minor here, and since it is well reported, I see no BLP vio. However, it does stick out like a sore thumb. You can't whittle something like that down to a one-liner. It's like reading the water article and finding a statement that so-and-so celebrity drinks water everyday. What does it have to do with the price of rice in China? There does need to be contextual matter added to tie it in to the rest of the article.

As to the other point, I also agree that it doesn't seem very encyclopedic, unless it can be shown (in context) how it is significant to her notability rather than just being a bit of gossip. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that it was already discussed further down in the same section, I simply moved the contested line down a few paragraphs where it flows more readily. I hope that helps, but may need a little more TLC to get it up to snuff. Zaereth (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth I was in an edit conflict while you were moving the contested line. I was integrating the information into the Personal Life more than simply moving the line; which reads oddly since it already states their reunion in 2001 and then goes on to say that Mulgrew was reunited with her daughter in the next sentence. I'll contribute my edit and you (and others) can revert or edit as you see fit. Thanks Maineartists (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. I could see that it was still awkward to read, but better than it was. Being rather busy in real life, I was hoping someone like yourself would come along and integrate it. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it certainly has context now () - might be even a little undue, but no matter as it reads well. I made a few copy edits, and that's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Resolved? Maineartists (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's good(the placement of the info that it), ok by me. Thank you one and all and nothing personal Bbb23. Peace.Koplimek (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Can a scholar well known as a writer of reviews be considered notable not only under wp:BIO but as an author under wp:AUTH

Please weigh in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix here or User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Jimmy_Wales.2C_please_offer_your_opinion here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I (and I think quite a few other) avoid that page like the plague. No offense to Jimbo, it's a great place if you want to get a lot of drama, but a poor place to try and get something accomplished. I answered your other post on this page above. If your goal is to nominate the Grow article for deletion I will gladly support you, for it just looks like a promo page. However, there is no point in starting a second section here when one already exists. Zaereth (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Annie Pootoogook

In this article on the late Canadian First Nations artist, a paragraph addresses another person who is alive (the final paragraph of the article linked here). In the investigation into Pootoogook's accidental death, a police officer made comments to the media that resulted in a great deal of press attention, his conduct was investigated and he was charged and plead guilty to discreditable conduct and making comments on an open investigation. The issue I'm concerned with is that this officer is a non-notable person per WP:BIO1E. The article currently uses his name and nevertheless the linked sources contain his name as well. It's not clear if he was actually convicted; there's no information in the article on the outcome of the trial other then his plead. I removed a POV sentence that stated that he has "not been punished". As the article is not about him and he himself falls under WP:BIO1E, is it a BLP violation to use his name and/or include any part of the the paragraph? The situation is important to Pootoogook's biography but I'm not comfortable with leaving it as is. Do we remove the name and refer to him as the investigator? Do we remove the paragraph per WP:UNDUE? And although this may not be the highest profile article, it nevertheless gets a great deal of traffic as the Pootoogook story was widely covered in Canadian media after her death, issues around First Nations people are frequently covered in Canadian media and she is often used as an example of someone who the system failed. And it's popular with school-related projects; just today a student at Queen's University at Kingston in Ontario began editing the article for a course. freshacconci (✉) 02:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

This article describes the subject as a "murderer". However no reliable source that I found chooses to use this adjective, so this runs afoul of BLP. And even if it weren't, this flies in the face of well established norms of not using infammatory POV labels. I've opened a discussion on the talk page.That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh. He was convicted of first-degree murder. In what possible sense is he not a murderer?? How on earth is this "POV"? Is there an "NPOV" perspective in which he is not a murderer? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've said this at Talk:Luka Magnotta: "This is a weird objection, he was convicted of first-degree murder in December 2014, so he is unlikely to be suing successfully for libel over this any time soon. As for being a convicted murderer - which he is - this is his main source of notability in reliable sources. It could be argued that saying that he is a murderer is largely redundant in view of the WP:LEAD section, but it isn't a major BLP concern as you seem to think that it is."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Seems quite murdery to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Assumption that someone belongs to an ethnic subgroup

We have the following hypotheses:

• ES is an ethnic subgroup of the ethnic group E.
• The region R is known to be the region where the ethnic subgroup ES is majoritary.
• Based on reliable sources, it is known that the living person P belongs to the ethnic group E.

According to WP:BLP wiki policies, it is correct to assume that the living person P belongs to the subgroup ES, despite the fact that there is no reliable source which explicitly affirms this? 123Steller (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I just had a nightmarish flashback to my high-school algebra class. (If train T₁ leaves Los Angeles C_LA at 5 PM Eastern Standard Time EST traveling 200 miles per hour MPH...)

Sorry for the bit of humor, but this is too vague. There are too many factors involved to give a specific answer to such a general question. Perhaps if you give the specific example you are thinking of we can help. Zaereth (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

From contribs, it's going to be Ecaterina Szabo. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. BLP's can only use reliable sources for things like ethnicity. We can state (with reliable sourcing) person P is a member of group E. We are *assuming* that because person P lives in region R they are a member of majority group ES - but they may not be. Its likely they are given the facts, but we cant assume that in an article absent explicit sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Matteo Chinosi

I cannot see any obvious BLP violation but an editor claiming to be the subject wants the article deleted (see User_talk:NeilN#Help_me_please). Can editors determine if the person meets WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (or indeed meets WP:GNG)? If so, I will as the editor to prove his identity via OTRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In researching this subject independent of his notability for inclusion at WP (racing), I found absolutely nothing. Merely doing an engine search resorted to what WP has listed. Furthermore, there is very little in the article that would merit notability in his field. There is nothing to expand the article re: "Personal life", etc. The stats are weak, few and not very impressive; not to mention the references. Entering races and being a guest racer doesn't make one notable. I'm not sure the request from the "subject"; but I question the notability for inclusion overall. IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Starley (singer) date of birth

Saw this here a bit ago, apparently there has been some arguments about the singer's age. Different ages have been put on the article over time, and now 1988 has been added to the page citing a Twitter response to a fan [23]. I'm unsure what to make of it in light of BLP, especially since the Twitter is not verified. Thoughts would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It would need to be a verified twitter account to pass as a self-published source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts as well. Removing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That is clearly her twitter account, - https://twitter.com/starleymusic - not everyone bothers to verify, sometimes it is simply obvious. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

...from his first wife who killed herself in 1995

At Wim Hof, we have the sentence "Hof has five children; four of them from his first wife who killed herself in 1995" Is mentioning the suicide a WP:BLP violation? (Hof is a public figure. His wife was not). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In this source he says (shortly after 5:45) that his wife "accidented" in 1995. I'm not sure if "accident" is the equivalent of "suicide", although at 23:00 the son uses the term "suicide". Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am always against adding in non-notable, relative (or spouse) information that seems to sensationalize an article into a tabloid in relation to death/suicide. There seems to be a spotlight now on how to word the death; which I think is simply unnecessary on the whole. If someone is trying to draw suspicion between the four men's death in the Controversy section and this; it seems a bit forced and in poor taste. IMHO: remove it entirely. However, if this does remain, a good editor would request additional content to be added (with reliable sources) for reasons as to why it is relevant for inclusion. But honestly, I see no reason why it should. Maineartists (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The referred-to death is alluded to by both husband and son, and the husband notes that (paraphrasing) it is over sadness over the loss of his wife that he was spurred on to research what eventually became his noted achievement. In fact the son says that "everything started there", by which he was referring to the death of his mother. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That would certainly suffice the reason for inclusion. It would read much better than what's there now. Maineartists (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And again beginning at 35:45 here the husband references the death of his wife, emphasizing the significance of that event. I've edited it slightly (Wim Hof#Personal life). Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes much more sense now. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I see no BLP problems with the new wording. Good job! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Falsified 'George Groeneveld' Wikipedia Page

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

Sources do not exist and no evidence exists otherwise that supports the information on wikipedia. Please remove as per the June 2009 policy cited on the george groeneveld page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.80.176 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not policy. It's just a template. If you think some of the information in the article is "false", you'll have to specify what material and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There is this. (Search for "George Groeneveld". ) And this. And this. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Significant deletion and sex scandal material at the Georgetown Preparatory School article

Eyes are needed on Georgetown Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Waprin (talk · contribs) keeps adding this material while removing a lot of other material. I was going to re-add the sex scandal material, but in a more appropriate way and without removing what Waprin removed. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Materialscientist and 331dot for reverting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lord Aleem

• Lord Aleem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I recently found this biography at CAT:CSD tagged with {{db-person}}. I accepted the deletion primarily because the article didn't cite anything beyond the Sun and the Daily Mail and made some serious unsourced claims of illegal behaviour. The article was immediately recreated, so I salted it, at which point I started a discussion with the creator AnsarAction, explaining WP:BLPSOURCES to him. He's supplied some other sources, including a link to a BBC TV show featuring him, and a passing mention in the Independent,[24] so it's possible we would be able to write a biography about him. I'm still a bit uncomfortable as his main mentions in the news appear to be run-ins with the law, so I thought I'd bring the conversation here. I would personally recommend we review what available sources we have, create a draft article and pass that through AfC; if and when the draft is accepted, we can de-salt at that point. Any other comments? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hes been mentioned in this Wiki page 'List of British Pakistanis' [[25]] And is appearing in a forthcoming CBBC show titled 'Ali-A's Superchargers http://www.downforceradio.com/news-rebecca-jackson-to-star-in-cbbc-car-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsarAction (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Irene Taylor Brodsky

Irene Taylor Brodsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unverified source information has been included in Irene Taylor Brodsky's page as well as the page of her film Beware the Slenderman, regarding her and HBO's supposed unauthorized usage of copyrighted material in the Beware the Slenderman film. No sources seem to exist that back up this information beyond possible first-hand research.

["Beware the Slenderman" uses footage from other filmmakers without their permission while she and HBO continue to refuse to credit the original creators.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.153.8 (talk) 23:05, February 24, 2017‎

I don't think YouTube videos have much in the way of copyright protection unless very specific steps are taken. Anyway, I can't find any source mentioning copyvio, so it should be removed from the article. Ditch ∝ 18:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas D. Waldhauser

The page for Thomas D. Waldhauser includes an incorrect photo. The current photo includes the AFRICOM badge and Office of Secretary of Defense badge in an incorrect position. The correct photo can be found on the U.S. Africa Command website is http://www.africom.mil/Img/28341/Orig/united-states-africa-command-image.

Full Disclosure: I am an employee of U.S. Africa Command's public affairs office and request the edit be made to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 215.67.4.67 (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)