Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive270

Dean Goss

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

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

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

John F. Kelly

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

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

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

Duane Arnold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Talk:Nouman Ali Khan

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

Encyclopedic tone in Cher Lloyd

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

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

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

Valerie Jarrett

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

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

Because [1]. Which we seriously do not need. Judicial Watch? Seriously? Set up by Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer on the planet not called Mat Staver. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP1E assessment requested: Anna Delvey

Hi there. I recently stumbled across a pretty detailed article in New York on a woman called Anna Sorokin aka Anna Delvey, who allegedly conned a number of NYC socialities out of a lot of money: [2]. There is a long story in Vanity Fair from April and going back, she does appear in party images going back to 2013. There's also some coverage from last year [3], [4], even some in Russian (GTranslated). Some sources I cannot access due to GDPR walls though. I was considering creating an article about her since there was definitely substantial coverage of her various business dealings, however, I'm not completely sure she doesn't fail WP:BLP1E if one considers the arrest and the related coverage as the "event". As such, before I do so, I would like to request a short assessment whether she fails BLP1E or not. Regards SoWhy 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if she is 1Eish (not passing firm judgement), it sounds like the criminal event passes WP:NCRIME - so at worst you could cover the criminal act(s) as a title- though I think this is beyond 1E (as it seems more than just the crime is covered - though it does appear gossipy). The more serious issue is WP:BLPCRIME as while Sorkin is in Rikers, it seems she hasn't been convicted as of yet.[5][6]Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

governor eric greitens

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

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

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

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

Samantha Colley

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

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

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

What reliable source is there to support either date of birth? GiantSnowman 12:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I found this diff [7] and the next few, which seem to be based on this source: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/samantha-colley.html It well may be that famousbirthdays.com is wrong, but it at least suggests the changes were not malicious.--agr (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Mimis Plessas

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

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

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

I suspect this may have been the link below is the source that this information was misinterpreted. http://www.andtheconductoris.eu/index.htm?http://www.eurovisionartists.nl/conductor/dir020.asp?ID=246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoulis (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Gossip about the British royal family in The Crown (TV series)

The Crown (TV series) contains tabloid-sourced gossip about six members of the British royal family, who are claimed to be fans of the TV show. The section suggests that the royal family endorses the TV show, and even contains a supposed quote from the Queen in which she expresses her approval. The source is The Daily Express, which was sanctioned 12 times for false claims in 2016 alone. There have been extensive discussions about the use of The Daily Express and similar tabloids across Wikipedia, and they have been effectively blacklisted. Yet, AlexTheWhovian insists on keeping the gossip in the article, with only a tag indicating that it may be (Redacted). Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be removed. If it were an RS with a better reptutation, like the Telegraph, the same language including the disclaim could be included, but Daily Express is tabloid and cannot be considered factual. --Masem (t) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If it were the Telegraph or another reputable source, the disclaim would not even be needed. In fact, no disclaim should ever be need when it comes to living people. If there is no reliable source to back it up, it should be gone. Or am I misinterpreting the WP:BLP policy? Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph, with an attempted pithy edsum. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this is unacceptable sourcing for a claim about living people, and even if it were reliably sourced it would be trivia and gossip. I'll watchlist it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bedroom Philosopher: Article name change

The Bedroom Philosopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings! I have recently listed a requested move discussion at The Bedroom Philosopher, a page which falls under BLP. Discussion and opinions are invited. Details: A user with a COI has asked that the page which is about them and titled under their pseudonym be renamed under their legal name. I'm seeking input on whether this is allowable. It is my understanding that these types of moves would be allowed only after a sufficient number of references mentioned the new name, and I believe that the references now speak mostly to the pseudonym. Any input would be greatly appreciated! .spintendo  18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a situation that we can use the OTRS to have the user confirm their identity to remove the question if this was a faked account or not. Past that point, whether the request should be heeded or not can depend on a lot of factors (here, this one seems fairly non-contested, even backed by RSes). --Masem (t) 18:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Arsham Parsi

There is an edit warring on Arsham Parsi going on with some libellous contents added by User:Effat.assar (e.g. Special:Diff/843639249). This happened in Persian Wikipedia too which made me protect the article there but I don't have admin access in here. Thanks Ladsgroup^overleg 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Adam Hansen

A user called Mr SanRemo joined Wikipedia on 7 May 2018 and made one edit.

I undid this on 28 May 2018, when I saw it. The language used was potentially libellous and the reference given did not say what the user claimed it to say.

On 30 May 2018 Mr SanRemo undid my undo. I have not attempted to communicate with this user, as it appears they have joined Wikipedia solely to perpetuate this particular item of information.

I have again reverted the edit, and given reasons including the policy on living persons, my belief that the language used is inflammatory and potentially libellous, and that the reference given does not say what the user claims it to say.

I will be very surprised if this user does not revert my undo, and do not feel it appropriate that they should do so. Sophoife (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I left him a note, letting him know this has to be discussed, and if he adds the content again he'll be blocked. As to libel itself, the problem here is guilt by association. Lothar Heinrich did confess to providing riders with banned substances, but to mention this in Adam Hansen's article is coatracking at best. Unless a reliable source specifically talks about accusations that Heinrich helped Hansen dope, it has no place in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I figured better to take the careful step than to get mired in a reversion war :) Sophoife (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Biography of Prince Harry

Focus on the facts: Articles are improved with facts that can be verified, not rumors or opinions.

I think the bio of Prince Harry should not include the paragraph speculating on his parentage. Wikipedia states as a core value that articles should focus on facts that can be verified, not rumors or opinions. The fact someone named in the rumor (not the person who's bio is being published) responded to it does not make it relevant or appropriate.

This is the section that should be removed: James Hewitt There were rumours that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair.[158] In response, Hewitt told the press that Harry had been born before the affair began.[158][159] Hewitt's 2002 statement read:[158][159]

There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not. Admittedly the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. I have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not Harry's father. When I met Diana, he was already a toddler.

The statement was seconded by one of Diana's police bodyguards, Ken Wharfe:[158][159]

The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly. The nonsense should be scotched here and now. Harry was born on 15 September 1984. Diana did not meet James until the summer of 1986, and the red hair, gossips so love to cite as proof is, of course, a Spencer trait.

I hope you will follow up on this. Thanks, Linda Storoz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:F94C:8E00:E133:79B9:3B31:E02E (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This rumor has been well covered by reliable sources, and only the mainstream perspective is presented - namely, that there is no evidence to it. So it's not a violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and thus there is not much to discuss on this page. Whether it should be mentioned is an editorial matter that should be discussed on the article's talk page, so I would recommend you go there and seek comment. I see this section has been discussed several times before, usually getting limited participation, but there is consistently a consensus for something like what is there now to remain: Talk:Prince_Harry/Archive_3#Debunking_the_Hewitt_gossip, Talk:Prince_Harry/Archive_1#Paternity. Now that aside, I should note that the persistence of the rumors actually increases the likelihood that it will be considered relevant to the article. Specifically, the fact that these rumors have generated content from sources like the BBC, and official responses from those involved, just make it seem more relevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

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

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

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

• Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA)
• The Baltimore Sun
• New York Daily News

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

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

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

KalHolmann, don't ascribe motives to me that don't exist. Calling me disingenuous is baseless and flat out wrong. I've edited here for over 10 years and have always put the interest of BLP subjects and upholding the policies protecting them ahead of rushing to get stories out for the sake of shoehorning breaking news into articles. The entire point of posting here is to foment discussion on how specific BLP topics should be handled. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NYDN's reliability is marginal. Headlines are never reliable, especially on tabloids, as they are not written by the original journalist. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_218#New_York_Daily_News_unreliable? etc for more. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/manning-friend-says-shes-safe-after-window-ledge-tweet/2018/05/28/a5804156-629b-11e8-81ca-bb14593acaa6_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Doria_Ragland

Doria_Ragland

hello. it is regarding the photo, there is some discussion on the talk. Talk:Doria_Ragland#photo It is a very poor photo indeed. It has been replaced as better than nothing, is that the blp standard? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a poor photo, but it does not seem to misportray her, to make her look ridiculous, or anything else that would be a BLP problem, in my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lorenzo Alejandro Laviosa Lopez

Found this on RC patrol, here it is before the last 3 edits: [[8]]

Would probably easily be deleted at an AFD, however, concerned about BLP issues, so brought it here. TantraYum (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Good catch. This has alternated between G10 and A7 for its entire history (which is only 50-odd edits). I have deleted it. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Eyes please: Tommy Robinson (activist)

I've fully protected this article for 12 hours to prevent it being restructured to put the subject's entire criminal record into one section under headings like "fraud". Strictly speaking, I'm not an uninvolved admin because I've been editing the article for the last few days, hence the request for more eyes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Jan T. Gross

Jan T. Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject is an esteemed[9], Princeton (emeritus) professor, whose widely cited work is considered groundbreaking.[10] Coverage of the subject is fairly wide (and very wide for an academic) and is overwhelmingly positive with the exception of coverage and comments by some elements in Polish society as well as the present Polish government. The question is to what degree to include said criticism from within Poland, how to balance it if at all, and what weight in general to give these various aspects - the harsh rhetoric (as well as legislation and a slander of the Polish nation investigation (a crime in Poland - WP:BLPCRIME issue)) from within Poland, make this a BLP issue.

Neutral eyes on the article, in general, would be appreciated. At present the content dispute is on:

• general tone of the article.
• Chodakiewicz - a far-right activist (NewsweekSPLC 20092017) and historian whose work in general has been described as the "the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing".[11] Chodakiewicz's work is cited to a very limited extent in an academic setting (per scholar - 19 citations vs. 725 for Gross's book) and many of those citations are coverage of the Jedwabne debate from a historiography/society/media angle in which the denial of the Polish role and the blaming of the victims (for their alleged conduct during Soviet rule) is covered. In terms of contents, at question is:
  1. Whether to include Chodakiewicz at all diff.
  2. Whether to include criticism and condemnation (as well as the limited support) of Chodakiewicz's work, as well as whether to include Gross's response to Chodakiewicz, which was fairly widely dissiminated (e.g. Newsweek and SPLC).diff
• Whether to include mention of anti-semitic ad-hominem attacks in Poland against Gross, noted in scholarly research on the Jedwabne debate. diff
• How to describe the circumstances of Gross's arrest in Poland in 1968 and subsequent forced departure in 1969.diff
• In 2015 Gross made a trivial observation that "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" in WWII (in an article about the treatment of refugees in Poland), for which he later provided numeric estimates (in line with research on the subject) - "Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans and between 100,000 to 200,000 Jews"[12]. This statement was strongly condemned by some elements in Polish society and by the present Polish government (who stripped an honor given to Gross in the past, opened a criminal investigation due to "publicly insulting the Polish nation" (carrying a 3 year prison sentence), and subsequently legislated the amendment widely known as "Lex Gross" or the "Polish Holocaust Law" which widens the scope of criminalization in regards to discussion of Poland's past and complicity with the Holocaust). Coverage outside of Poland, on this issue, has been mainly positive towards Gross and strongly critical of the Polish government actions. In particular, should we:
  1. Include the statement, on Polish radio, by the president of a NGO saying that the article was "primitive, disgusting and irresponsible".diff.
  2. Include the widely covered "Lex Gross". diff.
  3. Include a statement by historian Jacek Leociak (in an Associated Press piece, reprinted by several outlets) who said "The claim that Poles killed more Jews than Germans could be really right – and this is shocking news for the traditional thinking about Polish heroism during the war". diff

Input welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally Chodakiewicz should be left out of Gross' biography but is probably useable on articles related to the holocaust law. The 'Lex Gross' should be mentioned (briefly) as Gross was a significant catalyst for it - that is unescapable - but it should really be no more than a paragraph with most of the information at the relevant articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

In a typical fashion Icewhiz misrepresents the situation, presenting it in a one sided skewed manner (by, for example, peppering this request with unneeded and unencyclopedic adjectives like "esteemed", "groundbreaking" - even if a source can be found to that effect there's no reason to believe that these aren't cherry picked) and also engages in inappropriate forum shopping - most of these questions aren't BLP issues but simple WP:DUE issues.

Broadly, Icewhiz is trying to portray what are very controversial views of Jan Gross as "mainstream" and any kind of criticism as fringe. The thing is that Gross' statements and publications have received criticism from the entire political spectrum, from the left to the right. What Icewhiz is attempting to do is to hide any kind of criticism from the left (because it doesn't fit the artificial narrative he's trying to construct) and at the same time to either smear with attacks or "generalize" the criticism from the right (by either including a host of BLP violating attacks on authors critical of Gross, or by removing their specific qualifications, for example, the fact that Chodakiewicz is a historian).

As to the specific, in turn:

• Chodakiewicz - let's save that for last°
• "anti-semitic attacks on Gross" - while there certainly were such (it would be a miracle if these hadn't occurred given the subject matter) the statement Icewhiz wishes to include is extremely vague and it dishonestly suggests that ALL criticism of Gross were motivated by anti-semitism. This is strange, since the Chief Rabbi of Poland, as well as politicians and scholars of Jewish background (like Smolar) were also highly critical of Gross. Basically this is a classic case of WP:CPUSH.
• Regarding how to describe Gross' arrest and expulsion in 1968, I'm not sure why this is a BLP issue. The major point of dispute seems to be the adjective "vicious" and whether Gross "escaped" Poland. While the anti-semitic campaign carried out by the Communist Party in 1968 can certainly be described as "vicious" this is non-encyclopedic language and it's not clear what it's suppose to convey (people subject to the campaign lost their jobs and were more or less forced to emigrate, due to lack of economic support). The word "escaped" however is clearly inaccurate; Gross was forced to leave, not escaped.
• "Include the statement, on Polish radio, by the president of a NGO " <-- this is a quite weaselly and dishonest way of portraying who we're talking about: Aleksander Smolar, head of the most prestigious and liberal think tank in Poland, the Stefan Batory Foundation. Smolar himself, like Gross, was subject to persecution during the 1968 anti-semitic campaign, probably more so (Gross was mostly persecuted for taking part in student protests, Smolar for taking part in student protests AND for being Jewish). Smolar has impeccable leftist credentials, is a highly respect former democratic and human rights activist, has served as adviser to several Polish prime ministers (liberal and left wing ones) and is head of or on the board of several prestigious institutes. True, he never got his PhD... because he was arrested and kicked out of the university by the communists! Smolar's criticism of Gross is very inconvenient for the fake narrative that Icewhiz is trying so hard to construct because he can't easily be dismissed as a "right wing" or a "nationalist" (sic) critic. Smolar is a very notable and well respect person and should definitely be included to ensure WP:BALANCE. What this has to do with BLP is beyond me.
• Regarding the "Lex Gross" thing - I guess some people like to call it that, and there's been an attempt to basically "hash tag it". Personally I think it's a bit of an artificial campaign but I guess there might be enough sources which are trying to spread the use of that meme to include it. I'm ambivalent.
• Leociak's statement is just plain ol' taken out of context and cherry picked. What does this have to do with BLP? Like I said, this is just forum shopping by Icewhiz, who has been unable to obtain consensus on talk or in other venues so he's trying to find a place where he can maybe get some support.
• Ok Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. This one's a bit difficult. Over the years Chodakiewicz has emerged as one of Gross' principal critics. He is extensively published, a specialist in this exact topic area and a professional historian who's served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. There's been a lot of back and forth between him and Gross, his supporters and Gross' supporters, with various accusations of "anti-Polonism" and "anti-Semitism" flying around. Like Gross, he's definitely very controversial though given his record of mainstream publications, by no means "fringe". And yes, some of the attacks on him have been picked up by some tertiary sources which don't really orient themselves in the general debate. Overall personally I disagree of most of what Chodakiewicz writes (he gets some details correct but I think the general picture he tries to paint is as distorted as the one presented by Gross, just in the other direction - they sorta deserve each other honestly) but I regard him as notable enough so as to be included - it wouldn't make sense to have an article on a controversial writer without mentioning his most well known critic. However, as I've already indicated, I do think Chodakiewicz's mention should be kept to a minimum; a single sentence noting that Chodakiewicz has been critical of Gross is sufficient (readers can click on the relevant article and find out more). And again, this isn't a BLP issue but a simple WP:BALANCE issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

I’m concerned about text using the term murder–suicide in article Stephanie Adams, a recently deceased person. Quite likely it was a murder-suicide, and I realize that murder-suicide is not a legal term. However, murder is a crime and there has been no trial, no admission of guilt, and no suicide note. People uses the term in its headline, but not in the text. The text uses the term homicide, which is not necessarily a crime.[13]. The New York Daily News only uses the word homicide.[14] The New York Post calls it murder-suicide, but doesn’t source the claim. [15] Although these sources can be RS, none of them are top resources and BLPs require more stringent use of sources. As this is a BLP, and the incident is recent, and there have been no court rulings, perhaps we should err on the side of caution and use the term homicide. WP:BLPSTYLE In the meantime, I’ve added "alleged". Thoughts? O3000 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, the May 21 People article used murder-suicide. But, in the May 22 People article, they called it murder-suicide, but said the examiner called it a homicide.[16] The Daily Beast said the medical examiner ruled it a homicide.[17] Newsweek said the examiner called it homicide. [18] Fox News reported the examiner called it a homicide, but may have copied this from the Daily News which used homicide. NBC News New York reported that the examiner called it homicide. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, we have three sources (I only see 2 but will give you one) that say murder-suicide in article text, only one of which attributes this to the medical examiner, and six that say homicide. And as you point out, WaPo said they didn’t know if it was a murder-suicide. That makes seven that did not label it as such. So by my count, one of the ten sources said the medical examiner ruled this a murder-suicide. Why insist on murder-suicide? The term “murder-suicide” is no more inflammatory than using “suicide” and “homicide” Well, yes it is. Murder is a crime. Homicide may or may not be a crime. (Homicide Definition: To begin with, not all homicides are crimes. [19].) All police shootings resulting in death are homicides. Frankly, I don’t understand why you are so adamant about ignoring the majority of RS and using a more contentious term. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top tier sources, like NYT, WaPo, BBC, had articles on the incident. But, they didn't bother with a second article after the medical examiner's report. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sooo, what does BLP/N say? And, I'm looking for an overall opinion. Many decisions cross multiple guidelines and I don't wish to bother folk on other boards. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in because people here seem to be unclear on what words mean, though I have no actual comment to how this dispute should be resolved. "Homicide" means "the killing of a person by another person". In US legal contexts, this word implies nothing about criminal liability, though it is commonly used in speech as a synonym for "murder". "Murder", on the other hand, means "the unlawful killing of a person by another person", which is necessarily a criminal act. This is why a medical examiner will rule a death a homicide and not a murder. He is saying that he has determined the person's death was caused by another person, but he is not issuing a factual statement to who caused that death, or whether they are guilty of any crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So, can we change this to homicide? Or, do we have to bother the folk at NPOV/N. O3000 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Cathy Areu

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

A problematic, poorly sourced BLP being edit-warred over by IPs and new accounts: Noyster (talk), 11:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Poorly sourced", indeed. OK, let me find some good insulated gloves, and I'll try grabbing that wire. - Donald Albury 13:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a little bit about her role with the Post (and subsequent disavowal by the same publication) Fish+Karate 12:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: another discussion about this issue was recently started at WP:ANI#Edit warring and BLP violations across several related articles. Woodroar (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

david e garland

The source in the "controversy" section is not valid and leads to a 404 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmccarty (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Added an archive of the link; there's likely other POV issues on that page. Kuru (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Downey Jr - ? ASTROLOGY?

The article says the actor studies astrology, but the source is just a poor gossip magazine news which states that 'people say he consulted an astrologer", and its 2012. there's no source in this maganize, its the clickbait kind of. (june 4th 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Ramiro (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the source seems on par with other trash celebrity news rags that are used in this sort of article. I changed it to more accurately reflect the source to say that he is reported to have consulted astrologers rather than "studied astrology". —DIYeditor (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Kelly (historian)

Christopher Kelly (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.174 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The criticism was sourced only to a student's rant and a gossip column. I have removed it. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Compared with Paul Mellars, a former acting Master of Corpus, the BLP above might need some TLC. Mathsci (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Joy Ann Reid

Joy-Ann Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joy Ann Reid has been under fire for blogposts from a decade-old blog. A champion of LGBT rights in recent years, Reid has apologized for homophobic (and other offensive) posts, some of which were revealed in 2017 and others in early 2018. The article covers this controversy, probably at too great length considering that Reid's previous supporters, including her employer MSNBC, still support her, while her previous antagonists, (supporters of Trump but also of Bernie Sanders) still oppose her. The article also covers her past claims (now apparently abandoned) that some posts were inserted by hackers.

Recently, BuzzFeed has begun to release, one blogpost at a time, more content from the old blog, hoping to launch new controversy. First, they noted that she had linked to some 9/11 truther stuff and suggested her readers take a look. Next day, they note that a post making fun of John McCain superimposed his head on a figure holding two handguns. BuzzFeed emphasizes (although Reid did not mention) that the anonymous torso was a mass killer.

My point, and I do have one, is that RS coverage of decade-old posts from Reid's blog deserve some mention in her article. On the other hand, despite the enthusiasm of her antagonists for any new scandal, these most recent stories seem trivial compared to the previous "homophobia scandal," which has expired. As you might expect, some editors want to see every allegation covered at length, turning the blogpost coverage into a COATRACK that dwarfs material about Reid's career. But, from WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." MSNBC continues to support Reid. How do others think we should handle a drip-drip-drip approach of her antagonists to seeking news cycle coverage of accusations of Reid that are closely related to previous accusationsthat are similarly based on very old blogposts?HouseOfChange (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This editor^ has been vetoing every single addition, regardless of how extensively sourced it is, to the Joy Ann Reid page. The editor has simply declared that no content can be added unless the editor himself deems the content notable enough (the standards set by the editor is "If any of these "revelations" creates actual scandal, or a change in her job situation with MSNBC, or really anything beyond salivating eagerness from far left and right") rather than rely on WP:DUE. We're talking about content that has been covered by, what must be at this point, every single news outlet. For Reid's promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories (one of many scandals), I noted to this editor that it had been covered by WaPo, CNN, Politico, the Hill, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Buzzfeed News, the Daily Beast, Adweek, HuffPost, and the Columbia Journalism Review (some of the many RS that have covered this), with all of these sources describing it as a scandal with implications for Reid's career and her journalistic standing. I think this episode demonstrates yet again that Wikipedia has a serious problem with partisans (on both the left and the right) patrolling pages and preventing negative content from being added to articles. Rules need to be clearer that this kind of veto player behavior is unacceptable. The rules also need to protect editors who want to add content when the content is indisputably consistent with Wikipedia policy, because as it stands those editors are vulnerable to sanctions and/or have to waste time dealing with spurious vetoes and endless hurdles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not intend my request to discuss on talk page to be seen as a veto or ownership of the article. Material that was still in process and (IMO) too RECENT on May 31 has now been added to the article with a good source to a summary of latest items in WaPo article. I support that addition, and urge others to AGF that my stated concern for BLP, BALASP, and NPOV are part of what I believe Wikipedia should support for any bio. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Whitewashing"? or the opposite? Did Joy Ann Reid, as the article now weasel-ly claims, "appear[ed] to promote the forcible relocation of Jews from Israel to Europe"? You can read her entire blogpost here, which makes zero mention of relocation, let alone forcible relocation. She cites a specific quote from Ahmadinejad (saying that Europe should have given some of its own territory to Jews.) Neither the Ahmadinejad quote Reid cites, nor Reid herself, talks about moving Jews from Israel to Europe, let alone "forcibly relocating" them. The WaPo source cited says that "...she appeared to agree with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Jews should be forced to move from Israel to a colony in Europe." But the WaPo article is in this case mistaken, basing its claim not on the actual post by Reid but on an attack article at National Review. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Graham ‎

Was wondering if some others might take a look at Fiona Graham#Wanaka Gym court case and assess it per WP:BLPCRIME. The entire section was removed here, but I re-added it because the section seemed reasonably well-sourced and encyclopedically relevant (at least in my opinion). The level of detail might be something to reconsider and perhaps the entire section can be summarized a bit better, but the complete removal of any mention of the incident seems a bit extreme. I'm not sure claiming this is a "private matter" makes much sense since this is something which appears to have been covered by reliable sources (one of which even is titled "'First western geisha' loses appeal. The using of court documents as RS may need to be assessed per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but a general summary of this incident seems appropriate for the article. Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what others think.

Finally, there is an {{OTRS talk}} added to Talk:Fiona Graham which states "The existence of the court section on the biography." I'm not exactly sure what this means since I'm not an OTRS volunteer. Could it mean that an email was sent requesting that the content be removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The BLP cites exact wording from the court decision as a clear example of plagiarism as well as use of a primary source. In addition, the "geisha" section fails Earwig's plagiarism detector as well. Collect (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Collect. I didn't check for a copyvio and was concerned about the use of the primary sources. Do you know whether the "OTRS talk" template might have something to do with permission being granted to use the content from the court case? If permission was received to use the content, then it might not be considered to be a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Coffee (who has since retired and blocked himself) added the OTRS template did so with an edit summary "OTRS has received a complaint about this page. - OTRS edit". I am not an OTRS volunteer so I can't tell you what were the contents of that complaint. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

One can not be given permission to violate copyright law. Wikipedia specifically has a policy that "primary sources" specifically including court records and the like are not usable. The quote was not placed in quotation marks, was extensive, and not footnoted as a quotation. OTRS does not have the power to alter that rule that I know of. Collect (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the copyvio from The Tokyo Weekender. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: I am not suggesting that OTRS or anyone can give permission to violate copyright law. My understanding is that copyright holders can agree to release their content, including textual content, they create under a free license which would allow it to be used on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:COPY. This type of permission is often verified via OTRS, so I thought that might what the template was referring to. It appears, however, that this was not the case as pointed out by Diannaa above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There's some pretty close paraphrasing from the court document and the hugeness of the section gives the whole matter undue weight. One or two sentences using the sources other than the court document would be a lot more apropos. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Larson

Nathan Larson (politician) and Nathan Larson (anarchist) both redirect to Virginia's 1st congressional district election, 2008. Since then he's served a prison term and is now a candidate for the House of Representatives, and considerable negative material is in the news about him: HuffPost; NY Daily News; Newsweek. All very recent. However WaPo, March 2017. (Edit: Also Colorado Springs Independent, 2015.) I'm not sure I'm up to writing the article, but someone is surely going to, so I would like to alert the wise heads here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)I've created it at Nathan Larson (political candidate). In the meantime a lot of material was added at Virginia's 10th congressional district election, 2018#Independent. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Carles Puigdemont

Carles Puigdemont is the ex-president from the Catalan Autonomous communitiy of Spain he held a Catalan independence referendum in 2017 and proclaimed the failed Catalan declaration of independence which aimed at making Catalonia a country independent from Spain. The issue is with the word in the lead after the date and place of birth that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context should be citizenship (country). Since the subject is the regional president of Catalonia he is often referred to as the Catalan President and that seems to be the main argument against applying the guideline as is written also comparisons with Scottish or other British nationalities, but those seem to be justified as they are defined as countries (see WP:UKNATIONALS) and Catalonia is not. Another point made is that since the subject is a separatist even though he is Spanish (according to sources) he does not wish to be. There is a long discussion on the matter at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Nationality and it affects other BLPs from other regions that would also like to be independent countries like Quebec from Canada, Flanders from Belgium, Bavaria from Germany etc. The problem is that once the arguments have run out an edit war has started and one editor is already blocked (see here) and another has changed Spanish for Catalan again. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd support the current status quo, "...a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain," though clearly multiple options could be acceptable. It's too bad that something so small has to be blown into a big nationalistic dispute. Without intending to support the Catalan independence cause (I neither support nor oppose it), I'd suggest that "Catalan" is more important than "Spanish" in this case because one could imagine either descriptor being used for a person from Catalonia, but Puigdemont has led the independence movement, and therefore "Catalan" seems more applicable here. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not the status quo, it was just introduced. Yes, both descriptors Spanish and Catalan are correct. Is just that the MoS specifies clearly that the country is what should be used at that part of the lead. Elsewhere it should be fine to describe him as Catalan ex-president, etc.

If it is decided that it's OK to use the level for which the BLP is most relevant (town - regional - National - Supra-National) instead of the country of citizenship it should probably be made clear in the guideline by changing the current wording which reads: "In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" if flexibility is added should the BLP's notable as European politicians be changed as well (for example Antonio Tajani or Jean-Claude Juncker to European) or Bavarian president Markus Söder changed from German to Bavarian, etc.? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Crystallizedcarbon: I did mean the status quo, i.e. the article state at the time of my post [20] (it's still the same [21]), and not the status quo ante, or state at some time in the past.

I see no reason to change the articles for Söder, Tajani or Juncker: they are not leading nationalist separatist movements, nor proposing to dissolve Italy or Luxembourg into Europe. -Darouet (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Darouet: Do you propose for the criteria at MoS to be changed or amended to allow the use of the region instead of the country for the subjects that want their regions to be independent countries then? or just to not follow it in those cases?

@Crystallizedcarbon: yes, it could be possible that the MOS should be changed so that a bio subject's region can be the first mentioned, in some circumstances. I think I should leave space for other people here to comment: it's probably good if the discussion you brought here has more outside participants. -Darouet (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• MOS doesn't need to be changed to cover every situation. It's best practice for most articles in most circumstances, but there will always be exceptions. For those rare exceptions it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the MOS, and it's certainly clear that Carles nationality/ethnicity is one that falls outside the usual rigid rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• It would be just as accurate to reword it to say "is a politician and journalist from Catalonia, Spain." which sidesteps the nationality issue. The prose in the body adaquately explains the nationality issue, so there is really no need to say 'is Spanish' in the first line of the article about someone who denies being spanish, doesnt want to be Spanish, has spent most of his political career trying to detach Catalonia from Spain etc etc. Its not in line with the MOS, but as I said above, the MOS is not the be-all-and-end-all of every situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that Only in death has captured the essence of the issue. Whatever the MOS says, calling a Catalan separatist politician first and foremost a "Spanish" person is suboptimal: from an editorial perspective it creates an odd juxtaposition; it could also be viewed as inflammatory. WP:COMMONSENSE is as strong a policy as any when writing an encyclopedia. If a clause were put into the MOS somewhere to cover this kind of a situation, I think that'd be fine. But I also don't think such a change is really necessary. -Darouet (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

robin rouse wells

Hello,

I updated a wikipedia article about myself. I included new books and genres that I have written since the original article was posted, plus I changed the name because my name is Robin Rouse Wells, not Robin House Wells.

I did not know I could not edit this myself and was very chagrinned to see that the page is up for proposed deletion. I would very much like to keep the Wikipedia page --it was such a wonderful surprise to discover it existed!--and would like someone to help me with these edits. I\\

Thanks so much!

All my best,

Robin Wells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Wells, author (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robin Wells, author. I've posted some templates on your user talk page containing links to various pages related to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Username policy. Please take a look at those page so as to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself as well since it also contains information you may find helpful.

As for the article Robin Rouse Wells, it is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Rouse Wells. You are welcome to participate in the discussion there, but before you do, please take a look at Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions to get a better understanding of why articles tend to be nominated for deletion and what typically happens in an AfD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Parish

I'd appreciate editors taking a look at this and hopefully figuring out a way to deal with the imbalances here. Most of the text is extremely laudatory and much of it cites the subject's own work. And then, by the way, it's noted that he's currently sitting in a Swiss jail. Surely we could try cutting out some of the praise and expanding on why he happens to have been arrested. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you specifically point out any instances of potentially defamatory or libelous material on the page? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't OP suggesting we increase the proportion of negative material... —DIYeditor (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps they are, which is why WP:NPOVN would serve as a better forum for them to address these issues. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

William St Clair

William St Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The style of this biography reads like a PR piece and I discover that it was created in 2010 by an account bearing the same name as someone apparently employed as the subject's research assistant - see https://uk.linkedin.com/in/georgina-hill-91103634. The original editor's Wikipedia account has not been used since 2010. The William St Clair article has not been substantively edited since its creation.

The subject may be sufficiently notable, although I am doubtful, and the article does not have a neutral point of view and would need substantive work to make this so. I would propose it for deletion but want to seek others' views first.

Claire 75 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please review the purpose of the noticeboard above: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. If you believe that the subject of the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then please consider nominating the article for deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

While true, that's not the sole purpose of this noticeboard. In specific, it's a place for notifying uninvolved parties (particularly those who have a good understanding of and take BLP rules very seriously) that a biography may have a problem, especially if that problem violates the BLP rules. While I don't see any blatant vios, having unsourced info in a biography is definitely a problem, especially when this info is clearly written by the subject themselves. As an author of several books, he likely is notable enough for an article, and not all the sources are bad, but things like catalogs and blogs are not sufficient. (Not to mention the whole thing reads like a resume; literally a list of jobs and the years he worked them. I know we often refer to the "timeline" of an article, yet this is taking the concept a bit too literally.) Zaereth (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is for dealing with situations that require urgent attention to BLPs that may contain potentially defamatory or libelous content. Anything else serves as a distraction, which consumes the limited time of contributors to this page. There are certainly other fora such as WP:NPOVN, which would better placed to address the issues raised by OP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - as you say, editors time is limited, which includes my own. Apologies if this wasn't the best place to raise it, Wikipedia's thickets aren't particularly easy to navigate. Thank you for the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 75 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll add it to the articles for deletion noticeboard as you suggest. Claire 75 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please take my age off this site

• Tracey E. Bregman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I monitor a tracking category which shows invalid dates in some templates and have noticed several cases where it looks as if the subject of a BLP article has attempted to remove their birth date. They sometimes leave the template mangled which alerts me. What should a nice Wikipedian do about this edit which has summary "Please take my age off this site"? In the case of Käla Mandrake I reverted and passed the buck to WP:HELPDESK in my summary. Sometimes I look for a reference and remove the birth date if I can't find a good source—that matches WP:BLPPRIVACY. However, that is time consuming because often there is no inline ref so proper procedure might be to search for the info, and that can be tricky unless familiar with the topic. A lot of articles would be affected if remove-unless-obviously-sourced was standard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I remove unsourced ages/d.o.b.s in BLPs. Never really thought it could be otherwise. But if it appears to be reliably sourced then I really see no need to comply with a subject request to remove. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I just removed it, the website http://www.filmreference.com/film/7/Tracey-E-Bregman.html is not in my interpretation of reliable links a reliable link. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hi User:Johnuniq as regards to your comment, "A lot of articles would be affected if remove-unless-obviously-sourced was standard" as far as I understand, that is the standard for the date of birth for living people, if others understand different please let me know, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I understood something even more strict: that virtually anything could be removed from a BLP if it wasn't sourced. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all, but what about more tricky cases such as Käla Mandrake? The lead sentence includes a birth date with other assertions, and finishes with seven refs (nothing else in the article has an inline ref). I cannot see a source for the birth date in those seven links, but I'm not very patient and if I enabled scripting I might see more, and I won't try to pass a paywall. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq owww..that article is..not good. of those seven links, could only get two to bring up any relevant info (and that after searching those sites, as the link only went to the homepage- The New York times link went to the movie section, a site search didnt bring up any mentions of Kala Mandrake though). Neither mentioned a birthdate. Actually, I suspect its a candidate for AFD; could find little more than what is in those two links. One is a folio of photos, and the other an interview in what seems to be a small magazine. The subject doesnt seem to meet notability all after a quick google.Curdle (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi

On the Pakistani cricketer Shahid Afridi article it is commented a few times that his cousin is Pakistani businessman Javed Afridi. A new user (Saimaxkhan) has disputed this, and stated that he is the "UK Director for his Foundation". I am raising this here for Saimaxkhan's benefit so that the process for this being rectified can be explained. At present the source for the claim is Dawn which is respected on most matters. How does one challenge wikipedia for repeating what is an allegedly incorrect statement in a reliable source? Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate you looking into this for me. I can get Shahid to verify this himself but please let me know what needs to be done. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaxkhan (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been asked by him personally to have the information on his page rectified. What do I need to do to prove it, since it is Shahid Afridi himself that wants this done? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaxkhan (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati

The quote on Dr. Sarfati's bio page of Eugenie Scott [22] is potentially libelous. Her description of his work is an opinion of hers, not a fact, and it attacks the character and competence of Dr. Sarfati. There is no reason to have that statement included there at all, and were it not for the loophole in the NPOV for so-called 'fringe' views, it would be a clear violation of NPOV. The statement needs to be removed as it is totally superfluous to the article and potentially libelous. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not a "fact" - but the article does indeed present it as an opinion. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but a superfluous one that stands unchallenged in the text. it is obviously an unbalanced presentation. But then again, it is Wikipedia's official stated policy to be overtly biased in favor of consensus, mainstream views and against anyone challenging those views! So in that respect, it's pretty neat!--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not libelous, and referring to the opinions of those particular people it is also not undue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"it attacks the character and competence of Dr. Sarfati" What competence? Jonathan Sarfati is a crackpot who publishes pseudoscience books. The guy literally believes that the Genesis flood narrative is factual. David Icke makes less far-fetched clains. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

<<love>>... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: OP blocked for not wanting to understand what science is. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Trim (MC)

• Trim Tali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Trim Tali is about to be blocked for making legal threats, but if someone is able to review the page and check that it's something we can stand behind, that would be appreciated. I think perhaps their issue is with the associated acts? TheDragonFire (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary court document

Can I get an opinion please on the admissability of the court document that I just provisionally reverted at Nathan Larson (political candidate)? See my revert for my concerns. I'm being a little vague since I wonder whether revision deletion may be necessary. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I would only include that document if other sources alluded or pointed to the case; we shouldn't be digging into someone's criminal or court history if only going on primary sources. However, given that he clearly has been in the public eye due to a HuffPo article on him, I'd suspect some source might have mentioned that specific case, in which pointing to the court document is supporting the third-party sources. I haven't seen any in a high level search but I have barely dug into that. --Masem (t) 16:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That was my sense of how to go, but I have to say I haven't encountered any mention. Also see my edit summary; IANAL and the statement added to teh article did not mention a date, but the cite and the statement seemed to me mismatched. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hrishikesh Kanitkar - BLP in the news

Requesting eyeballs on this BLP Hrishikesh Kanitkar, which has been in the news^[23][24][25] for multiple instances of vandalism and addition of misinformation. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rey Danseco

This is a lengthy puff job/resume, overseen by several accounts. If I wade into it I'm likely to meet resistance or receive warnings for vandalism as an IP, but the article is weighted will well-deserved templates, and could use a dramatic paring of BLP violations and fancruft. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I don't have a lot of time to comb through this but I just removed a huge copy vio where Danseco's column was just copy and pasted to the article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. That'll require rev/deletion. So much more of this can go. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Corey Parker

I am having trouble on the Corey Parker article. He is a notable actor and the article is factual with numerous citations. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to place inline citations yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohayo65 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think he is notable at all. Your trouble is caused by the fact that you appear to be engaged in PR. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay Shepherd

Created today, and I nominated it for deletion just now. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that the same editor created this fine advertisement. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Liang

Thought it'd be a good idea to bring the attention of the regulars on this noticeboard to the ongoing discussions and an RfC on Talk:Lawrence Liang regarding a WP:BLPCRIME issue. Please see: Talk:Lawrence Liang#So, about the SH case.. for the RfC. Other relevant discussions, which ought to be reviewed, may be found here: (i) Sexual Harassment Findings, (ii) Lawrence Liang Sexual Harassment, (iii) RfC on mention of alleged sexual harassment, and (iv) low- to high-profile figure?. If you choose to leave comments on the talk page referred above, please consider leaving your thoughts here as well so as to direct the attention of other users to the outstanding RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is still ongoing. Please join the discussion and provide your inputs. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Rana Kabbani

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

This article contains inaccurate material, and has clearly been written by the author (presumably User 2A00:23C4:F788:BA00:29B7:46B1:364B:14D4).

Of particular concern to Wikipedia should be the reference to an ongoing court case mentioned in the two sentences beginning "They never divorced, but" and ending "to act as a self-litigant".

Information in respect of this court case can be accessed through the High Court, citing Case Number HC-2016-000986. Otherwise, the solicitors Child & Child can be contacted directly here: http://www.childandchild.co.uk/.

In summary, Rana Kabbani's description of the case as backed by the Syrian regime is wrong. The case concerns a probate dispute with her family in connection with the estate of her late husband, Patrick Seale. As High Court records will show, the latest development in that case was a summary judgment entered against Rana Kabbani by Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 10 October 2017.

Rana Kabbani has repeatedly used social media platforms to browbeat interlocutors in connection with this case. Wikipedia should not let itself be used in this way.

We trust this article will be modified to remove the two sentences referenced above. Further action - such as blocking the User referenced above from editing the article - may well be advisable. We leave this up to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.67.5 (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you've gone ahead and removed the mentioned material yourself, an acceptable action on your part as the material is completely unsourced. What remains does not seem especially problematic. It would be helpful if other editors could watchlist the article in case of future funny business. You may wish to read WP:COI and -- for future reference only -- WP:LEGALTHREAT. MPS1992 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson (activist)

Tommy Robinson (activist)

This living person seems to be having a naming convention, can anyone have a look at what's going on regarding wp:common name and the names that he is not actually known under. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

See here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9785724/EDL-leader-jailed-for-being-illegal-immigrant-after-entering-US-on-friends-passport.html and here https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/10/stephen-yaxley-lennon-describes-the-making-of-tommy-robinson_n_8747794.html

It's a matter of record that he's used these names.Heliotom (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, and Tommy Robinson (activist) is correct because this is his usual name in media coverage. It isn't his legal name, and there is an ongoing debate about this at Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Misleading_sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

John Lindahl

Hi, John Lindahl is a singer that has been on tv shows like The X Factor US, performed with Sam Smith at the Grammy's, was signed to Epic Records and later signed with rapper Logic's record label and even just released a song with him and just released his EP and is now opening for him on his tour. He deserves a wikipedia and it keeps being threatened to be taken down, if anyone could help with this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staythiswayx (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lindahl. No article is guaranteed to be safe from deletion - anyone can edit, and anyone can nominate for deletion. Whatever the consensus at that discussion is, that's what will happen. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yehoshua Hartman

Just bumped into this article on recent changes. Today, a large controversies section was added by Sammyklive, and is being warred by an IP (who seems to be promotional in tone), which is tied in to an ongoing conflict on Hasmonean High School. This seems to be fraught with WP:BLP issues, especially as the article is short and very poorly referenced - AfD might even be worth considering. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim Durkin

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

My name is Eleni Demertzis and I am reaching out as spokesman on behalf of Jim Durkin - a living person. I am writing to request page protection for the page entitled “Jim Durkin”, and removal of the section titled “House Tenure”, for the following reasons:

1. The edits since 1/1/18 have failed to comply with Wikipedia’s policy regarding reliable sources (WP:SOURCES), as they been either unsourced, or they have been “sourced” from partisan webpages that falsely claim to be newspapers; 2. The edits have created an unbalanced article, in violation of WP:COATRACK, that gives disproportionate attention to a political faction that can pay people to commit online vandalism; and 3. The entirety of the changes that have taken place since 1/1/18 have created a page that is an attack page against Durkin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page), and a Wikipedia administrator or administrators should delete these changes immediately (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10) and lock the page up until the vandalism stops.

The edit history of the “Jim Durkin” page shows that the vandals have been repeatedly warned that they are inserting false and potentially libelous material, and despite these warnings (warnings reprinted on Wikipedia’s own edit page) similar hostile edits have reappeared and the article has once again become re-unbalanced. The repeated appearance of this material, after warnings have been posted, could potentially be used to prove up actual malice, especially under the laws of the European Union to which Wikipedia is also now subject.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience about this issue. Thank you.

-Eleni Demertzis /s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockefeller2015 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rockefeller2015: You do have a point about the sources in the House tenure section. The Chicago Reader did a piece on the Local Government Information Services,[26] and they quoted an op-ed piece from the Chicago Tribune [27] about them: "mock journalism sites run by statewide GOP operative and conservative radio host Dan Proft...brazenly propagandistic..." This would certainly appear to fai WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Santa Fe High School shooting

Should the name of the suspect in the Santa Fe High School shooting be published on Wikipedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned by sufficient reliable sources. GiantSnowman 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @GiantSnowman:, even if it is a juvenile, in particular who has not yet been convicted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. NPOV, BLP and verification do apply, however. Just the facts, please, stated neutrally. - Donald Albury 13:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:CRIME. This seems to fit the bill for including the suspect's name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ivar Stakgold

Ivar Stakgold was an acquaintance of mine and he passed away on May 29, 2018. Here is a link to his obituary. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=ivar-stakgold&pid=189267950&fhid=9473

I tried to edit his article myself but now realize that the category of living person needs to be changed to deaths in 2018. The obit has a lot of info that might want to be included in his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.169.104 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up a bit, and formatted the obit as a reference. Feel free to add info from the obit to the article (use <ref name=obit/> as the reference.). - Nunh-huh`

Suzanna Danuta Walters

A controversy section continues to be added to Suzanna Danuta Walters that includes more prose than the rest of the article (less the Bibliography list). The section consists solely of details regarding a single Washington Post essay. As far as BLP and NPOV are concerned, the coverage of this single event in the article appears to be WP:UNDUE and excessive and I explained as such on the article talk page when I initially removed the content. As the section has been restored, and even expanded, without a single response to my concerns noted on the talk page, could others please review the section with an eye towards ensuring WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are followed? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic article is already a source, and this quote might be a good addition: "It is always illogical to hate an entire group of people for behavior perpetrated by a subset of its members and actively opposed or renounced by literally millions of them." The editorial from American Enterprise Institute calling it "the most hateful, venomous, vitriolic, and reprehensible op-ed in history of WaPo" is hardly a reliable source for anybody's BLP (and is itself more venemous, vitriolic, etc. than the oped it condemns.) Those two articles seem the only coverage of this not-very-notable "controversy."HouseOfChange (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Madeline Weinstein

• Madeline Weinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newly created bio with disputed date of birth. IPs claiming to be the subject keep changing the date, contrary to sourced content. Is the source WP:RELIABLE? I haven't found any others. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the reliable sources noticeboard - that's over at WP:RSN - but considering their front-page news is reporting rumors from reddit about what people saw in a sneak peek of an Avengers 4 scene, I'm going to guess the answer is no. Without a better source, we can do without the date altogether. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Good. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Tom McKillop's article has been tampered with and interfered with

Chairman of a bank that lost 60 billion dollars in value, the entire page fails to describe his career in any way relative to the corrupt bank, glances over his questioning by MP's as a side-note, and is an obscure defense of his reputation as a chairman of a bank that lost 60 billion dollars in value after he sought work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeinthetrees (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The link to the article is Tom McKillop.

At the moment, the RBS section is largely a description of the activities of the bank's CEO at the time, Fred Goodwin, not the article subject. As Chairman, McKillop would (or at least ought to have) been aware of these activities but this article needs to concentrate on his personal involvement. The detail of Goodwin's activities belongs in the article about Goodwin, not here. Neiltonks (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Noblesville West Middle School shooting

I would like to request input from some users experienced in BLP issues regarding the situation with the article Noblesville West Middle School shooting. The suspect in this school shooting is a 13-year old boy. He has not been charged as an adult and the prosecutors in the case decided to charge him as a juvenile. However, the prosecutors did issue a public statement releasing the boy's name. In spite of this, most news outlets (both major ones and minor ones) withheld the boy's name, citing their own policies for such case because of his status as a minor and because he will not be charged as an adult. The only major newspaper which reported his name is New York Daily News (I can provide a link if needed). There were also a few local TV stations that did the same (a rather small number). The parents of the boy, at least thus far, have not been charged with anything and have not been identified in the media either. The question is what we should do in the Noblesville West Middle School shooting article regarding the name of the suspect. On one hand, the prosecutors released the name, there are some RS sources that have reported it, so, formally, the requirements for including it are satisfied. On the other hand, the suspect is a minor, will not be charged as adult, and the name, this far, has not become a significant aspect of the story because almost no new outlets have reported it. As I said, the parents have not been charged with anything either for now (e.g. in relation to negligence for keeping the guns unsafe or anything of the sort, and it is unclear if they ever will be). I raised this question at the article's talk page. A couple of users sounded in there with the opinion that the name should be included. One of them actually mentioned the name at the talk page itself, without providing the source. (This situation is definitely unsatisfactory). In any case, I would like to hear the opinions of the people here regarding what to do, in light of the BLP issues involved. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page, pointing to the relevant guideline, WP:BLPCRIME, which says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that is a good point. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the info box says the suspect is an "unidentified 13-year-old student", even though he has been Identified. One the suspect is convicted, we can put it in the info box. Until then, the entry is redundant.Caleb The Wipper (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what should be done if and when the suspect is convicted/pleads guilty in the juvenile court. But for now I fixed the info in the infobox removing "unidentified". I also added a sentence to the article, with a ref, saying that the prosecutors have released the name of the suspect but most news outlets chose to withhold it because of his juvenile status (I found a ref that gives this information without mentioning the name itself). Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Luan Peters

The article for Luan Peters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is having her death date added. Unfortunately the only ref I can find for this is a facebook posting. If anyone can find a WP:RS that would be most helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 13:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything yet either. I'll continue to search the next couple days to see if a RS can confirm. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Meatsgains. MarnetteD|Talk 09:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Meatsgains would you or any other editor who sees this take a look at the talk page. The editor has added a copy/paste of a mention of her death but I don't know if it meets the policy for inclusion in the article. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Allee Willis

• Allee Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Songwriter Allee Willis lists her many credits as solely being written by her alone, when, in fact, she had co-writers on most of the songs. It is misleading for Willis to not include the names of all the writers on songs she takes sole credit for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6087:7b00:b0eb:1550:edd:eb41 (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia article about Allee Willis should not be written by Allee Willis or her representatives. Much of the material in that article did not have citations to reliable sources, so has now been removed by a snowman. MPS1992 (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for artists to use ghost writers, and, unless it is the subject of some well-documented controversy, it is not a very significant thing. We would need sources to show that. Zaereth (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Billy McFarland

I'd appreciate another set of eyes on this page move. To my way of thinking, this slips over the line into an actual violation because there has been a guilty plea, not a conviction per se (and not yet a sentencing). (The edit summary doesn't help matters.) Even if that weren't so, it also seems to run contrary to WP naming conventions, but I can't find any specific policy or guideline wording to justify moving it back. I also don't like the parenthetical "entrepreneur" as a title, but disambiguation is needed for the name. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In the U.S. law a guilty plea has the same effect as the conviction in the jury/bench trial and makes one a convicted offender; that does not require waiting for the sentencing. However I do think that in this case the page move was inappropriate. The new page title is inherently non-neutral. Such a title, name(criminal), might be appropriate if the subject was only notable as criminal and disambiguation was still required. But here the subject has independent prior notability as an entrepreneur. I think that WP:NPOVTITLE implies that in this case a neutral page title such as Billy McFarland (entrepreneur) is called for. I would revert the page move. Nsk92 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Patricia Kennealy-Morrison

The page of Patricia Kennealy-Morrison has a lot of conflicts as all the information comes from the same source which is the author herself. There is disruptive editing by if the author is directly quoted in a book which she has never contested. The page reads like a press release and "her" opinions are not put in direct quotes. This disruptive editing extends to the page of Jim Morrison with the stories of other female suitors being ripped out by the same editor that is very active on the Patricia Kennealy-Morrison page. See the talk page of Paltryforhire (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to check the third-party sourcing on these articles. Paltryforhire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is just coming off a block for vandalism and edit-warring, and is now taking the edit-warring to usertalk.[28] Disruption by this user led to article protection and now some long-overdue cleanup is underway. I'd love to have help from those who respect policy, but these articles have attracted a lot of vandalism and low-grade sourcing that has needed evaluation. I have attempted to explain basic policies around sourcing and user conduct, to this user, but as you can see, it's not going well. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Lana_Lokteff

Users repeatedly adding language such as "White Supremecist" and "Alt-Right" to the article. Lana is Pro European, not anti anything else (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLbtkJ2hyw). White supremecy dictates that white people are superior to all other races; a viewpoint inconsistent with Lana's ethno-nationalist stance; that all races have a right to their own culture and homeland. Linking biased news articles does not carry the weight enough to warrant the obvious defamation language demonstrated on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This is well sourced. And the IP account is an obvious WP:DUCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Philip Davies

Can this edit be permanently deleted? The edit summary is a gross BLP violation. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

reference about a movie based on a person removed because of BLP concerns

I reverted the removal the first time explaining it needed a reference. [29] Then they removed it again stating: (→‎Film: The usa link fits this description: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous) [30]. Opinions please. Does BLP mean information in the article, or also a reference with a link to a news article that talks about the film? Dream Focus 16:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It is indisputable that the movie is based on the life of this person and the sourcing is solid. I reverted, restoring the reference in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Neil Gross

I have removed a section from the Neil Gross article on BLPREMOVE grounds, as it was a collection of statements made by the author on a podcast, sourced only to that podcast with no secondary source verification of prominence. The entire article is overburdened with primary sources, which I've tagged it for, but the section was particularly controversial. This removal has already been reverted before by fans, so I ask for uninvolved editors to evaluate and comment per our sourcing requirements for BLPs. --Netoholic @ 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very glad that Netoholic opened this BLPN discussion, because I logged in today thinking that if he hadn't, I would have. I think that it will be helpful to other editors to see specific diffs of what has been going on here. At Neil Gross, Netoholic removed a section in which Gross' views on his main area of notability, as he expressed them himself, were presented, sourced to what he, himself, had said in a podcast: [31]. I'm pretty sure that there has been no controversy over whether Gross actually said it (he did), and that it's representative of his views overall, and that it does not contain anything disparaging of anyone else, beyond Gross simply stating his position in some academic debates where he disagrees with others. Insofar as I can tell, the rationale was that, because the podcast is a primary source, that makes it a BLP violation.

Other editors have disagreed with this removal, and there has been an edit war: [32], [33], [34], [35].

This occurs simultaneously with a content dispute at Political views of American academics, where Netoholic has been arguing that Gross's academic views should be greatly downplayed: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

When I look at WP:BLP, it looks to me like the applicable part is where it says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:... relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP, except that the argument made by Netoholic ignores the part that says "unless written by the subject of the BLP". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here...does User:Netoholic think that this academic expert is not reliable? or that his podcast is not reliable?--Moxy (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

For Neil Gross, as the sourcing stands, I would agree with Netoholic. The issue isn't that the podcast is or is not reliable, the issue is that it is a single, primary, source, which means it does not suffice to show that this is Gross's main area of notability. Even if he says it is - a person isn't always known for what he wants to be known for! So dedicating half the article to one podcast is way too much weight. Find multiple reliable secondary sources that say "Professor Gross is mainly known for his study of whether academia causes liberalism", then it is a reasonable idea to devote more of his biography to that study; and even then, it shouldn't all come from one podcast, unless the podcast specifically says "this is a summary of my views". Otherwise there is the suspicion that this is just one episode of the podcast, and he may well have dozens like it that focus on different issues. --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Gruban explains the concerns well. There is also a general concern whenever something is primary sourced to a podcast, youtube video, or other media which doesn't provide a transcript, in that it makes it difficult for a reader or editor to verify the content since it forces them to listen/watch the whole thing. There is also no transcript, so it is automatically unverifiable to deaf or hard-of-hearing persons, or those which are not fluent in spoken English. This means we cannot know if the claims used in the article are representative, accurately summarized, or prominent/important. Just because a person is a professor does not make anything and everything they say in any medium automatic for inclusion. They may be speaking outside of their field, they may be engaging in self-promotion. All of these considerations are reduced simply by finding secondary sources. Tryptofish brings up a related article, wherein the same problems are being repeated - cherry-picked, primary source material cannot be used in regards to BLPs if there is any controversy (and controversy is shown by the fact that editors bring it up for discussion). -- Netoholic @ 20:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I can see the point that GRuban is making. But isn't that an issue of WP:DUE, rather than of WP:BLP? In principle, I can see the argument that maybe this particular podcast is not really representative of what Gross has published, but in reality, it's very typical of what he says. I'm fine with saying that it would be better to replace the lengthy podcast quote with selected passages from his books and publications. That would be better, but there is zero reason to think that what he said in the podcast differs significantly from what would be on the page if we made that revision. Looking at WP:BLPSELFPUB, I can see how point 5, that the article should not be based primarily on such sources, applies here. But the argument here is very much about point 4, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. We don't need secondary sources to substantiate everything that a BLP subject has verifiably said. So it comes across to me as posturing to assert that it might not be representative, so BLPREMOVE comes into play. The "controversy" here is not about whether this is typical of Gross' beliefs, but about how content at another page should be balanced between what Gross says about the issues in the podcast quote, versus what his opponents say to the contrary. Indeed, one could make the opposite argument: that it violates BLP to alter the page so as to obscure what the BLP subject believes, so as to give more weight to the BLP subject's opponents. Now, as for the WP:V arguments, those are just not correct. WP:PAYWALL says it's OK to cite a source even if it is behind a paywall, so it seems spurious to me to say that there must be a transcript, unless the audio cannot be accessed, and there is obviously no requirement that English language sources also be available to non-English speakers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to note that I completely rewrote the section that was contested, reducing the amount of weight placed on the podcast, adding published statements by Gross, and adding positive evaluations of the significance of Gross' work by an academic expert who agrees with him, and one who disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE doesn't really come into play until we have a set of reliable sources which are appropriate to use because as the guideline says WP:WEIGHT is determined "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Since this primary source podcast is not a reliable source, it doesn't factor in at all. I still have to ask why all the argument to try to keep such a primary source? The summary states that he's on the show to discuss a recent book, so there is clearly a potential that the content of the podcast is self-promotional in nature, and certainly not balanced by the presence in the podcast of a contradictory viewpoint. If the claims presented are relevant and prominent, secondary sourcing of both supporting and critical nature should be a breeze. If they cannot be located, then that is evidence that these claims are not relevant and prominent. Trying to edge this source in by some convoluted interpretations of irrelevant guidelines is more work than it would be to find secondary sources. The recent updates are EXACTLY the same problem, all you've done is add even MORE primary sourced material (and AGAIN removed the section tag alerting readers and editors). -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I added sources that are independent of Gross, that comment on Gross and provide context. Those are secondary sources in this context. I'll put the tag back if that will make you happier (and I only removed it once, with the edit I made). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've inline tagged the primary sources you've added/retained. Find. Secondary. Sources. And don't cherry-pick praise from a critical review. Represent it fairly. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You. Don't. Need. to talk to me like that. I've made some corrections following your tags. I'd like to hear from other editors whether the remaining Template:Primary-inline tags have anything to do with BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

To make my last question more explicit:

1. Does BLP require a secondary source to say that the BLP subject co-wrote a book called [title], or does an inline cite to the book itself suffice?
2. Does every quote of what a BLP subject has said require a secondary source, when there is a reliable primary source for the quote and there are secondary sources cited that show that the quotes reflect views that are recognized as important views of the BLP subject?

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB seem pretty relevant here. Also Gross is obviously an established expert in his field, so his statements don't necessarily need secondary coverage to be used, per WP:SPS. Overall I agree with the edit summary here - the original content maybe needed a trim and a bit more sourcing (which tryp has since fixed), but there was no blp issue there. People are reliable sources for their own views, and there can be no doubt that Gross' views have weight here (he has written 2 major books on the subject, published by Harvard and John's Hopkins, both of which were widely & well reviewed in academic journals). This whole debate is pretty silly, there's no blp issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. I don't know much about nor have time to study the subject, but, as a general thing: Although being the author of a book in and of itself does not automatically make one notable, for authors who are notable, bibliographic information can be obtained directly from their books. In regards to quotes, however, it becomes too easy to use those as a form of synthesis, cherry-picking only those quotes we like (or are significant to ourselves in some conscious or unconscious way) and disregarding ones that the author or expert in the field would regard as significant to them. Note: I'm not implying intentional synthesis, but the sort that happens without our even being aware of it. (The subconscious is actually hard-wired to fill in any gaps in our knowledge with our own imagination, making that knowledge seem complete when it really is not.) That's why we usually rely on RSs to provide the quotes and analysis thereof, rather than taking them direct from the subject. Zaereth (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. As a follow-up to anyone who wants to answer, with regard to the point about quotes, is that need met by citing secondary sources that do indeed provide the analysis, indicating that the quotes are significant by referring to the gist of the quotes, or do the secondary sources have to include the quotes verbatim? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but with extreme care, especially to modify a secondary source. Context matters, and it's very easy to lose that with quotes. For example, Dr. Ramachandran introduces a theory that a certain area of the brain (where the amygdala connects to the hippocampus), when subjected to seizure activity, induces a heightened emotional state that, to the affected, can only be described as "otherworldly". A large number of those affected undergo huge, temporary personality-changes during which they feel some extremely-deep religious connection. Ramachandran theorizes this area of the brain, which filters and compresses our memories based upon emotional saliency, may be the root of where these ideas of gods and religion were sort of hard-wired into our brain's some 50,000 years ago. Reading this, religious people go nuts, and start calling it the "God spot". Proof that God exists! Of course, they take his quotes out of context and --most unintentionally-- stitch them together to affirm their own beliefs, not realizing they are disregarding/misunderstanding all the science in pursuit of their personal "truth".

While most of these situations are a lot more subtle than this, it happens a lot. Preachers have been doing it since the dawn of religion, stitching together quotes. Imagine what the Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, or Hilary Clinton articles would look like if editors could add quotes willy-nilly. It's all about context. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. But I'm really asking about secondary sources – do they need to repeat the quote verbatim? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Review the breadth of the secondary sources, summarize them. If there is a quote used pervasively, include it. Don't cherry-pick a quote YOU think is important, and then search through sources to find an instance it is used. That's backward. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your claims about this supposed violation is really a gross misrepresentation of WP:BLP. Under your interpretation, it's basically impossible to put a subject's words into articles about themselves, since any source including a subject's own words is by definition a primary source for discussions about that person. Maybe this material in undue, or non-neutral, but it's absolutely not a BLP violation. You seem to be saying that no primary source is reliable, which is contradicted directly by WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, as well as by WP:PSTS and a whole host of other policy pages. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's my impression that the answer to my unanswered question about the quote appearing verbatim in a secondary source is that it is desirable but not required by the BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy and best practice

It obviously is important to adhere to policies, but it is also important to base this adherence on what the policy actually says, rather than on conjecture about how it might be interpreted. If an editor thinks that something needs to be spelled out in a policy, then propose that on the policy talk page and get consensus for it. Otherwise, it isn't policy.

Something can be "best practice" in writing BLP content, without being required by policy. Given the start of this BLPN discussion by the OP, it is significant to note that the central concern was in terms of WP:BLPREMOVE. (There is also an issue of finding reasons to remove what the BLP subject says while advocating for the page to include more criticism of the BLP subject by other people.) I understand and appreciate what uninvolved editors have explained here, in terms of validating quotes from the BLP subject in secondary sources. But looking very closely at WP:BLP, I'm not exactly seeing that stated explicitly in policy. I'm concerned here specifically with a quote from a BLP subject that is cited to a primary source, that also passes all five tests at WP:BLPSELFPUB: it's not unduly self-serving, does not make claims about third parties (beyond taking a side in an academic debate), does not contain off-topic claims, is unambiguously authentic, and the page as a whole is not based on just that. I'm asking specifically about that, not something else.

I get it, that it is much better, "best practice", to also cite secondary sources to confirm its significance.

I also get it, that it is possible for a primary source quote, as I have described it, to violate BLP in certain specific examples.

But does it fall within the scope of WP:BLPREMOVE, in the sense of being potentially libelous and requiring removal automatically? Is it something where the requirement of this policy is: remove it right away, look at possible fixes later?

I am not asking if that is what editors think is the right thing to do. I am asking to see the language quoted from WP:BLPREMOVE that explicitly states this as policy, if the answer to my question is "yes". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What we are looking for is positive contributions not time wasted on deletion with zero attempt to present other sources. People familiar with the topic would be aware of this point of view that he has that is documented extensively in his works.

With zero attempt to help the article I think we're going to need an RFC for any further deletions. --Moxy (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It fails points #1,#2,#5 of WP:BLPSELFPUB. It is self-serving (he's on the podcast to promote his book), it involves claims about others (prior researchers), and the article was almost entirely based on this primary source. This source is still pervasive, though, better, but still fails points 1 & 2. --Netoholic @ 20:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from uninvolved editors on my specific question. But I'll take up from your reply now. So your position is that it is self-serving because he is speaking about his position and explains why he thinks he is right, and it makes claims about other researchers even though no one is named and what he is claiming is that he is right and his critics are wrong. (And that the source is still pervasive because it is used a single time in the section to cite a direct quote from him. And your talk comments at the page indicate that you want to give high weight to his critics and low weight to him.) And you are then concluding that WP:BLPREMOVE comes into play as a policy requirement, because the fact that he explains his position in a positive way and argues that he is correct and his critics are wrong, makes it the kind of near-libelous misrepresentation of him in which BLPREMOVE comes into play. That's what we are dealing with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm primarily saying that if you found secondary sources which describe his views, we wouldn't be here. But since you're fighting tooth-and-nail to keep this primary source, you should be aware of all the problems with it. These problems disappear if we replace this primary-sourced, cherry-picked, self-serving, self-puffery with multiple, reliable secondary sources - whether critical, neutral, or praising in proportion to the amount those views are represented. Every editor who incorporates and then fights for inclusion of obviously positive POV praise (and indeed self-praise) for this person demonstrates a lack of commitment to neutrality and sourcing. -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Be careful about calling me a POV-pusher. I added secondary sources, but they apparently aren't good enough for you. On that basis, you are arguing that BLPREMOVE automatically comes into play. Because, after all, if the BLP subject engages in puffery (actually that's not the case), then that makes it immediately something for BLPREMOVE. I'd prefer to hear from uninvolved editors, rather than just going back-and-forth with you. I'm asking for a policy basis for invoking BLPREMOVE under the specific circumstances being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You addressed me (" But I'll take up from your reply now. So your position is"), I replied. Calm down. -- Netoholic @ 22:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Short version: Netoholic is grossly abusing the BLP policy here to justify removing something it has no bearing on. Long version: A subjects own words are a valid primary source for what they think/may believe. They may not be true or accurate but there is no BLP policy issue involved that would make them unusable (unless they relate to specific name other parties, no generic 'I disagree with group of people' is not a BLP issue unless its a very small group of identifiable people). The main problem with primary sources talking about themselves is almost always one of weight or reliability. Is their opinion given too much weight despite being obviously wrong. Eg a fringe scientist biography has an extended section on why his pet unproven theory is obviously correct and every other scientist is wrong. Etc. Or where the subject claims something is demonstrably and provably incorrect. This may not be included at all, or it may be included in detail because it has had lots of secondary comment. But either way the subjects own words and opinion are still perfectly valid as far as the BLP is concerned. The rare exceptions are where a subject says something controversial that would affect them, then later on states that they didn't mean it, or they were unclear etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's the subjects own words, it's that we have no way of knowing if particular quotes have been cherry-picked by the editors using them to push a POV. If the subjects own words were quoted in secondary sources, then we would be more reasonably sure that the quotes are relevant and prominent. Since these quotes are contentious, using a primary source means they are poorly-sourced and should therefore be WP:BLPREMOVEd. Imagine if fans of any other contoversial figure created an article for them based on selectively cherry-picking quotes from their various interviews and presenting such self-puffery without secondary verification of relevance. It's never be acceptable. Quotes are fine when not contoversial and very limited, but if a concern is raised, then we must defer to using secondary sources. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

None of those quotes are controversial in any manner that relates to the BLP. They may be academically suspect if anyone has taken issue with them. But that is not a BLP issue. You might have better luck at NPOV or RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the BLP subject, quoting his critics

I find it contradictory to complain at this noticeboard about quoting the subject of a BLP, but then adding a long paragraph beginning with a sentence about his writings, followed by multiple lengthy sentences about critics saying only how bad those writings are: [43]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you really not see the difference between citing what 3 (so far) peer reviews say vs. cherry-picking quotes from the author as a primary source? --Netoholic @ 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I promise you that I am listening to and understanding what you say, even when I strongly disagree. I don't consider the quote from Neil Gross to be cherry-picked, but selecting three highly negative reviews when there are others that describe Gross' findings as "may become the definitive source for understanding professors' political views" has an unmistakable POV on a BLP page (even if you intend to add positive reviews later), for which a far greater case can be made for BLPREMOVE than what you raised at the beginning of this BLPN thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

These 3 reviews were for the 2013 book and from among the most prominent peers which reviewed it, and the brief summary of those reviews fits the main themes of those reviews. That IHE article is about the 2007 working paper and covers just the initial reactions at the symposium Gross presented the paper in. It may or may not reflect accurately the preponderance of later reviews. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

References

A day later, and the lengthy negative comments about the BLP subject are still on the page. Yet more negative comments have been added by the OP, followed by a very brief reply by Gross.

So it looks like:

1. What the BLP subject says, in his own words: BLPREMOVE applies.
2. Disparaging comments about the BLP subject, presented at length and with minimal balancing positive comments: BLPREMOVE does not apply.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that you are looking for a black and white answer when none exists. BLPREMOVE is modified by every other part of BLP, which in turn is modified by NOR, NPOV, RS, and V, which in turn modify each other and are modified by BLP.

I took a look at the article, and first it should be renamed "Liberalism in academia", because that is what a majority of it is about. It tells me shockingly little about this person --to the extent that I can't even tell by reading the article what he is notable for." (Perhaps it should be speedied for "No indication of importance".) The majority of the article is spent either bolstering or trying to discredit his views rather than informing me, the reader, who this person is, what his views are, and why I should care. Wikipedia is not a place to debate theories, and the place to detail scientific debates is in the articles about the theories, not the articles about the people. In the scope of the entire article, we are giving way, way too much weight to something that needs only a brief, two or three sentence summary. The goal of this article should be to inform the reader about this person, and I think we've gotten way off track. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth, you mistake my comments for looking for a black-and-white answer, when what I am actually seeking to communicate is that the claims of BLPREMOVE that begin this BLPN discussion are actually just POV-pushing to discredit the BLP subject, because of his criticisms of conservative misrepresentation of studies of academic politics. I guess I have to be blunt now, so that there is no misunderstanding of what I have been saying. There is a narrative in US conservative politics, that US universities are bastions of liberalism and of discrimination against conservatism, and Gross is one of the most prominent scholars within mainstream expert research who have shown that this has been a dishonest misrepresentation of scholarship in order to advance a political agenda. But the OP wants to POV-push in favor of the conservative POV. He is going around from page to page to pump up conservative misrepresentations, and he has the problem that Gross is a highly notable and respected academic whose writings blow a gigantic hole in his POV. So he is trying to get Gross' views removed from various pages, and to further that goal, he is trying to discredit Gross himself. I'm sorry that you, acting in good faith, got fooled by that. But what we have here is the OP making a mockery of BLP with the agenda of making the BLP subject look bad. It's telling that, looking at the page, you don't see enough evidence of notability. That's not because notability is lacking (and no, it does not meet the criteria for CSD), but that's because the page has been disrupted for purposes that actually violate BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Zaereth - Gross is more highly-cited for his Richard Rorty biography (a little under twice as many citations) than this 2013 book. It should only get a short summary, but the gratuitous, lengthy, primary-sourced quotes by Gross himself unbalance the section on the section so much that the external reviews also must be lengthy in order to even come close to NPOV. Note, I did not select any reviews based on whether they "disparage" Gross - I took the most highly-cited and prominent peer reviewers (ones Gross himself addressed in his "Reply to critics") and summarized their main points. That they were critical rather than overtly praising was not a consideration for inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Propose Close - OP's BLP concerns have been roundly rejected and the conversation has shifted to NPOV and RS. These additional non-BLP-related concerns should be discussed elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But have they though? --Netoholic @ 16:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed This thread has gone on long enough with just Netoholic and Tryptofish arguing past each other. It seems to me from a basic head count that most of the other editors who contributed to this thread agree that there is no BLP issue at all. Maybe there are other issues with the proposed text, but it's more than a stretch to say that quoting someone in their own article on such a non-controversial topic could be a BLP violation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing

Since I've been accused of POV-pushing here is my response (taken largely from the article talk page):
The gratuitous self-quotes appeared in this article first, and Tryptofish failed to address them on his own. After this BLPN thread, Tryptofish then submitted a review with glowing praise (Hermanowicz), even going so far as to cherry-pick praise from an obviously critical review (Brow). I also note that in both those cases, Tryptofish's quotes come from the abstracts available on the public internet, not from the main body of those reviews, and he has yet to prove that he actually had access to the full reviews when he cited them. If Tryptofish doesn't have access to the full reviews, then he cannot claim to be representing those reviews fairly. Next Tryptofish "balance with criticism" by including a broad unsourced statement (yet still keeping the cherry-picked quote). Tryptofish's next big edit was to add what he thinks is confirmation of Gross's conclusion, but which in reality is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH since those should only be added in the capacity that they specifically address Gross's work itself, not in general terms. Tryptofish then did the same thing again (OR and SYNTH) in another section. Then, after actual, highly-cited peer reviews were added, Tryptofish WP:POINTedly tag-bombed them. Today, he has removed the peer reviews completely, and edit warred to remove them again. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi

I have tried to have Javed Afridi removed as the cousin of Shahid Afridi a few times now but without luck. They are not related but share the same surname. Please can this the rectified? I am Shahid’s UK Director for this Foundation and he has personally asked me to have this removed. Many thanks. Saima Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaxkhan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an article that says they are, https://www.dawn.com/news/1225464: "[Javed] Afridi – whose cousin Shahid captains Pakistan’s T20 squad". Dawn (newspaper) seems to one of Pakistan's most respected dailies. I can't find it anywhere else, so if there were a retraction or correction or any reasonable source that says they're not related, we could accept that, but we need something. Does he have a web site or use Twitter or Facebook, that he could post a statement on? Just something like "Unlike reported I'm not related to Javed Afridi."? Then post the link here or on the article talk page. --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the trouble with relying on reliable sources (not that I'm saying we should't, of course!) Even the most reliable source makes occasional mistakes but it's sometimes hard to find other sources to prove this. There won't be a published source which says something like "Javed Afridi, who is not the cousin of cricketer Shahid Afridi, said that......" so we have to try and initiate something like that suggested by GRuban above which we can then cite. It's the price of trying to make sure that what's on Wikipedia is verifiably true. Neiltonks (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Abu_Sufian_bin_Qumu

This article is full of allegations without verifiable proof. There is one editor who insists on keeping these items and wishes to to re-introduce more unproven/unverifiable allegations. 104.249.227.78 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've copyedited Abu Sufian bin Qumu a little and toned down some language, but what's in the article at present seems to have have reliable sourcing. What specific statements do you think are not supported by reliable sources? Neiltonks (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

NY Times: "Person X has a history of making racist comments"

According to the NY Times, Rep. Steve King has a "history of racist comments."[44] Can we say in Wiki voice on King's page that he has a "history of racist comments"? Or do we have to attribute it to the NYT? Or are we not allowed to mention it at all? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We follow the sources, so if high-quality reliable sources (especially multiple high-quality reliable sources) state something directly in their own voice, we can do so as well, so long as the weight accorded to the text is proper. Neutrality^talk 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We follow the policies, so if WP:BLP says "Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources." then opinion of one or a few journalists won't support adding this. See also the prior discussion in the Steve King talk page thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There is that "unless commonly used by reliable sources" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some additional RS that describe King's comments as "racist", "racially charged", "racially inflammatory" and "racially inflected": Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• NY Times[45]: "In Mr. King’s case, his eight-term incumbency and his own history of racist comments"
• AP[46]: "King is known for making racially charged commentary"
• Politico[47]: "Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa has become notorious for making thinly veiled racist pronouncements about the threats of immigration"
• WaPo[48]: "King, whose racially inflected comments on subjects such as immigration and Western culture have drawn headlines for years"
• The Atlantic[49]: "Steve King has always made a habit of speaking his mind, and quite frequently his mind has been controversial, blatantly false, or outright racist."
• Roll Call[50]: "King is known for making racially inflammatory remarks."
• Buzzfeed News[51]: "Rep. Steve King, the brash Republican whose penchant for shocking, racist comments has made him a staple of cable news"
• Vox[52]: "Rep. Steve King’s latest racist remarks are far from his first"
• The Advocate[53]: "King has a history of not-so-subtly racist comments."

While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.

As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial[weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine.

But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually.

So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Determining noteworthy awards

I do a fair amount of work on BLPs and a situation I often find myself in is determining which of a subject's awards are worthy for inclusion on their article. I'm familiar with WP:NOTCV, but is there a specific policy, or some kind of criteria to help narrow them down? I feel like it often comes down to a judgment call, and it'd be helpful if there were a standard to adhere to.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any specific policy or guideline, but from seeing what edits stick: any award that has its own Wikipedia page sticks, any award granted by an organization that doesn't have a page doesn't. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Declan Ganley

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

This article has a B class ranking by WikiProject Biography, and I'm not sure how. It was an uncited vandalised mess. I've cleared it up as best I can but someone with more expertise should take a look. (Disclosure: I wouldn't be on his side politically, though I think my edits were NPOV, do check through them. I also wish I was better at doing everything in a single edit instead of clogging up the history, sorry about that.)--occono (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

B-class awarded about a decade ago in this edit. Personally I would just re-rate it however I felt best, but, since User:Auric is still active -- Auric, do you have any thoughts on this? MPS1992 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I don't remember why I rated it thus. A C-class might be more appropriate. I should also note that citations were present before Occono's cleanup. --Auric talk 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I was maybe a little hyperbolic, but I was wondering if this article went *really* south since it was rated. Not nearly enough citations, and I was prompted to check after he tweeted making fun of mistakes in the article. I meant no offense, there was, uh, definitely some citations yes.... ;) --occono (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

George_Zukerman

Hello, I'm trying to update the page George Zukerman on behalf of George Zukerman himself. He has written a document with all the content he wishes to put on the page with a list of citations. Would someone be able to help me do this for him?

I suggest posting the content you'd like to update the page with on the article's talk page given your conflict of interest. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tyler Florence

The page on Tyler Florence states that he is on the board of Sun Basket. He is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantimberlake (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the claim since it was not supported is the reference provided. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Philippe Parreno

This is a long term resume/promotional bio, that was cleaned up a bit earlier this month, particularly for copyright violation. Several WP:SPAs appear to claim ownership, and continually remove the much deserved maintenance tags. What's needed are several credible editors to trim the chaff and watchlist it. If I start to move on it chances are it'll appear like an IP edit war, and I don't expect to gain much traction. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed some unsourced content but the page certainly needs a second set of eyes to comb through all the puffery. The page definitely reads like a resume. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Lester

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

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

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

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

Guy or anyone else, I'm looking for advice here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jayjg: I have taken out both allegations while this discussion takes place. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the subject of the biography is a well known public figure, these allegations do not appear to have been documented among multiple, reliable third-party sources and therefore must be left out. In the event the subject of this biography can be shown to be a low profile individual and not a public figure, then WP:BLPCRIME would require that these allegations be excluded as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the fact the IPs have been regularly adding this information to his bio for almost 8 years now, I propose it be semi-protected indefinitely. Anyone here object? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No objections from me there. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Jenifer Brening

I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Article was recently expanded, with some promotional and copyright violations. Some of the sources are unacceptable , but I haven't combed through the resume-like section. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the version prior to the obvious COI edits and protected it for 3 days. The "sources" being added where Youtube links, google searches and Wikipedia itself. The edit history reads WP:UPE to me. If any of the content is both neutral in tone and supported by reliable sources it can be added back on a case by case basis.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:COIN would also be a good place to report further obvious promotion if the issues can't be sorted by talk page discussion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ponyo. A good idea to watch this after the protection expires. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Victoria McCloud

The Wiki page is Deadnaming this living (claimed to be but unverified) transgendered person using very web sources which claim to be based on mainstream media reports which do not in fact exist (eg they mention a 'Daily Mail' article which does not exist), in circumstances where she has not consented and has not commented publicly about it, making this a very serious intrusion into this person's private life which is not appropriate and is contrary to policy which expects biographical material to reach proper standards especially where she has not even confirmed she is TG.

It reports a male name as if factual, and it is well known that doing so is harassing and can cause them to be placed at personal risk of harm and to be 'stalked'. Furthermore it against the law to do so in the UK where the subject of the article is based and where it is published, without prior agreement from that person and it is not stated that she has agreed (if there is agreement then please could an editor link to that in the page?). I have spotted that various random editors have wisely attempted to remove the reference to the (claimed but not properly substantiated) former male name but each time the edit is reversed. One editor even removed text referring to 'deadnaming' which suggests to me there is a real risk that what is happening here is simple prejudice.

Page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_McCloud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.71.99 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi: Looking at the references cited, these seem to be from http://www.vagabomb.com/Victoria-McCloud-UKs-First-Ever-Transgender-High-Court-Judge/ or https://www.latestlaws.com/uncategorized/first-transgender-woman-appointed-as-master-leading-judge-of-the-uk-high-court/ both of which refer to the source as the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday (same paper) and the only linked source to the original is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435412/All-rise-UK-s-transgender-judge.html which is indeed ***non-existent***: this seems to be a simple error or misreporting and is clearly dubious and could potentially be a hoax. Suggest this is left out of the text given the strict requirements for good sources for this sort of living biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.19.64 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The name has been removed for now, and eyes are on the article. Per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out." Having said that, The Mail on Sunday is, while owned by the same people as The Daily Mail, not under the same editorial controls. I'm not sure that the rulings on sourcing that apply to The Daily also apply to On Sunday. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents worth: Imho the page now follows proper standards, if it helps here its worth being aware that in fact the Mail and the Mail on Sunday websites are simple mirror sites of each other under one web address (www.dailymail.co.uk) and the sole original claimed source is a nonexistent link whether you go to either of them and is not locateable on either site by a search. Hence I agree that the current removal of dead name is correct approach. This person also does not appear to have been a public figure or notable prior to the outing under former (potential) name, which from the article looks like it would have been decades ago. So anyhow I agree with the approach by natgertler and sorry not logged in with my username, am away from usual pc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.188 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a copy at Pressreader. As well as a Google groups post of the text. The link is real, just dead.--Auric talk 02:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Fonda

Some attention may be needed on Peter Fonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After the statements he made recently on twitter, the article has drawn some POV/OR. I cleaned up some, but it may well continue. Please also check the talkpage for some more comments regarding the BLP. Dr. K. 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Busdriver

On May 3, 2018 a section titled Controversy was added by an IP address, based solely on two articles published by music blog Consequence of Sound. The blog makes reference to social media like Tweeter and Reddit and an interview - thus primary or self-published sources by the author of the allegations - without further fact-checking. Unable to find additional reliable sources to back it–Google News only shows as results one of the already used articles–I deleted the section and explained my reasons on the article's Talk Page on June 8.

On June 19 the similar allegations were added by an experienced editor using the same two articles by Consequense of Sound as reference. Following the "do no harm" principle I removed them, but being new to these procedures, I would like advice on the matter. I hope this is the right place to request it. Wapunguissa (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal until the allegations (if they are true) have any further impact on the person seems right in line with that "do no harm". --Masem (t) 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to @Wapunguissa:, with thanks to Masem also, thank you for dealing with this and your actions exactly meet the policy WP:BLP which says -- I repeat it yet again because some people think they have read it when they have not -- that material about living persons 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 (emphasis in the original). You have done exactly the right thing. I have watchlisted the article and I hope others will also do so. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Koniuchy massacre

Koniuchy massacre and reporting of investigation of Yitzhak Arad within. The Koniuchy event itself (Soviet assault on AK self defense force position) has been mainly a historical footnote with some far-right coverage (see for instance this thesis), until it became a subject of Lithuanian/Polish investigation (which what makes this otherwise non-notable incident notable). The investigation itself was lambasted by media and academics world-wide (one academic source going as far as saying it was viewed as a "contemptible farce", Michael Marrus said that Polish and Lithuanian authorities chose to investigate to draw attention away from their own atrocities such as the Jedwabne pogrom and Kielce pogrom) due to the merits of the case, the targeting of Holocaust survivors (while Lithuanian and Polish Holocaust participants remain untried), and the derailment of the Lithuanian war-crime commission (which Arad was a member of) - which was looking into actual crimes and was disbanded as a result of the opening of investigation (with the commission members resigned in solidarity with Arad).

The investigation was closed in 2008. A couple of editors are:

1. Removing sources in English (mainly strong academic sources).
2. Entering non-English sources, an English book by a far right Polish activist (described as "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book" in one review by an academic in the field), as well as the Polish IPN, whose conduct in this case was harshly rebuked (in its role as an anti-communist prosecuting agency) - entering the IPN would be akin to entering an FBI document - just that the IPN has a much poorer reputation (overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization[55], Who has been promoting the anti-semitic fascist NSZ as "heros",[56], and recently has been ordered by the government to popularize history as "an element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation.[57]).
3. Removal of world-wide reception of this affair.
4. Removal of the closure of the investigation.

In short - reading our article one could understand that Yitzhak Arad is still being investigated for war crimes (for a case closed in 2008), and that this case has strong merits (which is not the way this is viewed worldwide).Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What is suppose to be the BLP violation concerning Arad??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And if you have a source which says the investigation was closed, then please provide it. The issue here was that the source provided [58] (nor the quote from it) actually said the case was closed. Unless I'm missing something, in which case, I'd be happy to add it in myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation of the investigation against Arad - as it is covered in WP:IRS (which, the IPN would not be - the IPN prosecution cooperated in this "contemptible farce"). The case was indeed closed in September 2008 - as was abundantly clear in the source cited, on the bottom page 340 (In September 2008 the Lithuanian prosecutor's office reluctantly closed the case against Dr. Arad in a clumsily worded announcement, but this did little to mollify critics of the "latest campaign to prosecute Soviet anti-Nazi Jewish partisans". The outside world, and even some Lithuanians viewed the entire case as a contemptible farce")- and is available in multiple other available sources for this case - this is a non-controversial fact, and saying that this wasn't in the quote (which was present for other uses of this source) - is not a valid cause for removal - which is a clear red-line BLP violation. Describing the case per WP:PRIMARY documents of the prosecuting agency would again be a BLP violation (WP:BLPPRIMARY) - particularly when this agency has severe reputation problems in general and in this case in particular - we do not use sources from within the police, FBI, district attorney, etc. - but rather SECONDARY independent sources. Considering that we have a University of Nebraska book in English, a Scarecrow book (Rowman & Littlefield), as well as coverage in well-regarded English language news orgs - the use of Polish language documents, counter to WP:NOENG, and in a clear violation to WP:BLPPRIMARY is particularly egregious.Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's on a different page than was linked. All you had to do is say so. Restored the fact it was closed. (I have no idea why you're bringing up IPN here since none of the info about Arad is sourced to IPN. Which is reliable. This looks like you're just trying to continue your little crusade against IPN but as you know, you haven't convinced anyone). Other than the closing of the investigation, there's no BLP problems here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The citation was clearly marked as paged 339-342 (the link was the first page) - not reading past the first page is not an excuse for a BLP violation (for information available in several other sources as well). The page is still rife with BLP issues - the IPN (beyond general problems with this source - and "anyone" does not mean "VM is not convinced) - a cooperating prosecuting agency in this case - is a WP:BLPPRIMARY source - strictly forbidden for such material (Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.). This is still a severe BLP issue - as is the excision of secondary academic sources that cover the case in a neutral manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh... the citation had a SUPPPPEEEERRRR long quote provided just to cite that one claim. The claim was not in the super long quote. You wanna blame someone? Blame whoever put that quote in there without including the actual relevant info. So no, it was not "clearly marked".

One more time - what does IPN have to do with the text on Arad? The sources used for Arad stuff are Haaretz, Haaretz, and Jewish Currents (all dead links btw), not IPN. Or are you seriously claiming that any article which mentions a living person and happens to use IPN (a reliable source, sorry buddy, you can do all the wishful thinking you want) as a source for some other stuff is automatically a "BLP vio"??? That. Does. Not. Make. Any. Sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is a very poor source (sorry buddy - there never has been a clear consensus to use this anywhere) with serious reputation issues (in general, and in this case specifically). In this particular instance - the entire scope of the IPN's work on the case was an investigation for prosecution. Any and all findings of that investigation by a prosecuting agency on a case which involves a BLP - are WP:BLPPRIMARY. We wouldn't use a LAPD document to source that they chased a white bronco on June 17 1994, while mentioning OJ in a separate sentence. As the case here involved a BLP - all details of the case (e.g. details on the charges) are related to the BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is a fine source. But nevermind that for now. Can you point out which part of the text related to Arad is sourced to IPN? Please? Can you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a very poor source, widely criticized, and in this context a BLPPRIMARY violation. Specifically it is presently sourcing:

1. "carried out by a Soviet partisan unit along with a contingent of Jewish partisans" (for which there are other sources - so just not needed.
2. "Koniuchy is located at the edge of the Rudniki Forest. In this forest partisan groups, both Soviet and Jewish, set up their bases from which they attacked the German forces. The partisants regularly raided nearby villages to rob them of food stocks, cattle and clothing" - which is sourced solely to the IPN, and relates to the IPN investigation regarding Arad using highly POV language ("to rob them") on the taxation or requisitioning of supplies by the Soviet partisans (which included Arad) - this is a highly POV accusation of a crime presented in Wikipedia's voice, based on a very poor BLPPRIMARY source (the IPN source here being an undated press bulletin on the state of the investigation - a press announcement by the investigating agency (which itself has an extremely poor reputation) - that's just about as bad as it gets - a press release!).

This is also additional BLPPRIMARY material (e.g. an operation's log on JVL (not a good source in general) - which is used to make stmts in Wikipedia's voice (used a few times - some attributed, some not), a primary account by Lazar (sourced to an appendix in Stachura) - at least this is attributed). The use of the quite WP:QS Intermarium ("there are conspiracies everywhere in this book" per one academic review) and histmag.org (which probably qualifies as a blog in terms of editorial control) is also questionable.

perhaps if a blanket revert back to a interim 22 May version was not performed - such BLP vios and mishaps (including reintroduction of spelling mistakes - "partisants" could've been avoided).

Finally - removing well-sourced coverage and criticism of this "investigation" (scare quotes due - following multiple news orgs who scare quoted this) - is a severe NPOV violation on a BLP issue - as the "investigation" was on a BLP (and this is a NPOV issue regardless of BLP). Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)